Columbia professor calls for 'A Milliam Mogadishus'

2) Re: Academia, intelligence, etc...it's obviously a subject close to my heart, so allow me to break my usual pattern of brevity over substance, and get into it a little bit.

There are a few questions, and I know the resluts of many studies, but have neither the ability to link, nor often the actual study names at my fingerprints, but if you will give me the benefit of the doubt, I'll proceed.

A) By virtually every measurable intellectual standard, be it traditional means such as IQ, Int. Percentile, etc., or newer means such as the intellectual adaptablility and analysis tests, academics not only grade out as being of higher intellual ability than an average body, but are found to be have just about the highest intellectual readings of any broad demographic group. A few qualifiers for these findings: They are incomplete, and there are the standard culutural bias questions which the newer systems attempt to account for with varying degrees of success.

Secondly, there is often overlap with regards to what qualifies as an academic; for example many of NASA's top scientists also spen time in academic pursuit, ans as such may or may not qualify.

[/B][/QUOTE]

This is the most pretentious post I have ever read on ANY bbs.

Are you for real?

 

Man, seeing a thread where even the most divided of posters came come together and find commond ground makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I love you guys man!!!!!

 

You know those pretentious tests measure a very limited definition of "intelligence." Almost anyone with proper training could ace these "measures of intelligence." I would argue that these people haven't tested to be "smarter" but have tested to be better "trained" in certain thinking skills--measured by these tests--which themselves don't constitute "intelligence." These tests--engulfed in their own cultural and pedagogical biases--don't constitute thick ice.

As an academic in training, I too know many people brilliant in their own fields, but idiots in "everyday conversation" or in other words practical, everyday life. Yeah, its a trade off they gladly make, but it still doesn't preclude them from being criticized as idiots. My point isn't to label PhDs idiots but to point out that we shouldn't attribute them with special "smart authority" status because of their training or status. As with celebrities, we have to judge them as we would other people, on a person by person basis.

 

Good call on the quote, and to be honest I thought I had posted it. As is evident from the typos, I don't re-read after the stream of consciousness posts I enflict upon this board...I used to edit after, but I'm afraid I get caught up in my own eloquence ( as it sounds to my internal editor at the time, often not so much on re-read) that I finish typing and hit "Submit."

Anywhoo...I get the what I thought was outdated perception of academics shot...But hasn't the academic version of blue collar snobbery already hit it's high point in the late 80's, and since then been as ridiculed as the type of steroetypical aletism you are alluding to here? Basic argument, as I remember it, is that that type of pipe and port image is just an inverted version of the type of thinking ascribed to Mr. Cardigan...


I was addressing shot at my present demographic as 'idiots', which is contrary to any measurable evidence...as I said incomplete, subjective evidence, but certainly not worthy of dismissing so completely that the opposite should be assumed. Either way, I resent any sort of 1st person experience as evidence for a generalization statements as were made in here, and I responded...Was I wrong to do so?

 

Assumptions, asssumptions...you know what they say about assumptions, Hayes? Well, leave me out of it and I'd agree...

 

Pretty much agree, but it is certainly more accumulated data, however subjective, than could be found for the opposite argument as was decreed in here earlier, agreed?

 

Totally agree...and thanks for pointing out to sino that I was being sarcastic...Psychologists generally believe that there are 3 progressive levels of understanding, the 1st being literal, which is usually left behind, as an exclusive, in late infancy....

 

Zoltar!

 

Agreed.

 

I first thought you were thinking about this one...

"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Here's another good one from Voltaire:

"To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered."

Thank you all, you're so kind.

 

The first was also in my mind, the second I hadn't thought of, to be honest.

 

My personal experience with academics is that there are two types: 1) those who are basically normal people, who are both intelligent and wise, and 2) elitists, who are generally intelligent and who think that they are wise. The latter typically lacks any of what most people refer to as "common sense" (a highly underrated concept, I think). The former usually make good teachers.

I once got into a huge argument with one of my profs in grad school because of the focus of my studies. He thought I should stop studying middle eastern terrorism and military issues and instead start studying global warming, because middle eastern terrorism was unlikely to become a relevant subject in the US. This was in the Futures Studies program at UHCL...

I think that many students and former students can think of at least a few academics they've run across who totally lack common sense. You know, the ones who are always trying to argue that common sense doesn't exist?

 

Intellectual: Someone who has more education than their intellect can handle.

I believe this Columbia Professor fits that definition. When was the last time this idiot left an academic campus to actually go out and experience this wide world that he believes he knows so much about?

 

That is an odd definition.

IQ tests suck. I agree with Howard Gardner within the framework of IQ-land, but that is only if I am forced into that territory. I prefer to stick to my first sentence in this paragraph - they suck.

MacB,

In times past you would proofread/edit your posts? What a waste of time.

Academics are....and that is all.

 

rimb...more a result of the fact that I don't type...I'm a hunter/pecker, and don't see the screen till I'm finished...as is evident from my posts since the edit function has been removed...Theediting was only for typos, and I do that as both a courtesy and because I have so many...

 

1. This guy needs his a** kicked. I think we all agree on that. It's a shame that there is so little support for America in post-secondary schools. Students at college and university are very easily swayed by professors like this because they don't realize yet that thinking critically does not automatically mean that ALL government/media/parental sources of information are invalid.

1.a As a way to rectify the lack of respect for America's schools, wouldn't it be interesting if people wanting to go to any tax-supported University had to serve our country for 1-2 years first? I would give people many options to choose from (US Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Park Rangers, Hospitals, Police). I think this would lead to more responsible students with a grounding in the real world and a desire to make the most of their education.

2. For those in academia who think this isn't a black eye on academia as a whole:
a) Professors are respected in general because they are supposed to be smart. When one of them says something this stupid and isn't taken to task for it, your perceived intelligence level goes down significantly.
b) The very fact that this thread has run off track into a discussion of the intelligence of professors proves the first point.

3. This guy needs his a** kicked. Any A&M grads want to volunteer?

 

That wasn't anti-war, that was a sick b*stard who obviously enjoys death and destruction. That guy should be fired, that was bordering on treason. I say we let him talk at a military facility or talk at a meeting with former or retired soldiers and let them have fun with that piece of crap.

 

The reason I am against this person's stance has nothing to do with loyalty...real loyalty to me is an intelligent process resulting in a decision, not an absolute process devoid of it. For example...we should all be loyal to our fathers, right? But suppose our father is Charles manson? Or a rapist? Where should our loyalty reside then? Would it be a worthy position to support our father in his fight with the law, even if he were guilty of atrocities? I think not...and as such I am not in favour of unquestioning loyalty to parents, country, etc., although many Germans were in the mid-20th century.

My problem with this guys stance is not as easy to explain as " He's a traitor!" or something similar, so please, those who are at all interested, bear with me.

My stance agaisnt the war is, I think, both idealisitc and practical...but there is a clear distinction. Were I to reduce it to merely one of practicality, I would have to abandon much of my opposition; If you merely look at the world as a congregation of nations looking out for themselves, with right and wrong being merley a concession for the sake of preservign the status quo, then it is easier to rationalize the pro-war-at-this-time stance, although still erroneous in my opinion.

But this man uses a moral judgemnt, ie the US is in the wrong in terms of justice, to justify a pragmatic response, ie the desire for the death of others to achieve your desired end, ie showing the US to be wrong. That is simply inverted reasoning...I know I'm being a bit confusing here..let me clarify:

I think we are wrong here largley because we are excercising Might is Right, ie we have the power so we do what we want, and if people die in the process, that's sad but unavoidable...assuming that we are right, irrespective of what the world thinks. To reduce it to one line: We decide to do what we want in another part of the world because we can, and explain away the cost our decision has on others as being a natural consequence of us doing what we think is right. That is incredible arrogance and rationalization.

This man says that the US are in the wrong for much the same reason as I do, but then says he hopes for many deaths in support of his position...completely overlooking the fact that he is, by advocating this, doing exactly the same thing he condemn the US for: Justifying the deaths of others as a means towards or biproduct of your position..ie reducing this to the level of Crusader logic; He who has the most guns, or wins the war, is the one who is right...

To wish for or excuse the deaths of anyone, merely because you consider them opposing you and your position, which you conclude is correct, is to surrender the moral ground you stood upon when you condemed the US's agression as wrong, and you are therefore left without anything to stand on to make your argument, and are merley just another person thinking that killing other people is ok if you think you are in the right.

 

That professor deserves a huge one of these ------>

 

Universities are like their own little world, insulated from reality. Even here in Austin I don't meet many UT students unless I go down to the drag. They just don't seem to venture out into the rest of the city that much other than to the places where the other UT students hang out.

It's almost a form of Academic inbreeding. The same ideas are just continually recycled and bounced around in a closed environment. So each new generation of students thinks that the ideas and beliefs that flow from a professor are amazing when, in fact, it's just the same stagnation. Sort of a soylent green for the mind I suppose.

I have no idea where I'm going with this but I'm rambling so I'll stop.