[lbo-talk] FW: stupidity is most dangerous in people with high IQ

[Arthur Maisel]

A believer in measurement will say that the only problem with not
performing measurements is that people will then have to rely on their
"instincts." This label is of course a covert way of dismissing the
"unscientific" ways in which we mostly make judgments. A good teacher knows
which kid needs help with what material; a good baseball player knows the
pitch that will allow for hitting the sac fly the team needs; a good poet
knows a lousy line. I am aware that the word *good* in all those clauses is
begging a question, but no one has devised a better test for any of these
"skills" than the fact that the people who are called upon to make the
judgments (and millions of others) do make them with a reasonable degree of
success. There are narrowly defined areas in which an algorithm will assist
a practitioner in making a judgment (the recent use of checklists by
doctors is probably a good example), but most people who want more testing
have something to sell---look at the schools.

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:


> CB: "I'm for developing a measure of social intelligence: ability to get
> along with other people. That is the most important "smarts" one can
> have."
>
> [WS:] No doubt, and such measures have been developed see for example
>
> http://www.unh.edu/emotional_intelligence/ei%20Measuring%20EI/eiMeasure%20How%20do%20you.htm
>
> But what useful purpose would such a measure serve? Currently most
> measurements and mismeasurements of humanity serve the purpose of creating
> social hierarchies and justifications for social exclusion.  People who
> take such tests in fact give the administrators and powers that be the
> means of denying them access to resources - education, employment, benefits
> etc.  And if the test results are not directly used to denying access to
> resources and social exclusion, they are used in pissing contests  of the
> "my IQ is bigger than your IQ" variety.
>
> If I had my way, I would treat most human testing the way we now treat
> human trafficking - ban it, period. And send the testers to re-education
> camps;)  The only exception would be diagnostic testing administered solely
> for the purpose of providing medical or psychiatric services i.e. to open
> access to the right resource.  Anything else - strictly verboten!
>
>
> --
> Wojtek
>
> "An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>