Re: intelligence of the author vs. intelligence of the characters

From: Cecilia Baader <ceciliabaader@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 01:56:36 EDT

--- Kim Johnson <haikux2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> when 'time' magazine was harassing salinger in the
> early '60s for a cover article, i think they dug up
> his iq test from grade school or some such time. i
> don't recall the exact number but it was circa 115.

Meaning, of course, that he was one of only "average" intelligence?
[Brief aside: average intelligence is considered to fall between 85-115.]
Stuff and nonsense. First of all, 115 is not a score to be ashamed of.
Does it denote genius? Not on the tests Salinger was taking.

People constantly argue over the much better designed tests that are
administered today; who is to say what kind of crap they administered in
Salinger's day? In fact, according to the Stanford-Binet test
administered to all World War I recruits, more than 50% of the white
recruits and almost 90% of black recruits were considered "morons" by the
elitest Stanford-Binet test. Can this possibly be true? Not a chance.
IQ is supposed to be a bell curve. Half of the population is supposed to
be average, a quarter is supposed to be below average, and a quarter is
supposed to be above average. If more than half of all men who went to
fight for the Americans were considered "morons" by the leading
intelligence test of the time, I don't think that you can believe any of
the results.

(For those who are interested, I took these statistics from a paper on
Eugenics at: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/034.html )

This is something I feel I have to take up not only in defense of Salinger
-- for can anyone deny that the man is far more intelligent than what is
"average"? -- but also in the case of everyone who runs around waving
these tests around as if they're any real measure of ability. IQ tests
tend to concentrate on two things: the ability to see patterns and
problem-solve. Also, they only test these two skills in a test-taking
environment, with no way of measuring how well these skills adapt to real
world environments. For instance, the tests tell me I'm some kind of
scientific genius. However, put me in front of a bunsen burner and you'd
better have the fire department standing by.

Another example: The US Army measured Muhammed Ali's IQ at 80. [Side
note: Before the army instituted the draft for Vietnam, Ali was first
rejected for service on the grounds that he was "too dumb." And, well,
I'm sure you know the rest of the story.] How can one look at Ali and not
know that on a very real level, a kinetic level, he was a genius? Where
was that measured?

The reason this so bothers me is that IQ tests can destroy a child's sense
of self. How many of you have been surprised by personal success or
abilities that you exhibited later on in life, after you'd shucked the
coils of what was expected of you by your teachers? And how many of you
found that you're really not as smart as they always told you you were?

Though I understand why sometimes these tests are useful in identifying a
child's needs in the classroom, to use them to prove intelligence is sheer
lunacy, for truly, they measure nothing at all.

Regards,
Cecilia.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Aug 27 01:56:38 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 20:48:48 EDT