On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Joe Niederberger <email@example.com>wrote:
> >Yeah, I know. I find approximately no one is as smart as they could be, > but we live in a culture that expects and rewards dummies. Being smart > means being lonely at parties. > > I think you are confusing being smart with being recondite. Not that you > are the first to do so. Perhaps that's unwittingly transmitted along with > our other schooling. > > Cheers, > Joe N >
Perhaps by "recondite" you mean "of augmented vocabulary" which anyone suitably prepped may become, as a result of studying SAT words for example.
My friend Kent in the Philippines (where I went to high school) really believed people in USA colleges were as abstruse in their speech as the SAT tests had led him to believe and he began peppering his banter with superfluous vocab, sometimes humorous malapropisms, in order to "get ready for college". We made fun of him, but he looked at us with pitying eyes, knowing he was the Noah in this picture, building his ark of fancy phrases.
Safe to say when he finally did get to his USA college, he was rather completely disabused of such notions.
Kent was smart too though. He could win against me in chess just playing in his head, not looking at any physical board.
Paul Tanner III has argued in this archives for the fixed Bell Curve IQ picture and has hammered against those who rig public school math to make a stellar performance impossible to those with only good rote and lesser reason.
Math that basically just teases those of lower IQ by repeatedly asking them to jump much higher than they can, to be graded accordingly, did not seem the product of a democracy to him -- seemed more like poll tests and poll taxes.
His position was politically divergent from Haim's but I think he might have accepted the same 6th grade standard as to where the public / tax paid responsibility should end. As to who would pick up the tab going forward, for those wishing to continue beyond the 6th grade level, that was up for debate.
My view is more that intelligence / smarts is a moving target and those appearing to typify what's needed become stereotypical i.e. role models.
However smarts is often demonized or rendered subversive, as when the practice of using Al Khwarizmi's algorithms got peasant upstarts learning computational thinking (including around money) to a level a little more than was convenient for the local priests in the feudal Dark Ages. The priests had the job of computing everything for a dependent peasantry and upstarts were nothing but troublemakers. Use of "cyphers" was banned in some "zip codes". Fast forward and the merchant class is booming, the Renaissance a birthing of science and a turning away from authoritarian codecs.
In other scenarios, those with glasses or foreign language speaking abilities are actively hunted down and shot by the teenagers (Cambodia's Pol Pot).
In other words, being "too smart" makes one "dangerous". Example: Irving Kirsch,Ph.D. is deemed dangerous by some, as he intelligently questions billion dollar marketing campaigns premised on a certain model of how anti-depressants achieve their effects. He pokes holes in the logic of those purveying these myths. Medical students are warned to stay away from such "satanic verses" (e.g. 'The Emperor's New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth'). Every profession has its subversive verboten side, where sometimes the "too smart for their own good" people work. Sometimes in some scenarios they've been thrown in the dungeon. That's a lot of what I mean when I say approximately 100% moderate their smarts, dumb themselves down. They do so out of fear, an unconscious reflex in many cases, oft instilled in the school, maybe in the school yard during recess, when the new kid learns it's not smart to be too smart in this particular building. They're watching you.