[lit-ideas] Re: Sunday waffle...
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:12:26 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 6/2/2005 12:21:50 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sunday waffle...
>
>
> >A.A. Correct, because they don't want to put in the effort it takes and
the
> >investment it takes, or they buy into a bill of goods that says they
can't.
>
> Which bill of goods is that? What society are you living in Andy? Kids
are
> coddled in ways never before thought possible and it's all about
supporting
> their aspirations. There is NO one saying "you can't do that". And that's
> the f*&^ing problem. In order to prove that "you can't do that" is not
> valid, society has lessened the requirements to do something. If you
lower
> the bar enough, even I can get my fat ass over it.
A.A. Today's kids are coddled and spoiled. I believe in protecting kids
but also in expecting them to work, not to earn their keep but to learn to
function in the world, to learn that just being isn't enough. Life isn't a
free ride. But, coddling a kid and encouraging them to higher education is
not the same thing.
>
> >It's something like 13 years, $150,000 to be a doctor. Three years of
law
> >school is not cheap either. You're saying a kid who's pushed by parents
is
> >smarter than a kid who has parents who don't care about him?
>
> Nope, not at all. I'm just saying that people become things that they
> shouldn't because society tells them they can. With enough tenacity, some
> people can briefly toil at things they probably shouldn't. The more
people
> who are allowed to, the more stay there too long and cause problems.
>
A.A. Briefly toiling is self policing so it shouldn't be a problem.
Staying too long at anything by anyone causes problems.
> >A lot of people can do whatever they want... most still can't. And the
big
> >lie that has been
> > > perpetrated is what you are posing. Of course tenacity and hard work
are
> > > required, even for the most intellectually talented person to become
> > > "something", but without any brains, you're rather fucked.
> >
> >A.A. I don't know what you mean by brains. A person's "brains" are what
> >the environment thinks they are.
>
> Are you saying there is NO such thing as degrees of intellectual talent?
>
A.A. Of course there is, but IQ per se is not indicative of success. Most
people are somewhere in the center of the bell curve. Society is made up
of most people.
> >A.A. The original discussion was that there are fewer academic courses
> >required for admission. I'll go with that. But that has nothing to do
> >with intelligence, only with environment.
>
> The original discussion, I thought, was that academic standards have been
> lessened and now watered down to basically agree with what you say
"anyone
> can do it".
A.A. If standards are lessened, intelligence doesn't matter. Even
intelligent kids have to have information. If that information isn't
demanded and taught, intelligence isn't going to put it there. I don't
have a problem with raising standards.
The fact that, given sufficient standards, not everyone, and
> not even most people could do some jobs [competently] has EVERYTHING to
do
> with intelligence and very little to do with environment. I hung out at
the
> golf course and played every single day [weather permitting] for 5 years.
> It didn't turn me into a professional golfer. I got pretty good, but I
> didn't have the "talent" to have a negative handicap. Are you suggesting
> that there is no equivalent intellectual talent?
A.A. There is higher and lower intelligence, but life is about far more
than intelligence.
>
> >The lower the standards, the more feeble-minded people get
> >through.
> >
> >A.A. I don't know. The feeble minded usually know their limitations.
>
> Unfortunately, those prodding them don't.
>
A.A. Prod away. If someone can't do it, they can't do it.
> >In my opinion, that's a huge problem.
> >
> >A.A. A huge problem? Looking for an easy answer to societal ills are
we?
>
> No. I just think that the fact that 20 years ago, 5 out of 50 people had
an
> "A" average in the senior year of High School and now, it's more like
40/50
> is telling, not of more sophisticated, intelligent or even harder working
> children, but the lowering of standards so that EVERYONE can be a
> 'scholar'. I'm trying to keep on topic but you make it very difficult.
>
A.A. Standards are too low, I agree. So let's raise them.
> >And it's based on the assumption (which I don't know the origin of) that
> >everyone can do
> > > everything. That's patently false and is putting people who don't
> > belong in
> > > positions they are unsuited for.
> >
> >A.A. That's just not happening. Where are you getting this?
>
> Teachers are working on assembly lines.
> Plumbers are teaching geography.
> Doctors are selling furniture.
> PhDs are becoming truck drivers.
> Criminals are becoming lawyers (perhaps that's redundant)
>
>
A.A. Teaching is tough. There are those who would prefer to work on an
assembly line than teach. Plumbers might teach geography to fellow
plumbers, that's possible. Your other examples show people working below
their training/ability, not above it, which is I think your original
premise.
> > > >Going through professional training is far more about drive than
> > > >intelligence.Doctors, lawyers, engineers, even college professors,
are
> > no more
> > > >intellectually talented than anyone else.
> > >
> > > As a group, of course they are.
> > >
> >
> >A.A. Listen, I'm an elitist, and I'm here to tell you that doctors and
> >lawyers are no more intelligent than anyone else. They're more learned,
> >not more intelligent. And they're more learned because they put in the
> >time and effort.
>
> I don't think, given the greatest free time and the easiest life in the
> world, most people could memorize/learn all that one needs to know to be
a
> doctor. I just think that consistent achievement, in the abundance that
is
> necessary to become a doctor is NOT something anyone can do, and it has
to
> do with intelligence along with all those other things.
>
A.A. This is getting repetitive. Some intelligence of course is necessary.
Just not the amount that you are positing. Take out the financial
incentive and see how desirable these professions will be.
> >A.A. Okay, you're right. Many are untalented and some are even stupid.
> >About the same proportion that are stupid in any trade. Stupid might be
> >the wrong word. Lazy, incompetent, corrupt, whatever. The bottom line
is
> >they do lousy work.
>
> I don't agree with you. Professionals cannot afford (literally because of
> professional repurcussions, civil and criminal liability) to be as
careless
> and as incompetent as most people can be in their jobs. Attrition DOES
work
> in professions. Of course there are: lazy, incompetent, corrupt
> professionals, but that has NOTHING to do with intellectual talent --
> that's personality.
>
A.A. You overestimate doctors. If doctors were so conscientious, they
would counsel lifestyle changes for most problems. But they don't. They
hand out drugs, drugs sold to them by you know who. That's incompetent and
lazy in my book. All tlhe talk about capping malpractice awards isn't
because doctors are more competent than other jobs.
> > > >I would say experience in any field is more important
> > > >than intellectual talent. I would go one step further and say that
many
> > > >overachieving successful types are basically covering up some inner
> > > >inadequacy, hence the need to overachieve.
> > >
> > > Is EVERY doctor, lawyer, engineer, college prof an overachiever?
> >
> >
> >A.A. Did I say every?
>
> You are implying that people who become professionals are
'overachievers'.
> People who are STUPID and become those things ARE overachievers.
>
A.A. Again, a tree stump or a turnip can't memorize. Some basic
intelligence is required. Achieving to one's ability is not overachieving.
Overachieving is the need to impress others with accomplishments.
>
> >A.A. So what are you complaining about? The system takes care of itself.
>
> It used to do a better job, when standards were higher.
>
A.A. Otherwise known as the good old days.
> >I saw our freshman class of 400, whittled down to less than 80
graduating
> >engineers 4 years later. Out of
> > > those 80, there weren't any 'stupid' people. There were some assholes
> > > (yours truly) and some socially nept (probably me too) but
> >'intellectually untalented' doesn't describe anyone.
> > >
> >A.A. Remind me where the words "intellectually untalented" came from. I
> >don't remember saying that and I don't have time to look it up.
>
> Andy Amago (10:15, June 2nd)
>
> "A.A. I don't think intellectual talent is a prerequisite for being a
doctor
> or lawyer. Anyone who wants to be a doctor or lawyer can be one. Going
> through professional training is far more about drive than intelligence."
>
A.A. Okay, intellectual talent (I think Steve Cameron's words which I was
quoting) and intelligence are the same thing. It doesn't change my
arguments.
> Not only did you mention "intellectual talent" you SPECIFICALLY
> referred/equated it to "intelligence" in the next sentence.
>
> >A.A. On what are you basing your statements? On common sense or some
> >proof? IQ pales in comparison with environment when it comes to
> >achievement.
>
> What do you mean by environment?
>
A.A. The home life, tracking kids from earliest years by the schools, etc.
Lots of kids from damaging home lives where there's violence, etc. wind up
as behavior problems and are tracked into the vo techs. It has nothing to
do with their intelligence.
Andy
> paul
>
> ##########
> Paul Stone
> pas@xxxxxxxx
> Kingsville, ON, Canada
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
