Smart Magic

In a recent discussion on this post Conversations of ABFH's, Cube Angel asks this question:

What exactly is the meaning of intelligence and what is the correct usage to that meaning?

Here's my answer:

Human intelligence is the identification of behavior that indicates the mythical resource known as intellect. The claim of this resource is a social construct used to promote propaganda that credits particular races, families, religious ideologies, sophisticated empirical aspirations, and social as well as industrial agendas, at the expense of particular others.

Standardized tests are given to a small minority of people to determine the value of their contribution, the strength of their moral character, and their validity as someone worthy of reproducing. Much of the world's citizens are victimized by how their behavior is evaluated and the presumption of what they lack in relation to such standards.

Standardized tests are a tool to promote and preserve systematic oppression by the minority elite. It is widely taught throughout the world that peace and economic stability are dependent on the very small percentage of the world's population who is capable of making wise decisions continuing to set the rules and distribute their personal brand of justice. Democracy is a threat to this way of describing peace and stability.

Continuing to promote the mythical notion of intelligence is how the abuses within institutions of education as well as in the prisons for the mentally ill are protected.

Neurodiversity is a threat to the politically designed measurement of intellect known as standardized tests. Of course autistics have something to offer society but that claim is only valuable because it describes something different and encourages a broader understanding and acceptance of differences.

Whenever the promotion of people's unique contribution is used as an oppressive political tool in the way that supposed superior intellect often is the unique contributors are burdened with the spoils of their victory. Narrowly defining the value of diversity is nothing more than broadening the group of people considered inferior and encouraging their exclusion.

Comments

[Clay]

Just the other day, I was reminded of a conversation I had once with my first brother-in-law. He had met my oldest sister in college, and they were married, and had just had their first child. He had a lot of "affectations" of intellect; he wore a mustache and goatee, wore collegiate jackets with leather patches on the elbow, smoked a Cavendish pipe, and even bought these tiny special matches to light it with, all with a dignified air. I was just 16 at the time, he was maybe 25. We were having a discussion at the kitchen table, (rather, he was long-windedly explaining something to me), and about when he said the phrase, "To all intents and purposes", for the fourth time, I interrupted him with - "You like that phrase don't you? You think it makes you sound smart. I think you're smart, but I also think you work at it too hard." He sputtered. And he didn't try to lecture me anymore. ;-)

[Rose]

I got a bit of oppositional blood in me, Ed. I want to tell you that even IF a standardized test shows intelligence, people choose to ignore it. Ebohlman brought up Fundamental Attribution Error. [Wiki--In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior - where situational factors are often taken into consideration. This discrepancy is called the actor-observer bias.]

If you don't act smart--ya aint. IF you are so smart, you should know better than to act like that, so it must be that you aren't smart. Unless you are judging yourself. Then, the way you act is the way most intelligent people would act in the same situation. There's nothing wrong with acting that way, if it's you.

It's all bout being in a position of power. Of ability to force people to abide by your arbitrary rules.

When I was reading this, I thought of the need for IQ tests among the "poor", who may not be aware they are poor. (Poor as in poverty, or lack of freedom, or even depression or lack of purpose.) They have survival tests every day. It's a different kind of intelligence to survive true challenges, not "academic" ones. The Eugenicists really like those IQ tests, don't they?

Well, ANYHOO...I think ebohlman(not sure who he is) had pretty much convinced me the whole idea of ABA is in FA error. Why?

[Ed]

:) Yeah Clay, He at least knew a lot of what someone thought was important knowledge. That plus he knew how to repeat what he heard from someone he thought was important and knowledgeable say in what they probably both thought was an important and knowledgeable way. At best it's based on lots of invalid presumptions.

Sounds like he (your brother-in-law) knew that smart just means someones evaluation (which is usually based on a lot of the evaluators prejudices anyway)and that's all he wanted. Like I said in my post smart is also an evaluation of character. The attempt to impress people at the expense of a negative impression of someone else (which it always is)is seen as a character flaw. Once you said what you did to him he had to decide *how* he was going to impress you and what the price was. There wasn't much point in continuing after that. At the very least, he had to re-evaluate his priorities.

[Ed]

Sorry Rose, I responded to Clay's comment before I saw yours.For some reason his showed up in my mailbox first.

I agree it's all about being in a position of power. I don't give much credit to any evaluations that involve a prediction of what someone else can do in any given situation. When some one is in a situation where something needs doin....and they do it, no prior evaluation was needed.

I'm starting to see academics as a futile exercise that attempts to justify the myth of intellect. That and eugenics seem like two sides of the same coin.

[Sadderbutwisergirl]

Actually, Cube Angel was responding to something by Lilli Marlene about how neurodiversity supporters supposedly don't mention intellect and how people are "confusing autism with mental retardation." I responded by saying that if we weren't allowed to mention intellect at all, there would be a lot of literary references, historical comparisons, and mentions of scientific fact that would be lost in posts and papers about neurodiversity. Also that the problem stems from a desire to get rid of those considered inferior, and putting too much emphasis on intellect would be repeating the actions of the eugenics movement and thus making our message of acceptance go to moot. Lilli Marlene said that I was saying that if we mention intellect at all, then we'll be put in the same league as the Nazis. *Rolls eyes* Just thought you'd be interested, Ed.

[Rose]

Larry Arnold has indirectly said that he would not be considered genius...yet I see him as very intelligent, and I'm not sure exactly why. There is a clarity to what he says...you can tell the dross has been burned away and his words are like nuggets of wisdom. Your words always force me to see things in another light, to check those assumptions most take for granted, and to see things wherein power is stripped of it's facade, and scrutinized under a bright light. and found wanting.

I want to tell you a story of a friend of mine from high school...bottom of the class, flunked 2 grades. We went to dances together, and he said I used to be "scary smart" when he called up to talk after 35 years. Guess whose a millionaire now?? I was so damn happy for him I coulda just sh*t! Course, "Mensa girl" would probably be living on the street without my blessed husband!

[Ed]

SBWG,
I was following the conversation but there's lots of nuances I didn't understand. This helps, thanks.

"Also that the problem stems from a desire to get rid of those considered inferior, and putting too much emphasis on intellect would be repeating the actions of the eugenics movement and thus making our message of acceptance go to moot."

Yep, I agree with that.

I would be interested in how people see the differences in autism and mental retardation. Sometimes I think the term mental retardation is given more legitimacy than it deserves. I've always heard it used as a general catch-all phrase (as in NOS or Not Otherwise Specified) to mean any combination of developmental disorders. That would include learning disabilities meaning found unable to follow standard academic curriculum as well social inadequacies. Autism is a pervasive developmental disorder based on how it stands in the way of people's ability in the classroom, job performance, and social interaction.

I think learning disabilities and social inadequacies are now neatly packaged in the same category. When the severity of this is not otherwise specified or you are considered mentally retarded, it just means no one is marketing a treatment for you and schools and training possibilities are no longer available to you.It just means you are beyond the point of anybody giving a damn about your future.

[Thomas Armstrong]

Your statement about neurodiversity being a threat to intelligence tests is right on. You probably are familiar with Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, which attacks the notion of I.Q. and suggests that everyone has at least eight intelligences (e.g. words, logic, music, the body, social, emotion, nature, spatial). Thinking about the neurodiversity of people with intellectual disabilities, for example, raises the question, in which intelligence(s) are they disabled. Usually not in all of them, so it provides the possibility of identifying strengths in some intelligence areas. This also applies to autism or dyslexia, which shows strengths in spatial (picture thinking) intelligence. I go into a lot of this in my book Neurodiversity: Discovering the Extraordinary Gifts of Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia and Other Brain Differences, which will be out in May 2010. One of neurodiversity's greatest strengths is that it focuses on strengths!

[Renaissance Clothing]

Here's a quote from New York Magazine and it says that "Neurodiversity may be every bit as crucial for the human race as biodiversity is for life in general. Who can say what form of wiring will prove best at any given moment? Cybernetics and computer culture, for example, may favor a somewhat autistic cast of mind." Do you agree with this Mr. Amstrong? Kindly please enlighten me of your last statement which is "One of neurodiversity's greatest strengths is that it focuses on strengths!".