Ultimately, it's all to do with whether you're a good person at the end of the day, intelligence be damned.
People's attitudes towards intellectual ability
- Thread starter spoonie
- Start date
Shame some of them are teaching our kids today.
My son's original Grade-K teacher told him that people don't like little boys that know to much. And that little boys that read to much never make any friends cause their to brainy.
The kicker: She didn't deny saying it, and the school shrink (which was in the PT meeting by county mandate) agreed with her too on the grounds that socialization and "networking" were what schools were really for and that parents placed to much emphasis on "learning". Called us outdated cause we wanted the teacher to actually, you know, teach and not spend the class period update her frakking facebook account or whatever she was doing on the class computer all day.
Gawd. I've heard that before. I suppose they would say that a properly socialized and networked dimwit can make up for it through networking and end up running a company, being a senator, or becoming President of the U.S.But bookworms who aren't as adept will either become: a) lonely tweed-wearing professors who build Star Wars diaramas in their spare time and are habitual masturbators; or b) evil geniuses bent on destroying the world (who are also habitual masturbators).
I get too many students who think they should get some kind of academic reward for being friendly and social. "But I talk in class discussions," they'll say. "But you say nothing," I retort (or words to that effect).
(By the way, the teacher wasn't wasting time posting on this board, was she? I'd hate to think academics are posting here during the school day.
)
It's an interesting culture that has a saying "too clever by half".
But more importantly, I think, is treating the concept of intelligence broadly. For instance, raw mathematical prowess is pretty pointless in isolation in terms of creating a likeable, well-rounded person. I don't particularly value "exceptional intellectual ability" as it's not really an unusual trait (though I freely admit that's a judgement I can make partly because of where I live and who I come into contact with).
What I do value is the ability to combine that with charm, charisma, insight and flair. THAT'S rare.
But more importantly, I think, is treating the concept of intelligence broadly. For instance, raw mathematical prowess is pretty pointless in isolation in terms of creating a likeable, well-rounded person. I don't particularly value "exceptional intellectual ability" as it's not really an unusual trait (though I freely admit that's a judgement I can make partly because of where I live and who I come into contact with).
What I do value is the ability to combine that with charm, charisma, insight and flair. THAT'S rare.
It's an interesting culture that has a saying "too clever by half".
Don't forget the other saying: "nobody likes a smartass."
It's an interesting culture that has a saying "too clever by half".
But more importantly, I think, is treating the concept of intelligence broadly. For instance, raw mathematical prowess is pretty pointless in isolation in terms of creating a likeable, well-rounded person. I don't particularly value "exceptional intellectual ability" as it's not really an unusual trait (though I freely admit that's a judgement I can make partly because of where I live and who I come into contact with).
What I do value is the ability to combine that with charm, charisma, insight and flair. THAT'S rare.
Interestingly put, Holdfast. The mix is important.
When you say that, I think of someone like George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. All three were intelligent, but not highly intellectual. The gift they had was the ability to realize that to lead and persuade, an abundance of social skills counts for something.
Among contemporary leaders, Bill Clinton arguably had both intellect and those other things. Obama, so far, maybe only the intellect. (As Maureen Dowd said, he's got to be less Spock, and more Kirk.
)
Last edited:
He's Irish?Interestingly put, Holdfast. The mix is important.
When you say that, I think of someone like George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. All three were intelligent, but not highly intellectual. The gift they had was the ability to realize that to lead and persuade, an abundance of social skills counts for something.
Among contemporary leaders, Bill Clinton arguably had both intellect and those other things. O'Bama, so far, maybe only the intellect. (As Maureen Dowd said, he's got to be less Spock, and more Kirk.
He's Irish?Interestingly put, Holdfast. The mix is important.
When you say that, I think of someone like George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. All three were intelligent, but not highly intellectual. The gift they had was the ability to realize that to lead and persuade, an abundance of social skills counts for something.
Among contemporary leaders, Bill Clinton arguably had both intellect and those other things. Obama, so far, maybe only the intellect. (As Maureen Dowd said, he's got to be less Spock, and more Kirk.
Good catch. Black Irish, I guess. God, what a stupid mistake. Let's see if I can correct it. I've really gotta decide whether to work or post here. I obviously can't do both.
He's Irish?Interestingly put, Holdfast. The mix is important.
When you say that, I think of someone like George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. All three were intelligent, but not highly intellectual. The gift they had was the ability to realize that to lead and persuade, an abundance of social skills counts for something.
Among contemporary leaders, Bill Clinton arguably had both intellect and those other things. Obama, so far, maybe only the intellect. (As Maureen Dowd said, he's got to be less Spock, and more Kirk.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk[/yt]
I resent all those things going together. I don't build Star Wars diaramas.
I bent my Wookiee.
. Sadly, though, I'm not surprised. It's the same over here. Of course, the real problem with "little boys that know too much" is that they have a habit of questioning ideological doctrine, even, gods forbid, actually knowing things the teachers don't. I was lucky to have teachers who respected my intelligence, but still, one thing I quickly learned was to keep my mouth shut and just nod along a lot of the time. My advice to intelligent schoolchildren would sadly have to be: teacher isn't there to guide and nuture your talents. She/he is there to judge you and keep your thinking in line. So be careful. It's one of many reasons why I don't want my children attending state-run schooling.
I was quite lucky, though, as I say. I managed to get good teachers on the whole, but there were many others around who you had to just submit to, no matter how questionable their teaching could be.
Last edited:
^This is a horrible attitude for a teacher to have, and one that I am fortunate to have not come across as either a student or a teacher. Every teacher with whom I've ever worked, even those whose philosophies were at odds with mine, were very serious about their students' academic achievement, and delighted in bright kids who were inquisitive and active in their own educations. It's been my experience that quite the opposite is true in today's public schools: there is such a focus on objective academics that there is no time left for alternative learning styles, for socialization, or for play. Children learn through play -- it's how they learn to be effective people and to live and work in society. And these days, even in kindergarten, there's no time for play. It's quite sad, and the children's academics are suffering rather than improving.
Ironically, that's true as well. it isn't really paradoxical, because it's all about tests (at least here in the UK). All that matters is that you pass the tests, so individual learning and intelligence aren't really respected; everyone is simply educated so as to be able to pass the tests, not actually improve themselves. So on the one hand, you're quite right, there's no interest in play or alternative, individual intelligence (at any "level") because that's not useful to the tests. It's all about testing, all the time. But also, it means that those who think differently or approach things differently are shut down or forced to be quiet, because the curriculum has specific tests to meet. Thinking is controlled to some extent, and it's overall not at all productive, in my opinion at least...
I definitely agree that there is this certain unspoken emphasys in society that intelligent kids/people are not looked kindly upon.
There is a pretty good possibility that society feels threatened when people who question established norms and aspects that could change everything turn up, and they end up shutting you up through 'strength in numbers' mentality.
The strange thing is that teachers from my perspective are supposed to be there to impart knowledge for one thing, and if they recognize intelligent children/people, encourage the developement of the said aspect.
Also ... why do A LOT of people say that a person is 'naive' when they express an idea that we could be living in a world rid of today's problems despite the fact that they are fully aware of how the world works and whatnot?
Are people so ... indoctrinated to think the present mindset is the only way to go?
Why the heck am I asking these questions to begin with when I already know the likely answer to be 'yes'?
In any event ... in my personal opinion ... I think what we call 'intelligence' manifests itself in numerous aspects.
As one other poster already stated ... one can score very high on an IQ test, yet that doesn't really say anything about them or means that they are more capable than someone else.
On the other hand, one can score very low on an IQ test and prove to be far better in something (or numerous things) where a whole group of others fail.
Perhaps what we call 'intelligent children/people' are those who are able to see past the smoke screen, question present state of things/doctrine/whatever, are more inquisitive and propose 'outrageous' ideas.
But what several posters stated about teachers in schools stereotyping some 'intelligent' kids ... well, those are just pure morons in my personal opinion.
Of course that 'no one likes kids/people who know a lot' because you are ones who are supporting that very impression all the time.
Society feels threatened pure and simple when 'intelligent' people come into the mix.
They don't like established rules and regulations being questioned (often because they don't know the answer and because they couldn't care less) or people coming into their lives and proposing things that could change everything.
Now, I'm not saying the general population is not capable of this.
Far from it ... but we live in a world where the majority is indoctrinated with a certain way of thinking, and to put themselves outside of the box or switch that mindset ... well, that's very hard for them to acomplish, and most of the time, they simply don't bother, which is why they find it a 'turn-off' a lot of the times because they cannot relate to those aspects.
There is a pretty good possibility that society feels threatened when people who question established norms and aspects that could change everything turn up, and they end up shutting you up through 'strength in numbers' mentality.
The strange thing is that teachers from my perspective are supposed to be there to impart knowledge for one thing, and if they recognize intelligent children/people, encourage the developement of the said aspect.
Also ... why do A LOT of people say that a person is 'naive' when they express an idea that we could be living in a world rid of today's problems despite the fact that they are fully aware of how the world works and whatnot?
Are people so ... indoctrinated to think the present mindset is the only way to go?
Why the heck am I asking these questions to begin with when I already know the likely answer to be 'yes'?
In any event ... in my personal opinion ... I think what we call 'intelligence' manifests itself in numerous aspects.
As one other poster already stated ... one can score very high on an IQ test, yet that doesn't really say anything about them or means that they are more capable than someone else.
On the other hand, one can score very low on an IQ test and prove to be far better in something (or numerous things) where a whole group of others fail.
Perhaps what we call 'intelligent children/people' are those who are able to see past the smoke screen, question present state of things/doctrine/whatever, are more inquisitive and propose 'outrageous' ideas.
But what several posters stated about teachers in schools stereotyping some 'intelligent' kids ... well, those are just pure morons in my personal opinion.
Of course that 'no one likes kids/people who know a lot' because you are ones who are supporting that very impression all the time.
Society feels threatened pure and simple when 'intelligent' people come into the mix.
They don't like established rules and regulations being questioned (often because they don't know the answer and because they couldn't care less) or people coming into their lives and proposing things that could change everything.
Now, I'm not saying the general population is not capable of this.
Far from it ... but we live in a world where the majority is indoctrinated with a certain way of thinking, and to put themselves outside of the box or switch that mindset ... well, that's very hard for them to acomplish, and most of the time, they simply don't bother, which is why they find it a 'turn-off' a lot of the times because they cannot relate to those aspects.
Very well put, Deks. That is indeed a useful way of describing it.
That is the exact problem that has been developing here over the past decade as well. As more and more emphasis is given to standardized tests, less time, energy, and care is given to actual, meaningful learning. I actually work for a program that is doing its utmost to bring art, music, drama, and play back into schools, and proving that children learn better when teaching approaches are varied and interesting and when different learning styles are taken into account. It goes back to the ambiguity of intelligence; often very bright kids are left behind because they simply have difficulty with the particular and limited teaching style to which they're being exposed.
Students in my program vastly outperform their peers in reading and writing skills across the board, in percentage of special education kids mainstreamed, and in the percentage of kids promoted to the next grade. If they've had the program for at least one year in kindergarten, 1st, or 2nd grade they continue to outperform their peers in 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th grades (the program hasn't been in effect long enough to see further). And what do we do that's different? We approach the different learning styles, we sing songs, play games, do art, and have fun.
I don't think they're superior, I'm just glad we HAVE some. Helps to dispel the notion that we're a planet of morons (reality TV notwithstanding
).
I do remember having a teacher in third grade who berated me for bringing my textbook home. We didn't have an assignment, I just found the material interesting and wanted to read more on my own. I didn't anticipate that she would react that way and ended up a bit upset because I didn't know what I was doing wrong.
On the other hand, I remember my middle school teacher that discovered my love of reading and the speed at which I devoured books. When the class would read silently she would give me other books to read and then take time to discuss them with me. Eventually I read all the ones she had and then she had the librarians introduce me to all different titles and genres in our school library. Many of my peers didn't study some of these books until years later, and I've always been grateful to her for the world she opened up to me.
On the other hand, I remember my middle school teacher that discovered my love of reading and the speed at which I devoured books. When the class would read silently she would give me other books to read and then take time to discuss them with me. Eventually I read all the ones she had and then she had the librarians introduce me to all different titles and genres in our school library. Many of my peers didn't study some of these books until years later, and I've always been grateful to her for the world she opened up to me.
As I went through school, I noticed a drift in standards of education away from learning, and towards passing tests.
And one of my teachers really believed in these new methods. He would teach us half the details of what I'd consider a proper lesson. So without properly understanding how this stuff fitted into the bigger picture of the subject, I'd frequently ask questions about these bits that were being omitted, only to be dismissed with "that's not on the syllabus."
Every couple of weeks he'd give the class this little speech about it helping to prevent pupils getting confused by not giving them surplus information.
Add to that the fact that his desire to teach was second place to his narcissism... quite an obnoxious combination.
While he was the worst, I noticed many of my teachers adopting similar attitudes.
I agree that 'intellectual ability' or an IQ is subjective and not really indicative to the ability to learn.
For those not in the know, I am an English teacher who usually teaches grade 9 and 10 academic students. I always try to keep my students believing they can have success. I love it when they ask questions!
Towards versus toward: I find errors in essays with the usage of these two words. The rule is:
Towards= direction
I walked towards my friend's house for a visit.
Toward=with respect to
John and I were working toward the same goal we had set for ourselves.
For those not in the know, I am an English teacher who usually teaches grade 9 and 10 academic students. I always try to keep my students believing they can have success. I love it when they ask questions!
Towards versus toward: I find errors in essays with the usage of these two words. The rule is:
Towards= direction
I walked towards my friend's house for a visit.
Toward=with respect to
John and I were working toward the same goal we had set for ourselves.
