This thread is… well, I can’t believe I’ve been following it so diligently. But it is fascinating…
What I find most interesting from this raging debate is the assumption that there is one valid metric upon which one can claim “I’m smarter than average.” The work of Howard Gardner, and more recently, Daniel Goleman, points to the fact that there are indeed multiple intelligences. Certain contexts (school, for instance) may value some intelligence domains over others. But the law of averages would suggest that most folks probably excel in one or more domains, and are likely deficient in others - think of it as a huge bell curve, where the tails consist of those who are “below average” across all domains, and those who are “above average” across all domains.
There’s also the disturbing history of testing in this country, and the unmitigated record of bias that aptitude and intelligence tests demonstrate - Nicholas Lehman’s The Big Test and the work of Asa Hilliard III present compelling evidence that people of color, women, the poor, non-White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, the learning disabled, the developmentally delayed, and non-native, Standard English speakers have not been well served by standardized testing - not by omission or negligence, but by design. I just think that anyone who proffers test scores as an indication of intelligence should really be careful and examine how privilege advantages the test taker. If you happen to claim all the above identities, then you are really something else…
It sounds as if FinnAgain excels in at least one domain of intelligence, judging from what he’s shared, but perhaps is not as proficient in another (that’s not a dig at you FinnAgain). Quite simply, it seems that there are some fundamental differences in the experiences FinnAgain cites and those of other posters. Is it possible that your individual anecdotal experiences are indeed valid, to some degree? That is, perhaps FinnAgain is correct in noting that he experienced ostracism because of his intelligence (and perhaps it was exacerbated beyond intelligence for different reasons), and perhaps others did not?
I’m a lowly graduate student, and in my career in education I have taught at the elementary, middle, and graduate levels. As a pedagogue, I tend to place the responsibility of imparting, or introducing students to knowledge on the educator’s shoulders primarily. Certain teaching styles that are favored in the U.S. K-12, and even higher education systems - like lecturing - favor students who excel in those learning styles. It’s the educator’s job to differentiate instruction so that all students can have the experience of learning in a style that fits their aptitudes, as well as experience the challenge of learning in a style in which they are not as proficient. Unfortunately that doesn’t happen - FinnAgain’s references to those who are less proficient in his domains of intelligence as “mediocretins” and the like suggests that perhaps this is an experience he hasn’t had. I suspect if one can’t empathize with dissimilar experiences, that might create an issue in peer-to-peer relationships.
Anecdotally, my experiences as a student and teacher in a variety of environments - from inner-city classrooms to comprehensive state universities to elite private colleges - is that intelligence is a trait admired by students. I do think, however, it is admired when students detect it, rather than when it is self-promoted or endorsed by teachers. I don’t think your teachers did you any favors, FinnAgain, by repeatedly singling you out to answer questions, to heap praise on your work, etc. Your peers may not have had the opportunity to observe your intelligence for themselves and perhaps doubted those assessments by teachers.
The last thing I want to throw out is the idea that schools are artificial environments that do not resemble real life - that’s simply a nonsensical dichotomy. Peer relationships are very real, whether they are on a sports team, quiz bowl team, during recess, or in staff meetings. It would drive me nuts when students would say to me that they were ready to go out into the “real world.” To which I’d respond, “Really? Where have you been for the past several years?”
One final thing… I work with two professors in their 80s. Both are incredibly accomplished, have published many books and articles, and have national if not international reputations. What I find incredible about these two is that they could always refute/deconstruct/challenge anyone’s take on their work, but they both revel in the opportunity to hear how others - from students to people in other fields - frame issues and problems. There’s a humility that seems to come from knowing a great deal about a topic, and perhaps as importantly, if one is interested in sharing knowledge beyond the academic community, a need to engage with those who are not immersed in the topic on a daily basis to connect your ideas to their reality. FinnAgain, if your effort was to convince others of the validity of your perspective, I think the insults you used worked against your cause. I think there is a willingness to accept differing viewpoints on this board, but if you choose to initiate most of your responses with insults, I think you become less effective.
But then again this is the pit, so maybe that’s cool as well!
I am done with you FinnAgain have fun swearing, cursing, insulting and demeaning everyone else that disagrees with you. I will have no more of it.
