Spin
The other night, Robyn and I were watching 24, and a commercial came on for ‘The Apprentice’. One of the candidates, in a very confident manner, said, “I’m in the top 2% for intelligence,” or something to that matter. Now, that’s not bad at all, an IQ of probably around 131-133 (assuming an SD of around 15-16).
What I find funny about this is that my immediate reaction was - “So, every 50th person I find is smarter than you?” Now, there’s 18 competitors, so that would mean that, if competitors for the Apprentice were selected from a truly random sample of people, it would only take 900 people to find 18 people smarter than this guy. Granted, intelligence isn’t everything - wisdom, the ability to use that intelligence effectively, is important - but it’s amazing how such a simple statement could be flipped around so easily…
23 Responses to “Spin”
People who feel a need to actively and openly brag about their IQ’s are generally quite vapid anyway. He may have a high IQ, but I’m sure his attitude and personality are about as lacking as water in the Mojave.
or democracy in America.
ZING
Seriously though Kirk, good point about the difference between intelligence and wisdom. I’m reminded of all the articles I’m currently reading on aesthetics of 19th century romanticism by various philosophers. I’m not sure what some of these people are lacking. Intelligence? Wisdom? Maybe both. But when they publish an article with multiple references to other articles they have written that force you to read additional articles to understand one; or when the only way you can understand their arguments is to force yourself to believe in the crazy way they perceive the world; or after reading an article you’re told that the author wrote it when they were under the influence of alcohol drugs or both, you start to question how any of these people functioned at all.
Ryan, I find your comparison very odd… You are trying to attack the concept of intelligence and wisdom by citing reference to great philosophical thinkers… Or am I really reading what you are saying wrong?
However, back to the original concept… I wouldn’t doubt that fellow to be one of the first to go. We can all sit around and talk about how ‘intelligent’ we are (as I’m sure, from what I know all who read this are of a relatively high intellect) but at the end of the day the ones that will be successful (defined primarily in this respect narrowly to our chosen career paths, but I do normally define success in a much broader sense) are the ones who get off their asses and do something with their gifts. I would argue that the one with no real intelligence or wisdom but that has initiative will go further then those with no initiative but plenty of intelligence and wisdom. But then I guess we can start to question the ‘true’ definitions of intelligence and wisdom (i.e. How encompassing are the two words?)… Perhaps another blog.
Back to Ryan, just remember if it wasn’t for drugs and alcohol we wouldn’t have had many of the great ‘thinkers’ (i.e. Freud, I’m sure Hobbes, Smith, etc.) or musicians (i.e. ole Jimmy M., Jimmy H., Stevie V., the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, etc.).
I think that’s more like 35 cents this time.
KRF
So Kirk, what’s your IQ? :)
Probably not as high as yours. :)
The whole point here was to demonstrate spin, and how even some of the more intelligent do not think about how what they say could be convoluted and used against them. Some political slogans scare me, and I have mentioned a few in the past from one of the provincial parties here in Alberta… Granted, I love when you guys all get into these fun discussions…
First. Ryan, I see what you’re saying, however in the first bit you mention something about having to read a bunch of different, related, and cited articles to get the gist of a main article, and that that, in some way discounts that first article. I have to disagree. WIth the explosion of advances in modern thought, philosophy, science, politics, the humanities, and what not, it is essential that you tie everything you say and do into the broader spectrum of knowledge. IWhitehead said that ‘All of Philosophy is a footnote to Plato”, and I believe that pertains here. You can’t adequately convey any real notions of reality anymore if you don’t anchor your system of belief in what’s been said before. The best arguments, the ones that make the gains nowadays need to have this footing. Otherwise its’ like building a house without a foundation.
Secondly Ryan, you mention that in order to understand their arguments you have to believe in their crazy world. OK. That’s true. You do have to interpret reality from their perspective in order to gather the most from their arguments. That said, you don’t have to accept them. That’s the purpose of the dialectic. Understand their argments, and then deconstruct those arguments and that crazy world view through the use of systematic logical statements - premises followed by conclusions. That’s the way the system works. But the ultimate truth is that if you don’t read the works you simply can’t know if the universe their positing is crazy. You may not agree, but to suggest that they lack intelligence or wisdom, I think, is a bit of a stretch.
Ah Kris. I agree with you on the issue of wisdom and intelligence, and certainly on hard work and its importance.
In terms of the drug / alcohol thing I’m of mixed feelings. Certainly many of the greatest works of music were done under the influence of drugs and alcohol. And while I don’t believe that there is anything inherently immoral about the use of substances like that. I do think that many of the greatest musicians, artists and thinkers are equally capable on or off of various addiction wagons. I’m reminded of a Clapton quote where he stated that he’s accomplished his best work when he wasn’t on drugs. Agree or disagree with that assertion, coming from the man himself it means something I suppose. Personally I feel his best work was done during the heightt of his heroin use period with Derek and the Dominos, but the music he created there could have stemmed from any number of areas of his life other than the use of narcotics.
What??? Did I kill the coversation?
Hello?
Is anyone there?
God. Its 3am. Why am I up? Oh yeah. Research. Why on gods little green / blue earth did I decide to do this? I’m moving on to my 70th 9th circ. appeals court decision as we speak. Eyes crossing… vision blurring. I’ve entered the nether regions of your soul! bwhahahahahahahaaha
I can’t believe I’m out of dish soap.
Kris, you are reading what I wrote wrong :). And I have to disagree. We would still have had many of the great thinkers if they weren’t under the influence, in fact, more people might have understood what they were ranting about, and care. As or musicians? ‘Great’ is a subjective term. I would agree that drugs played a large part in the careers of those musicians you mentioned but if they didn’t do drugs, some of them might have lived longer (Kurt Cobain) or perhaps made even greater music. As for the Rolling Stones, will someone please tell them to retire?
And Gabe I think you missed my point. I agree it is important to read and essentially dissect these men’s arguments in their respective perspectives - yes, I’ve know it’s the only way to manage a grasp of the concepts they’re talking about. However, a lot can be said for clarity and cohesiveness and frankly, they should come out and make their point instead of beating around the bush for words and sentences on end before stating the essence of their arguments. I think most of these guys just liked listening to themselves speak.
And if someone writes something under the influence, is this a good example of their intelligence or a use of it, a.k.a. wisdom? No, it’s an example of work in a lowered state, a foggy perspective nothing more. There may be hidden truths in all that diatribe but why hide them under a cloud of influence when you can clearly state your thoughts sober? Does that mean we should be in the same state as the author while reading it as a way to decode the cryptic? Probably not. It would take us another step away from truth with one already taken by the author when they wrote something drunk.
I almost forgot. To make one’s point valid must they go reference back through the ages to Plato to justify their argument? Yes, every argument, every work needs a foundation, but does it require the SAME foundation everytime? That’s like limiting your argument to one perspective. Is reason only a tool that must look backwards to understand the now? Reason can exist on its own without a historical perspective.
Ryan. The sort of philosophy you’re refering to requires that those works be quite complex, and very difficult to understand. Just because it appears overly complex or wordy at first glance doesn’t mean the individuals behind it are lacking in clarity or cohesiveness. The fact that something is simple doesnt, necessarily mean that its effective, and just because something is complex, doesn’t mean that it’s being overly obtuse.
Good arguments need to be built up. Certainly if you’re at the level of writing papers for academic publication you’re going to be dearling with arguments that are as complex as you can get them. I’ve read pleanty of papers like that, and if any one step is skipped you miss the force of the argument.
True, there are academics who are overly wordy. There are papers that could be simplified a great deal. But they’re not common.
Ryan, come on. You’re being intentionally dense with that last comment. Obviously you don’t need to cite Plato in every paper you right. And you don’t need to re-hash the same body of knowledge every time. And obviously you should very rarely do any sort of ‘historical perspective’ in a paper - especially a philosophy paper. What you do need to do, as I stated before, is anchor your particular little paper in the broader perspective.
But I don’t see how you get the notion that this limits you to one perspetive. at all. Do you need to look backwards in order to understand the now? The simple answer? Yes. Yes you do.
“WIth the explosion of advances in modern thought, philosophy, science, politics, the humanities, and what not, it is essential that you tie everything you say and do into the broader spectrum of knowledge. IWhitehead said that ‘All of Philosophy is a footnote to Platoâ€, and I believe that pertains here. You can’t adequately convey any real notions of reality anymore if you don’t anchor your system of belief in what’s been said before. The best arguments, the ones that make the gains nowadays need to have this footing.”
Gabe, now you’re being intentionally dense. I never once suggested one should cite Plato in every paper he writes. I used him as a facetious example. But you’re suggesting any notion of reality must be “anchor[red] in what’s said before.” According to what you’re saying, if I’m analyzing a piece of music, I cannot conceivably state my position on the aesthetics and nature of a piece unless I first consider what’s “been said before.” Experiencing a piece of music whether through listening or the looking at the score is an act of an instance in time. Your thoughts, ideas and reactions are a consequence of THAT instance, THIS reality. For interests sake it might be beneficial to look back to read another’s take on the same work but that should not invalidate your opinion.
Frankly I don’t understand why you’re arguing with me because 1) You don’t even know what I’ve been reading therefore I can’t imagine why you’re defending the writing quality of papers you haven’t even read and 2) You’re not a musician, so stop wasting time (yours and mine) on a field you shouldn’t care about anyways. (Even if FAB happens to be neighbours to law.)
Peace.
I know you didn’t claim that. You brought it up though after I used it as an example of the theoretical basis behind validating academic quality papers with citations of previous writings. If you’re talking about your own personal beliefs thats onething, anyone can make any claim they like at any time. I can say I like this, or I don’t like that on a purely subjective basis regarding aesthetics. So it seems we’ve switches topics here. Your first post here was about academic papers wasn’t it? The intellectuals who lack both intelligence and wisdom in their writings, who write increasingly thick and awkward papers? Or am I missing something here? Now you’re off talking about mere opinions - ‘instances of aesthic appreciation’. Certainly no one would say that you can’t appreciate something and respond to its quality on a personal basis without refering to past philosophers of aesthetics.
I’m not saying a single thing about the papers you’ve read. However I have read a good deal of philosophy, as well as a number of writings on aesthetics, and the philosophy of music in general. Some papers have been quite bad. many have been good. I’m taking issue with your blanket assertion. If you have some examples of poorly written papers, that’s one thing. But your first post just wrote off a collection of philosophers of aesthetics with one fell swoop. And you justified it with the claim that they wrote their papers with too much complexity. I may not know the authors you’re reading - but I know the style very well. And my post was simply the statement that it is an essential aspect of modern day academia. Period. That’s it.
Finally, Ryan even were I not a musician the bold faced assertion that I suddenly shouldn’t care about the field is just a touch insulting. You should try to take these rather aimless internet debates a little less seriously. If you took the ‘intentionally dense’ comment to heart, you shouldn’t, at worst it was an assertion that I knew you were avoiding an issue.
Gabe, the reason I wrote my rant in the first place was because these philosophers I’ve been reading (not all philosophers that have contributied to the body of work that I have been reading) were coming to conclusions that frankly, I disagreed with. That and it could have been articulated in a much more fluid fashion. Fine, you say this is an essential aspect of modern day academia fine. That’s your opinion This is my opinion. Last time I checked this was a blog and not a forum on philoshopy. You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, otherwise, you would have just let my comment exist - but you didn’t. You took issue to it and have wasted my time trying to debunk what I’ve said when it shouldn’t even matter. Stop trying to be a forum troll.
Gabe, put a box on your head.
Ryan, put a box on your head.
NOW FIGHT!
I also feel like I got myself caught in a horrible loop of irony. In an attempt to qualify my statement, I ended up writing one sentence that spawned not only a conversation that did not pertain to my argument, but a flame war as well.
it’s amazing how such a simple statement could be flipped around so easily…
To be honest, I’m am bit shocked that anyones is actually suprised that the Philosophy major / Law student likes to argue. That aside, given that this topic is about wisdom and intelligence, and given that “philosophy” stems from the Greek roots “Phileo” meaning love, and “sophos” meaning wise (or wisdom), then I don’t see how a philosophical discussion about the nature of the love of wisdom, should be in any way suprising. Blog or not.
I’m am eh? Ah well.
Oh, and Abe Vigoda is still going strong.
If anything you succeeded at getting me to write about something that currently urks me: philosophy. I can’t believe the patience you must have had reading this stuff. I imagine you went through a period like the one I’m in now.
After seeing Curious George, I want a monkey.
KRF
Well, the thing about philosophy (you’ll have to excuse my typing, I just got back from a round of Gunni with a buddy of my from undergrad), is that you need to read a lot of the lines, or paragraphs twice or even three times before you get the gist of what the writer is trying to get across. I can sympathize with the notion that philosophy can be dense to read, and it really can drain you. Personally I found the best time to read (or write for that matter) philosophy is when you’re sitting in a small British Pub, a pint of something dark and potent beside you, and a little blues or jazz on in the background. It sounds like a cliche I’m sure, but it honestly helps. And as always if you want to chat about something I’m around. I can’t promise I’ll remember much, but there’s a fair to poor chance I may have read some of those authors in my Phil of Music class.
Leave a Reply