Question: That may be. I haven’t studied the term. I pulled out a dictionary >definition here, which may more or less confirm what you say. It goes like this:

Intelligence. 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, >relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

2. manifestation of a high mental >capacity: “He writes with intelligence and wit.”

3. the faculty of >understanding.

4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or >imparted; news; information.

5. the gathering or distribution of >information, esp. secret information.

6. Govt.
(a) information about an >enemy or a potential enemy.
(b) the evaluated conclusions drawn from such >information.
(c) an organization or agency engaged in gathering such >information: military intelligence, naval intelligence.

7. interchange of >information: “They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents >for years.”

8. Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or >infinite Mind.

9 (often cap.) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an >incorporeal one, as an angel. Syn. 1. See mind. 2. discernment, reason, >acumen, aptitude, penetration. — Ant. 2. stupidity.
>I guess we’re talking about meanings 1 through 3 here? So in terms of >meaning 1, the theory would be that what gives a person a high “capacity for >learning” or “aptitude in grasping truths” is that s/he has what you call >the “ability to process multiple streams of information simultaneously.”
>One thing I find interesting about standardized intelligence tests is that >they tend to reward people who have experience taking tests. The medium is >designed by, and for, people who believe in book smarts rather than street >smarts (which I guess I’m using as a rough synonym for common sense). The >latter have their own tests, but for them abstract intelligence is only part >of the formula. For instance, what if graduate schools had cooked up a GRE >that measured not only your ability to fiddle with words and numbers, but >also to endure university politics, to stick with long-term projects until >completed, and other essential parts of the grad school experience? Seems >like it might be a superior GRE.

Maybe it’s a difference between believing that suitability for the task at >hand is best measured by examining individual traits (e.g., verbal skill, >stamina) separately rather than together. A person heavily influenced by a >scientific approach to problems might prefer the former method; a person >might prefer the latter if s/he is humbler about his/her actual ability to >comprehend and anticipate the complexity of life piecemeal. Sometimes I >lean toward the latter myself. For instance, the person with great GRE >scores writes a brilliant dissertation in English Literature and proceeds to >spend years working as a waiter; the person with great common sense does >love to read a good story, but meanwhile focuses on making a go of it in >real life. In that comparison, did the GRE measure intelligence >intelligently?

>It’s like, they should have a question on the GRE that says, “True or false: >I plan to earn a Ph.D. in English Literature.” Answer True to that one and, >bzzzt, the buzzer goes off, a trapdoor opens in the floor under that >person’s chair, and that’s the end of that nonsense. As PhDs in English >Literature become scarcer, and real jobs in the field start to materialize, >we could moderate the punishment so that, instead of a trapdoor, there’s >just a mechanical hand that slaps the person across the face.
>I’m guessing that, in the case of an idiot savant, we would say that s/he >has great ability to consider multiple factors simultaneously as long as >those factors pertain to the task of memorizing all the numbers in a phone >book?

Answer: I don’t know how an idiot savant would do on an IQ test. But it’s fair to say that the tests are designed for a properly functioning, rather than a damaged, brain. Even then, they typically produce separate metrics, e.g. of spatial and auditory reasoning. While there’s a strong correlation between various facets of intelligence, its not complete. For example, women do better than men at tests of vocabulary while men are superior overall at tests of spatial reasoning. However, there’s fascinating new evidence that suggests that fluid intelligence may be concentrated in a pair of brain centers called the lateral frontal precortices, which would explain why it tends to be a global phenomenon. I’ve attached a brief account below–I think you’ll find it interesting.

No kidding! For example, you see these newsgroup arguments among all these >really smart people who know exactly what they’re talking about. It’s not >that they don’t agree with about 95% of what each other is saying. It’s >that we’ve been educated to look for the distinction, the point of >difference, the overlooked shade of meaning. Collectively, we do build up a >great edifice of comprehension. Or at least we start to, and then one of us >patronizes another, or gets defensive, or for some other reason the project >breaks down, we start bickering, and then it’s not clear that anyone is >learning anything from anyone else. It’s like we need a Pharoah to crack >the whip and get us back in line, tugging stone blocks up the side of this >important edifice …

I think that’s a basic characteristic of human nature. We’re designed to bicker. Student loans aren’t particularly onerous. One does have to go to an Ivy league school to obtain a certain type of job–including some obscenely profitable jobs on Wall Street–but for most jobs I’d say an Ivy degree matters only insofar as the Ivies have good brand recognition. And everyone agrees that after the first couple of jobs, it’s your work history that counts with prospective employers rather than your education. I hope you don’t expect me to go down a list of all the world’s countries. Instead, I’ll try to address what I think you’re asking here.

First, don’t we frequently hear comments suggesting that a fractious climate is the one we prefer? For instance, a couple of days ago someone in this newsgroup was praising the “yeasty” ferment of competing intellectual ideas. I would like to see the day when that ferment produces fair and cordial debates without any trace of politics or contention, but that’s not the way I hear it described at present. The person praising that ferment seemed to have the impression that you don’t get yeasty intellectual ferment everywhere. That is, in his view, some peoples evidently do not consider a “yeasty” (and to some extent rancorous) ambiance normal.

More generally, we often hear people praising American culture for the freedom it offers to express conflicting ideas. The people who voice this praise must believe that America differs from other countries or cultures in this regard. Their idea seems to be that we Americans are willing to accept bickering because freedom of conflicting expression is more important to us than it is to the citizens of other countries, presumably including some whose citizens could have more bickering if they wished.

For specific countries, I’m not sure I can present the best examples. Someone more schooled in the subject might do better. But I will try. For instance, I haven’t been to Japan, so I can’t say for sure, but I have been hearing for some years that consensus rather than contention has long been the governing interpersonal principle there. I also don’t believe Quakers or Amish consider bickering normal. Indeed, from what I’ve seen, bickering among all sorts of American neighbors and acquaintances became much more commonplace in the late 20th century than it had been previously. The explosion of filed cases, the expansion of grounds for suit, the dramatic rise in the number of lawyers — all of these factors suggest a change from the level of disputation that people had previously considered normal.

In some ways, I liked the example of the aggrieved Eskimos, cited in my book, who resolve their differences by pouring out verbal abuse in song while attempting to hit each other on the butt. It may be quaint, but it sure beats sitting through a deposition, and it seems to restore tribal peace a lot more quickly than waiting six months for your turn on the trial docket. I think most people disagree with our legal system’s assumption that you ought to be prepared to carry on your grudge for months or years, always searching for new proofs that your adversary is a terrible person. I don’t know of any countries where people consider that sort of thing normal.

Related posts:

1. Diamonds in the Rough
2. Student loans the lifetime debt.
3. Defaulted DSL Student Loan
4. Ivy Admissions
5. Student loan default – foreign migration
6. Emigrate to avoid student loan/consumer debt
7. Some Thoughts
8. Why I won’t rent from BB (Was: Re: Music stores ban long
9. President Bush raises interest rates on student loans starting July 1
10. pay off or play the market?
11. Thought du jour: Rigid Class structure in U.S. Maintained by higher education system
12. Want to go to grad school, seeking campus career center advice but also would like more input.