[lit-ideas] Re: Sunday waffle...
- From: Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 12:42:38 -0400
I should have, perhaps, used the phrase 'academic inclination' instead
of talent. But, either way, I meant it in the same sense that we speak
of musical inclination or talent, or athletic inclination or talent.
People can have all kinds of intelligence but no inclination towards (or
stomach for) academics. Finding enjoyment in research, writing, even
test-taking might be correlated with intelligence, but is not,
therefore, the same as intelligence.
On intelligence and doctoring and lawyering, everyone surely agrees that
the most intelligent person (if we even had a way to measure that)
doesn't necessarily make the best doctor or lawyer or teacher or plumber
or parent. But surely, there does seem to be some cutoff point below
which someone would not have what it takes to become a doctor or
lawyer. But then...now that I think about it, Bush probably could have
become a doctor (given daddy's help and time enough).
Ursula
waffling in North Bay
Amago wrote:
>>[Original Message]
>>From: Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>That's why I called it 'academic talent,' rather than intelligence.
>>Ursula
>>
>>
>>
>
>A.A. I'm not quite seeing the distinction. How does academic talent
>distinguish itself from intelligence? A thirst for knowledge perhaps?
>That would disqualify doctors and lawyers instantly, since doctors and
>lawyers are esentially artisans in their fields and their prime motive is
>money. Doctors in fact are notorious for clinging to old information and
>rejecting the new. Likewise the legal profession is built on precedent.
>No thirst or hunger for knowledge required for either.
>
>
>Andy Amago
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
