About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


Post 60

Thursday, March 9, 2006 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah yes - "achievement" - the other cry of the "special child", on the road to the obliteration of genius....

Post 61

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There's an interesting quote in AYN RAND ANSWERS regarding IQ that relates to this conversation. Asked if she would write a version of INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY for people who don't have IQ's of 150, Rand responded that she would rather see the reader RAISE his IQ to 150. "It can be done", she concluded, without further elaboration. Does anyone know if she elaborated anywhere else? I don't recall, but I see her emphasis on forming abstractions and logical thinking to be her overall answer.

Post 62

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,
In his taped lecture "Consciousness as Identification", Binswanger claims that Rand believed that after writing Galt's speech she was more intelligent; not more knowledgeable, more intelligent.
Thanks,
Glenn


Post 63

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I guess it doesn't matter then, if they breed like rabbits in the trailer parks.
;-) 

Low IQ can be fixed.


Post 64

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Glenn.

Post 65

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm sure that the questioner didn't literally mean that ITOE could only be grasped by people with IQs of 150, and Rand didn't literally mean that anyone could raise his or her IQ to 150. All she was saying, I suspect, is that people who have difficulty understanding the book can, with some effort, improve their understanding enough to grasp its contents. She was, after all, speaking to people who were already capable of reading Atlas Shrugged and understanding it.

- Bill

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison,

Referring to Posts 55 - 57, I will make a few more comments.  One can perhaps say that living up to one's potential is all it takes with the right genes to become a genius.  But, there is indication that using the mind consistently really does change its structure and its capacity.  To become the mind of a genius, the brain has to be pumped up.  It might be that the brain with an easily attained IQ of 140 can thus be improved to have an IQ of 160, for instance.  In fact, there is also evidence that minds that are measured at IQ 100 can also be pumped up to IQ 120.  There is a reference in Thomas Sowell's book Black Rednecks and White Liberals to how the average IQ of people in the Southeastern part of the US went up about 20 points when the schools there generally improved.  He also illustrated the same effect when kids from average African-American families went to good schools.  Now, if average kids can increase their measured IQs by 20 points, then maybe geniuses are often those who do the same and may even have a greater than 20 point improvement capability in some cases.  Having said this, you could say that all this ability to improve the mind was built-in from the start.  But how do we know that?  Also, isn't asserting that likely to send the wrong message to people?  "Either it comes easily to you, or you just did not have it in you at birth." might be a very bad thing to say if we are not certain of this.

"Study improves IQ scores, but IQ scores are inadequate" is not a contradiction.  I am saying that the IQ score does not fully measure intelligence and the ability to create new ideas.  It is a partial measure at least as it is done today.  What it does measure can be improved with use of the mind.  In addition, the genius is creative and this component of intelligence is not well measured by IQ tests.  However, this ability is also learned and developed by much hard work.

Glenn Fletcher,

I do not doubt but that Ayn Rand was more intelligent after writing Galt's speech.  Her effort to write it is probably one of the most heroic exercises of the brain ever performed.  The effort apparently drew on every bit of strength she had and was for a long time all-consuming.

Everyone,

Come on now, haven't you also noticed that you have become more intelligent in your own lives?  It cannot just be Ayn Rand and I who have noticed this.  Not if the entire school-age population of the SE US increased its IQ so much in about a generation.  Surely, many of you have learned new methods for solving problems which have made you much more effective in understanding complex relationships than you were when you were in college or some such earlier age.  Surely some of you are much more creative now than you were then.  Another thing:  I know a couple of people, including me, who know that their brains run hotter now than they used to.  Of course, that might be the prelude to breakdown!


Post 67

Friday, March 10, 2006 - 11:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's the passage from the book:

"Could you write a revised edition of ITOE for people with an IQ of 110, or will it remain available only to people with an IQ of 150?"

"I'd prefer that people raise their IQ from 110 to 150. It can be done."

Post 68

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 5:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
  IQ tests, especially the ones mentioned in this thread that are so malleable, measure cummulative education or the accumulation of knowledge. 

I doubt that there is any relationship between Genius and IQ scores.  If an IQ of 160 is the measure of genius, there must be thousands of Ayn Rands, Michelangelos, and Einsteins out there; but evidently this is not so.  Any given century can boast of only a handful of these very special humans. 

Genius is from birth and appears to be a convergence of fortuitous heredity, which is not passed on to progeny or at best skips generations.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is a parameter problem in this discussion.

I equate the mind development-wise with other voluntary organs, especially muscles. The more you exercise them, the stronger they get.

There is a naturally imposed threshold, however. Any bodybuilding event will show you that.

A small increase in IQ scores is normal with strong use of the brain. But there is the parameter thing again. To illustrate with bodybuilding, a man can develop his skeletal muscles tremendously by weightlifting and increase his weight, but no amount of exercise will make a short man become tall.

One of the major elements in genius is a word called "gumption." I don't know how to measure that, either.

Michael


Post 70

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 3:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael Kelly wrote:
One of the major elements in genius is a word called "gumption."
Excuse me! But we all know where the word "gumption" came from. It came from Forrest Gump, so how could gumption be a major element in genius?!

Forrest Gump referring to Apple Computer: "He got me invested in some kinda fruit company."
Forrest Gump: "My name's Forrest Gump. People call me Forrest Gump."

Gumption is a major element in genius? I don't think so!

- Bill

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 4:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

The word is an old Scottish word and is a bit older than a relatively recent movie.

From the Free Online Dictionary (for speed):

gump·tion

n. Informal

1. Boldness of enterprise; initiative or aggressiveness.

2. Guts; spunk.
3. Common sense.


There is a very good discussion of this word in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig (a quirky - but excellent - inquiry into philosophy and values).

Not classic Objectivism, but it makes you think.

Michael


Post 72

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, I was making a joke, and thought it was obvious, but apparently it wasn't. So from now on, I guess I'll have to append a [gag] qualifier to any spoof that I make. Just because I think that something is an obvious joke doesn't mean that others will. On the "Roe v. Wade for Men" thread in the News Discussions forum, Ashley Frazier made a joke, and even appended a smiley face to it, and I still responded to it as if she were serious. So, I recommended to her that she put "g" or "gag" in brackets after something not intended as a serious comment, and here I didn't even follow my own recommendation, because I thought that the Forrest Gump reference was so transparent, no one would take it seriously. Which just goes to show that what you think is an obvious put on doesn't mean that others will.

- Bill

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Ya' got me there, dude. Blown right out of the saddle.

Dayaamm!

It sometimes happens. Sorry...

(I'm still laughing...)

Michael


Post 74

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 6:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, a little more "Gumption":

Forrest Gump: "In the land of China, people hardly got nothing at all."
John Lennon (Joe Stefanelli): "No possessions?"

Forrest Gump: "And in China they never go to church."
John Lennon: "No religion too?"

Dick Cavett: "Ah. Hard to imagine."
John Lennon: "Well, it's easy if you try, Dick."

You see, Michael, what you've started? Laugh at my jokes, and you'll never hear the end of it!

- Bill

Post 75

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 3:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Eye-kews'er only fer people smarter'n others.

Gumption is, as gumption does.

Forims'er lyak a box-o'-chocolaytes: ya never know what yer gonna gayet.

LLAP
J:D


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 3:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post #62 I said that Binswanger made a statement in "Consciousness is Identification".  Wrong!  It didn't seem right at the time, so I listened to the lectures again and couldn't find the statement.  (BTW, they are great lectures.)  It turns out that he said it in his taped lecture "Psycho-Epistemology".  This is the quote:
"Did you know that Ayn Rand said that she thought writing Galt's speech made her more intelligent; not just more knowledgeable, but more intelligent."
Sorry about the misinformation.
Glenn


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.