People's attitudes towards intellectual ability

[spoonie]

OK, I've called it a survey, but it's actually only one question, as I have decided to leave it very open in order to gather as many different viewpoints as possible. I want this information for a special project I am working on.

Please help me with any comments or opinions you care to share. The question is:

What do you think of people with exceptional intellectual ability?

 

[John Picard]

"Towards" is not a proper word.

 

[thestrangequark]

Towards is a perfectly proper word.

To the question: I answer with the perspective of a teacher of young children, who works with kids ranging in ability from the mildly mentally retarded and LD to gifted, and from the perspective of a student who struggled in school and was evaluated for special education at age 12, but ended up scoring 156 on the IQ tests and in the 99% on the academic evaluations.

My most fundamental belief about teaching and learning is in the potential of all people, and the value of an individual's unique intelligence, be it academic, social, emotional, physical, artistic, etc. Intellectual ability, in the classic sense of "smarts" is ultimately only one aspect of a person and, in my opinion, not a very important one; far more valuable are traits like empathy, kindness, generosity, perseverance, and creativity. Intelligence is complex and subjective, and cannot be efficiently measured, and so I do not hold assessments of intelligence in high regard (including my own -- 156 is a number that ultimately says nothing about me, my attitude, my interests, my capabilities, anything. I've known people who would score far lower on the same tests, but who are more capable than I, and I can be very stupid on occasion ) . They offer only the smallest insight into a person's capabilities and illuminate only one facet of his or her intelligence. It has been my experience that all children can learn and are capable of intelligence -- which is a concept contrary to many people's understanding of intellect, namely, that it is innate and immutable. I teach the same lessons to my special ed classes as I do my gifted classes, and because I hold the children all to the same high standard, I get results across the board.

This does not mean that intelligence doesn't impress or fascinate me, or that I don't value it in a potential partner (I certainly desire someone who is an intellectual "equal", for the sake of common interests and understanding), it just means that I find the idea that people with great intelligence are somehow superior quite ridiculous.

 

[Pingfah]

It's just luck of the draw, smartness itself doesn't define anything particular about a person's personality, so i'm not really sure how to answer the question.

I think people with exceptional intellectual ability have exceptional intellectual ability. That's all really.

 

[iguana_tonante]

With great power comes great responsibility.

Oh, and wedgies build character. Or so I've been told...

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Towards is a perfectly proper word.

To the question: I answer with the perspective of a teacher of young children, who works with kids ranging in ability from the mildly mentally retarded and LD to gifted, and from the perspective of a student who struggled in school and was evaluated for special education at age 12, but ended up scoring 156 on the IQ tests and in the 99% on the academic evaluations.

My most fundamental belief about teaching and learning is in the potential of all people, and the value of an individual's unique intelligence, be it academic, social, emotional, physical, artistic, etc. Intellectual ability, in the classic sense of "smarts" is ultimately only one aspect of a person and, in my opinion, not a very important one; far more valuable are traits like empathy, kindness, generosity, perseverance, and creativity. Intelligence is complex and subjective, and cannot be efficiently measured, and so I do not hold assessments of intelligence in high regard (including my own -- 156 is a number that ultimately says nothing about me, my attitude, my interests, my capabilities, anything. I've known people who would score far lower on the same tests, but who are more capable than I, and I can be very stupid on occasion ) . They offer only the smallest insight into a person's capabilities and illuminate only one facet of his or her intelligence. It has been my experience that all children can learn and are capable of intelligence -- which is a concept contrary to many people's understanding of intellect, namely, that it is innate and immutable. I teach the same lessons to my special ed classes as I do my gifted classes, and because I hold the children all to the same high standard, I get results across the board.

This does not mean that intelligence doesn't impress or fascinate me, or that I don't value it in a potential partner (I certainly desire someone who is an intellectual "equal", for the sake of common interests and understanding), it just means that I find the idea that people with great intelligence are somehow superior quite ridiculous.

That's a lovely sentiment. Great answer, TSQ!

With great power comes great responsibility.

Oh, and wedgies build character. Or so I've been told...

.

 

[John Picard]

Towards is a perfectly proper word.

Only if you're accustomed to sloppy English diction. The proper word is "toward".

 

[T'Baio]

John Picard is quite right. The proper word is "toward." "Towards" is something that has gradually become accepted as people get stupider. Like expresso.

Sincerely,
One With Exceptional Intellectual Ability

 

[thestrangequark]

Towards is a perfectly proper word.

Only if you're accustomed to sloppy English diction. The proper word is "toward".

It's not sloppy and is completely effective. It just depends on how you view language. All our so-called "proper" words have mutated and evolved in meaning and pronunciation over centuries from something else. It has nothing to do with intelligence or stupidity whether one says toward or towards, it's just a matter of which pronunciation one learned. A person with the most immaculate English today would almost certainly sound appalling to an English-speaker of the 18th century.

Sorry, but I find the whole grammar superiority thing very annoying, and this coming from someone who uses "whom" correctly. Language is meant for conveying ideas and emotions, when poor grammar interferes with that ability there's a problem. When someone says "towards" instead of "toward"...I guess I'm just not that anal.

 

[Scout101]

Guess it's a mute point, then?

 

[Franklin]

Well, I like myself.

Seriously, I've run across more than a few students (and some faculty) over the years with excellent intellectual skills. My attitude toward (or is it towards?) them has varied based on each as an individual. I can't say anything about them in general. Some had great personalities and some were assholes. Some knew they had a gift and were taking advantage of it, and some were just sliding by.

Is there any general feeling the OP would expect people to have regarding intellectually gifted people?

 

[John Picard]

Towards is a perfectly proper word.

Only if you're accustomed to sloppy English diction. The proper word is "toward".

It's not sloppy and is completely effective. It just depends on how you view language. All our so-called "proper" words have mutated and evolved in meaning and pronunciation over centuries from something else. It has nothing to do with intelligence or stupidity whether one says toward or towards, it's just a matter of which pronunciation one learned. A person with the most immaculate English today would almost certainly sound appalling to an English-speaker of the 18th century.

Sorry, but I find the whole grammar superiority thing very annoying, and this coming from someone who uses "whom" correctly. Language is meant for conveying ideas and emotions, when poor grammar interferes with that ability there's a problem. When someone says "towards" instead of "toward"...I guess I'm just not that anal.

No, I paid attention in English class. There is no valid reason why people should use made up words such as irregardless, towards, everywheres, somewheres, anywheres, etc. Next, you'll be defending people who use "then" when the proper word is "than". After all, it's up to the recipient to decipher what the sender/speaker is conveying, right?

It's sad and humorous that years ago, with the advent of technology, it was stated that people would become super-intelligent as compared to years past. How sad that a mechanic friend of mine, with only a high school education from the late-1960's can compose written prose superior to that of today's college graduates.

 

[Amaris]

This would probably be an excellent opportunity for people to relax. It's a word, and a minor one at that. There are far more important things to argue over, like Star Trek and more Star Trek to come.

 

[thestrangequark]

Only if you're accustomed to sloppy English diction. The proper word is "toward".

It's not sloppy and is completely effective. It just depends on how you view language. All our so-called "proper" words have mutated and evolved in meaning and pronunciation over centuries from something else. It has nothing to do with intelligence or stupidity whether one says toward or towards, it's just a matter of which pronunciation one learned. A person with the most immaculate English today would almost certainly sound appalling to an English-speaker of the 18th century.

Sorry, but I find the whole grammar superiority thing very annoying, and this coming from someone who uses "whom" correctly. Language is meant for conveying ideas and emotions, when poor grammar interferes with that ability there's a problem. When someone says "towards" instead of "toward"...I guess I'm just not that anal.

No, I paid attention in English class. There is no valid reason why people should use made up words such as irregardless, towards, everywheres, somewheres, anywheres, etc. Next, you'll be defending people who use "then" when the proper word is "than". After all, it's up to the recipient to decipher what the sender/speaker is conveying, right?

Of course not, that is where the grammar error interferes with meaning.

It's sad and humorous that years ago, with the advent of technology, it was stated that people would become super-intelligent as compared to years past. How sad that a mechanic friend of mine, with only a high school education from the late-1960's can compose written prose superior to that of today's college graduates.

And in 30 years people who use "towards" will be lamenting the declining writing and speaking skills of a new generation. It's all bull. Language is an ever-changing, ever-evolving, living thing. That's part of its beauty. I'd recommend reading The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker. It's a fascinating read, and might open your mind up a little about the value of evolving language.

 

[KimMH]

Regarding "towards;" I agree with those who think of language as a tool, and an organic and ever-changing one at that. Words that have existed for centuries still exist but are used differently today than long ago. That is neither good or bad, it simply is. Like emotion or intellect.

I do also think that people blessed with tremendous intellectual capacity but do not use it are amongst the saddest examples of wasted opportunity.

I also suspect people gifted with great capacities whether intellectual or musical or artistic often suffer deficiencies in other apsects of their lives. I do not know if this is because there is a set total capacity any person is allowed by design and an overabundance in one area results in a deficiency in another; or more likely - if other people treat gifted people differently thereby skewing the perpective gifted people operate from.

 

[Scout101]

Re: towards

It's ok to think of language as fluid and changing, but on the other hand, at what point does saying "towards" or "mute point" or anything similar, become 'correct' just because a certain number of people screw it up regularly? By accepting the fuckup as allowable, and looking down at people trying to correct it, it kinda feels like the movie Idiocracy, where being dumb is celebrated, and anyone above that is an ass.

Think this one is tough to pin down because it's really dependent on the intellectual ability of the person making the judgement call. In general, people below our ability are dumb, or slow, and people above us are arrogant eggheads. Everyone just sets the bar at a different level

 

[Jadzia]

People are suspicious and distrusting of intelligence.

 

[T'Baio]

Is that why I have no friends?

 

[auntiehill]

I don't really have an attitude toward intellectual ability. I just prefer that the people around me demonstrate that they possess some.

 

[Kestra]

OK, I've called it a survey, but it's actually only one question, as I have decided to leave it very open in order to gather as many different viewpoints as possible. I want this information for a special project I am working on.

Please help me with any comments or opinions you care to share. The question is:

What do you think of people with exceptional intellectual ability?

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I don't know what defines exceptional intellectual ability in your own mind, and "think" is too broad a term here.

If you could clarify a bit, I would love to try to provide you with my viewpoint as incoherent or invalid as it may be!