[lit-ideas] Re: Sunday waffle...
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:38:43 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 6/2/2005 11:07:00 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sunday waffle...
>
>
> >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.
>
> That is total bull shit. Millions of people COULD NOT BE a doctor OR a
> lawyer, or EVEN a plumber (no offense Mike).
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.
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?
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.
The problem with
> lowering standards is that with hard enough work, some rubes can slip
> through.
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 lower the standards, the more feeble-minded people get
> through.
A.A. I don't know. The feeble minded usually know their limitations.
In my opinion, that's a huge problem.
A.A. A huge problem? Looking for an easy answer to societal ills are we?
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?
>
> >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.
> >They're not even particularly more intellectually curious than anyone
> >else. For nearly everyone,
> >whatever they do is just a job. Many doctors/lawyers, etc. are
untalented
> >and even stupid.
>
> Many? MANY are stupid? Come on!!!
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 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?
If you
> have talent and tenacity are you an overachiever?
A.A. It doesn't take talent to get a passing grade in biochemistry, only
tenacity.
I would say that people
> who want to become a doctor because their father told them to even though
> they are sub-standard and have to break their balls to become a mediocre
> doctor, ARE covering up their inadequacies, but even in today's society,
> with pretty lax schools (oh I could tell some stories) the system does a
> pretty good job of weeding people out.
A.A. So what are you complaining about? The system takes care of itself.
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 inept (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.
> The fact is that the average IQ of a graduating class of professionals is
> without question higher than that of the latest Earl Wood's Truck Drivers
> school. This is not to take anything away from truck drivers -- my best
> friend is a truck driver (really, he is) -- but let's be honest,
> practically ANYONE CAN be a truck driver. A select few can fix your brain
> tumour or design your tv.
>
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.
> >Not all, but many. None of this is to say that intellectual standards
> >should be lowered for those who
> >do go on to a university, only that intelligence per se is not a major
> >consideration in career plans.
>
> Wow!
A.A. You got it.
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:
