Aztecs vs. Greeks: Those with superior intelligence need to learn to be wise.

View Comments

• I think you misunderstand my assertions. If some X are Y, you cannot apply X entirely on Y because not all X are Y. That is the abstraction of the assertion I was trying to make. That being said, I probably over-stated a claim on categorization. Yes, you can divide, but no, it's not a very useful method. I do believe people are equal, but I also believe people are unique... is there a contradiction in that?

  Further, I think the author should have approached this topic with greater clarity. Education vastly needs to be contextualized. I don't propose this by assigning one teacher who specializes in one student; that's unrealistic. However, I am all about the idea that you sometimes need inclusive education and sometimes exclusive and sometimes both. The problem of categories is that not everyone fits exactly in the same, containable categories on the bell-curve.

  Not all gifted students opperate on the same terms and not all of them are vastly over an IQ of 120. Some are a little over, some shoot for the moon. But, the idea is pooling the resources and synthesizing an Individual Education Plan (as you can see, I despise NCLB) using the categories as merely a template to address the blurry field of strengths and weaknesses. Fully mainstreaming or fully excluding does not address the fact that not everyone is an outlier -- or in the middle.

  Using the category "gifted" as a template not effectual. We need to address the fact that there are multiple intelligences and seek to value them as well.

  But, the original issue was not one of what, but one of why. Approaching the education of the gifted as though they, as a group, lack wisdom, humility, whatever is an unfair assumption, as unfair as thinking that kids on the opposite end of the spectrum lack intelligence, and any type of valuable faculty.

  I see your point, but I don't think we're on the same page. The author clearly approached the topic with values as the premise rather than logic or relevant evidence. Thus, his "why" speaks more the language of values (that is, "gifted students need the value of humility" and not "because some gifted students fail to succeed in society due to a discrepency in levels of humility, we must seek to address and contextualize this discrepency").

  And that's why I tied him into the American culture war... because he argued with values like a politician. That humility is, without question, more important than preparing students for life, college, whatever. That implicitly, he imposed his two assumptions: 1. gifted students lack humility and 2. we need to give it to them this way.

  It has become not a question about helping gifted students grow and find out what they value through education, but imposing a system of values because they are popular, because the author values them.

  Humility is a virtue. But, teaching any given set of values must work under the assumption that those values are good. I do not question the goodness of humility, I question his raison d'etre for teaching humility. From the language of his text, he came across as more motivated by an egocentrical desire to push values.

  That may seem like a stretch, but breaking people into groups and classes rather than breaking methods into groups and classes is a sure way to come across as a class antagonizer. To assume that even such a beautiful value as humility should be propogated just because society deems it worthy and to not will cause our children to fail in society, is a dangerous assumption.

  Society is not always just or right and neither is the individual. We need to start thinking about these issues and start to challenge both society and each individual person in it. Truth is not a social construction and it is certainly not the product of one human mind.

  The reason Plessy v. Fergusson was able to succeed was not because people contextualized human faculty. Segregation was the product of lumping humans based on race and class rather than taking into account what their unique strengths and weaknesses are and challenging our own assumptions about what is valuable. I had hoped that our current pedagogical theory had come a long way since then...

• Wait a minute... that was the co-author of the Bell Curve who wrote the article! The one who had almost no training in psychological inquiry and had the nerve to do its public defense! Oooh... this is making my blood boil even more.

  But, it makes sense. Not only did the Bell Curve seem to extrapolate conclusions from the data, the whole project was based on theoretical frameworks and agendas that sought the goal of antagonization and not advancing the paradigms of scientific inquiry. More assumptions. More values. Some people never change.

  Perhaps the worst part is that Murray approaches the book as some guiding light for US educational policy. Again, extrapolating ridiculous claims from the data. The book was more of a pain to read than the article.

  And any reference to how it should inform policy went something like this: "IQ has a strong correlation with genetics. The most successful people in our country are one's with high IQ. The one's with high IQ are of higher class status. The government spends billions of dollars on social programs to help the people of low-income become more sucessful, but all these policies will fail because the determinant of success (IQ) is geneticly-based and cannot be affected by social change and policy."

  There are several ways I find his reasoning fallacious:
  1. Implicit in his arguments in the Bell Curve is a logic of values with a consistent assumption that the values present in our society have no bearing on his arguments when he starts to make more subjective claims about policy.

  2. The jump from "IQ is genetic, and IQ = success, therefore policy must be modified (that is, abandon social programs trying to address success with social/environmental change) based on these findings" really begs the question: why does "IQ = success?" Note the absence of analysis regarding that question in the Bell Curve.
  Hell, I could answer the question in one word: capitalism. But, trying to answer every question implicit or explicit in the book would go against the author's libertarian values, so much of the analysis is cut out, and the reader is given false impressions about the results and their significance.

  3. There is a lack of breadth of what this contributes to scientific understanding... It's more of an antagonistic, politically-driven, values-informed interpretation of a data set. While I do not see any flaw in methods of collecting and graphing the data, I have to ask: what does this book contribute to the advancement of scientific understanding that has not already been stated?

  The book is a backwards-step for scientific progress. It only measured traditional IQ. (Again, values-driven operationalization) If you are going to research a claim about a culture and intelligence, it would be more useful to say what defines that culture.

  That's the problem with the science of culture and race. Too many people have measured what makes a black man not white, what makes a women not a man, what makes a lesbian not straight. That kind of research doesn't address the question of human diversity. It applies the same values and standards of one group of people on distinctly different types of human beings.

  I think the scope of this study was grossly overstated in the book, and never took into consideration that other faculties exist in human beings and that, quite possibly, we should seek to celebrate those faculties as well in our policies and society. But, that issue was never addressed.

  To me, it seems like the values of these authors grossly blinded their analysis of the data. Psychologists should not impose on policy without a great breadth of scientific knowledge on every conceivable aspect of policy. Seeking to change policy based on one study is brash and unscientific.

  You simply can't rely on the assumption that every individual must conform to the values of society. That success must be attained by only one type of human faculty, the one valued by society. That kind of logic is contrary to "heritage of individualism, equal rights before the law, free people running their own lives."

  But, now he askes the gifted people of whom he raised with such high value in the Bell Curve to learn "humility?" Is there something I missed?

• I guess I have a little more faith in the usefulness of categorizing and assessing, perhaps simply because I do it on a small scale, in individual classes, as part of my profession. It's true that no label will ever capture who we are as human beings, but it is human nature to make a trade-off between categorizing certain experiences and features of the environment because they share certain traits, and always looking at each experience as if it is always unique. The trick is to know when the efficiency of putting things into buckets damages the accuracy that comes from dealing with each thing as a unique experience, and when the accuracy of looking at each instance individually damages the productivity that comes with dealing with things collectively.

  So I'm not sure what to make of our claim "learning style and intelligence are not divisible into categories." Of course they can... we have kinesthetic learners, visual learners, textual learners, social learners... and I'd like to think that, as I have matured as a teacher, I have developed the ability to teach for the benefit of more students whose preferred learning modes differ from those teaching styles that come to me most naturally.

  I suppose that, even though I know that no forumla or answer will ever work for every individual, I still find it useful to look for patterns in order to do the best I can with my limited resources (number of hours I can spend marking a set of papers or meeting with students, specific requirements of a particular subject domain, length of time I can usefully stay awake after putting the kids to bed, etc.).

  When it comes to public education, millions upon millions of dollars are at stake, so I think it's probably better to light one candle than curse the darkness... thus, I'd prefer to make some imperfect baby steps towards solving the huge problems of national and global resource distribution and the development of realistic expectations.

  Of course it's almost always possible to come up with an example that doesn't fit a societal norm.

  I'm exaggerating a little here to make a point, but the alternative seems to be a fatalistic attitude that any argument arising from the premise "some X are Y" can be effectively nullified by the counter-argument "but not all X are Y."

  (Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying this discussion; I'm just not sure that Murray is actually making all the claims that you come out so strongly against.)

• I think his language needs adjusted. Any visuals he has used to illustrate his points do not adequately demonstrate a model based on growth rather than humiliation.

  True, humility is not the same as humiliation, but the article has a specific calling toward a more negative view of humility ("their feet can be held to the fire"). That phrase is not saying there is something wrong with society. That's working under the assumption that humility is gained by taking away our ego. My response was clear: not always.

  Also, the fact that he feels gifted students need to be "told that they are lucky, not that they are superior" shows that same cultural elitism... It lumps gifted students into a class of egocentrism, entitlement and elitism and by doing so will only alienate the gifted students who aren't any of these.

  "...towards the notion of 'from each..." lol. Like I said, I don't disagree with his conclusions, but the framework he built it upon feels so disgustingly negative and without any context.

  "...talking about the education of children, but he is not not talking TO children."
  I had no illusions about that. I never once was aiming to imply that he was writing this piece to gifted students. My implication was that he was arguing on a set of cultural values (ie: gifted students need [insert broad unqualified statement here] because they [insert broad descriptor or stereotype based on the label gifted]) not on what effectively allows for the social growth of gifted students or what will allow gifted students to effectively express/communicate in the broader society.

  In a sense, without talking directly to gifted students, he has made it very clear to the audience he is talking to what he feels about gifted students (or more specifically, gifted students as a class).

  Which begs the question: what is a gifted student, anyway? The author seems to think that high intelligence automatically means high achievement and high success. "They are the people in the laboratories and at workstations who invent our new pharmaceuticals, computer chips, software and every other form of advanced technology."

  Actually, the opposite is usually true. High intelligence (at least the intelligence that he refers to without noting that there are multiple intelligences) is measured in narrow domains: visio-spacial reasoning, attention, memory, and verbal reasoning. But what does that mean?

  Research correlates high IQ with successful life choices and achievements, but only correlates. High intelligence does not guaratee anything. Like I've said before, if something isn't intellectually stimulating, the gifted mind tends not to function to the fullest extent.

  While you can validate many of his claims with research (ie: wealth and IQ, job holding and IQ, level of education and IQ), you must remember the failure of statistics (lies, damn lies and statistics) and how to interpret them.

  Current theory would contend that his assumptions are based on labels and not individual characteristics. Learning style and intelligence are not divisible into categories. While there are distinctions (there is obviously a diffence between the regular classes and GEP classes), you cannot effectively educate based on category alone.

  As I have said before, every person learns differently and what theoretically might work for most gifted students does not work for all. Over-emphasis on educational category is what is churning out more elitist gifted students. Seeking the end this author envisions will only achieve the -opposite- of what the author wishes to see.

  This sort of intellectual class antagonism sickens me. Not all gifted people are bourgeois elitists. To approach gifted education with that sort of cultural elitism will only perpetuate notions of entitlement in gifted students. Gifted students are stubborn; if you push one way, they take off an entirely different direction. Stubborn does not equal feeling entitled.

  This article is a brilliant example of our cultural logic in the age of late capitalism. We argue with our values rather than with reason. We lump everything into various classes and cultures that we perceive as having opposing values to us. Then, we attack... with our values.

  Hence, the War against Drugs... the War with Iraq... the American Culture War. All of these were created from the desire to impose our "values" rather than enthrone truth and justice... Now this guy wants to take that same logic and apply it to the most dangerous place of all: our schools. If we impose that sort of logic in our schools, we won't have any reasonable people left, gifted or not. And if we have no more reasonable people, well, the War on Drugs... the War with Iraq...

• Evan, advocating the virtue of humility is not the same thing as calling for humiliation.

  Since Murray was writing an opinion piece for a popular audience, he has not couched every single phrase in qualifiers. So yes, he makes some challenging blanket statements, but that's to be expected in an editorial. I don't see disrespect towards the gifted... and I see the two of you on the same page in that the problem is not lazy students but an educational system that does not adequately challenge the most gifted. He says gifted children need to be told that they are lucky, not that they are superior; this works against notions of birthright and eugenics, and towards the notion of "from each according to his ability."

  He is talking about the education of children, but he is not talking TO children. He is talking to the society that stands to benefit if we can figure out how to educate those top 10% most effectively.

• "Many high-IQ students, especially those who avoid serious science and math, go from kindergarten through an advanced degree without ever having a teacher who is dissatisfied with their best work and without ever taking a course that forces them to say to themselves, "I can't do this." Humility requires that the gifted learn what it feels like to hit an intellectual wall, just as all of their less talented peers do, and that can come only from a curriculum and pedagogy designed especially for them."

  I agree with his conclusion... I don't agree with his premise. Being gifted does not mean life is an easy ride. In fact, high school was more of a challenge being in the GEP. It's unfair to say or even imply that gifted students take the easy route.

  "So, gifted students are lazy, therefore we got to push them to learn humility?" No. "Gifted students are bitchy about getting a challenge, therefore we must challenge them so that they don't alienate other students who currently are getting a challenge." is a better model.

  The problem is not that gifted students don't seek a challenge. That is a complete absurdity. The problem is that schools don't give gifted students a challenge. I would be hard-pressed to identify a trully gifted student who always made straight-A's... even in remedial classes. The gifted mind only functions when it feels stimulated. I have had friends in my highschool's GEP that -failed- that's right, failed classes because the material was pointless.

  This article seems like it was written by a person who:
  1. Has no clue about gifted pedagogy (or gifted people) and makes random, uncalculated hits (some of the conclusions are sound, but the premises seem to be more like value judgments)
  2. Has no respect for gifted people. The author seems to have a sort of suppressed elitism and jealousy of the gifted.

  So, a psychologist told me I needed an IEP because I was identified as having a higher level of cognitive processes than the mean student population? Does that make me an elitist? Does that mean I have the entitlement issues this author so rashly branded upon me and other people like me?

  This sort of logic angers me. If this article is to advocate wisdom, its writer would to well to think long and hard about wisdom. Wisdom is not just the product of humiliation. Wisdom is the product of growth.

  Making such value judgments as "Humility requires that the gifted learn what it feels like to hit an intellectual wall, just as all of their less talented peers do..." only bring about a pedagogy based on the assumption that gifted students always need humility and that they must be raked across the coals rather than challenged in order to achieve it. That sort of thinking is a far cry from humility, that's elitism.

  We don't need the cultural logic of culture wars in our school system. While I agree that gifted students need more options for advanced coursework and less mainstreaming, I find it appalling that people divide lines and form class antagonisms based on which side of the education spectrum you identify with. Individualized Education Plans existed for the simple fact that not every student learns alike.

  The article seems to also be lashing out at some of the ideas of NCLB. Failing to contextualize education based on -individual- learning styles and lumping similar, yet vastly broad, groups automatically into a narrow educational structure makes you just as guilty of ruining our education model as these guys.

  And for anyone who is curious, the article did greatly offend me and, as a psychologist-identified gifted person, I do have feelings. The stereotypes must go. Did I make it into Harvard or Yale? Am I successful? No. I work on my own terms. Competition is not how I operate. Everyone learns differently and on different terms.

  How sad it is that someone advocating wisdom only advocate individual wisdom rather than social wisdom. "Wisdom requires being steeped in the study of ethics..." indeed. I wish the ethos always operated on such a narrow level. That growth and wisdom only come from humiliation. It would be much easier to fix the world's problems that way.