NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/misc/educatio/6060

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky misc.education:6060 misc.kids:33042 sci.edu:1438
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!ugle.unit.no!humpty.edb.tih.no!lumina.edb.tih.no!ketil
From: [e-mail] (Ketil Albertsen,TIH)
Newsgroups: misc.education,misc.kids,sci.edu
Subject: Re: Branding kids, IQ tests, smart vs dumb
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:21:44 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Ketil Albertsen,TIH)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: T I H / T I S I P
Lines: 53
Posting-Front-End: Winix Conference v 92.05.15  1.20 (running under MS-Windows)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Kenneth Staffan (x37507)) presents some really readworthy thoughts.
Thanks a lot, Kenneth, I think the discussion needed that input!

Following this discussion from outside the USA (from Norway, that is), it
just looks SOOO "American". OK, flame me, but that is my honest opinion -
and I am certainly not alone. It sounds like a major fraction of Americans
believe that importan human qualities can be represented by a few simple
numbers.

"Smart" and "dumb" is NOT a one-dimensional quality that can be measured
with a yardstick. Any numeric figure, whether you call it IQ or SAT or
whatever, IS a yardstick. You may display it together with two full
pages of disclaimer, hoping that people will ignore the disclaimer, but
that makes it no more valuable. It does measure something, but essentially
that is something insignificant.

It says nothing about the social aspects, as Kenneth points out, and it
does not tell how well that person can make use of his/her abilities. It
does not take into account the *need* for those abilities in whatever
the society the person is living it, neither from the person's own
point of view nor from the society's. (The list goes on...)

European cultures tend to be much more aware of other aspects than the
pure numeric IQ/SAT figure. Sure, this is a very personal opinion, but
it is supported by the fact that eg. in Norway, the psychologist or
whoever administers the IQ test - in the rare cases when it is used -
won't tell you the result; it is treated as confidential.

I can illustrate the insignificance of IQ tests here: When I was
in 6th grade, our school class was tested, and I was *the only one*
of the 6th-graders who knew the meaning of the huge words "IQ test"
on the first page! They made this test only to gather statistical
data, not for "individual" purposes. My mother has told me that she
accidentally across my score on that test (she was working in the school
administration at the time), but she refuses to say a word about my
score. I think this is a fairly typical reaction: You are not supposed
to know/care about your own or others' IQ - look at their achievements
in real life instead!  (I suspect that my "real life score" is a lot
less than my IQ score - and I know which one I care most about.)

I will urge everyone who follow this discussion to pick up the best
fiction litterature treatment of these questions that I know of: The
novel by Daniel Kayes: Flowers for Algernon. Please, for your own sake,
do not say "Yes, I've seen the movie". The movie is something quite
different, the movie is entertainment. Sure, most readers will find the
book entertaining as well, but it is a lot more, too!

(A couple of words about the book: It is the diary of a mentally retarded
young man whose IQ is raised by medical treatment to a level far above
normal. However, it turns out that the IQ improvement is temporary.
Through his diary, we follow his ideas about himself on the way up,
and down again. The book does NOT have a happy ending. Yet: Read it!)