![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 66. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Racer on March 21, 2006, at 0:27:09
Well, I guess really that probably means failed to be invited to join...
George H. W. Bush is a member.
Jeb Bush is a member.
Yet, George W. Bush is not.
What conclusions shall we draw from that?
(And don't get me started on naming a child "Jeb." Let's remember who won that war, 'K?)
Posted by Declan on March 21, 2006, at 2:28:26
In reply to Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK?, posted by Racer on March 21, 2006, at 0:27:09
Hey Racer, what does PBK stand for? Is Jeb short for anything, like, I dunno, Jebediah?
Declan
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 3:19:12
In reply to Re: Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK?, posted by Declan on March 21, 2006, at 2:28:26
yeah i don't know what PBK is either...
Posted by annierose on March 21, 2006, at 6:15:28
In reply to Re: Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK?, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 3:19:12
Posted by AuntieMel on March 21, 2006, at 9:00:04
In reply to Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK?, posted by Racer on March 21, 2006, at 0:27:09
I'm guessing he wasn't invited.
You are talking Phi Beta Kappa, right?
Posted by Racer on March 21, 2006, at 11:01:30
In reply to Re: Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK? » Racer, posted by AuntieMel on March 21, 2006, at 9:00:04
Posted by Declan on March 21, 2006, at 15:56:57
In reply to Re: Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK? » Racer, posted by AuntieMel on March 21, 2006, at 9:00:04
Is this like sororities and stuff? Or is that just for girls? Have I heard of something called sorority sisters? I won't mention the coathanger. It all sounds, I dunno, English maybe. Like the Apostles at Cambridge? But Jeb got in? I doubt he'd have made the Apostles. Do they still exist?
Declan
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 17:19:08
In reply to Re: Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK?, posted by Declan on March 21, 2006, at 15:56:57
sororities
oh yeah i've heard of them (on tv show b grade movies typically)
er...
that isn't part of australasian culture...
:-)
Posted by 10derHeart on March 21, 2006, at 17:30:38
In reply to Re: Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK?, posted by Declan on March 21, 2006, at 15:56:57
http://www.pbk.org/about/faq.htm
Posted by Racer on March 21, 2006, at 17:40:53
In reply to Re: Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK?, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 17:19:08
Phi Beta Kappa Society is a very exclusive academic club. Club doens't quite make it clear what they are -- I think it's 1% of college or university students are invited to join. The requirements for membership are not quite identical across the various chapters, but they all require very high standards -- high Grade Point Average in advanced subjects. It's a bit like MENSA, only based on achievement, not potential for achievement.
Sororities are "sisterhoods" -- they're a sort of club for women, which one joins while at college/uni. I don't know all the reasons for joining, but I can tell you that I never did. The equivalent for men is a fraternity. When you hear about "frat boys" that's what they're referring to: members of a fraternity. As you'll know if you've ever heard the phrase, there are negative connotations. Think "binge drinking adolescent on the verge of going on academic probation." Obviously, that's not an accurate picture, but that's how the phrase is used.
And while some people do opt not to accept an invitation to join Phi Beta Kappa, it's quite rare, and usually means the person doesn't know what PBK is. Personally, I'd love to be PBK...
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 17:44:06
In reply to A bit about PBK for non-US posters..., posted by Racer on March 21, 2006, at 17:40:53
ah.
i guess... i'm not so fond of the idea of 'old boys clubs' (not that i'm meaning to imply that only guys can be a member) but there is still something of the 'exclusive club' in that...
reminds me of freemasons etc...
i'm even wary of mensa...
i dunno.
depends on what you value?
maybe....
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2006, at 18:44:15
In reply to A bit about PBK for non-US posters..., posted by Racer on March 21, 2006, at 17:40:53
I turned down everything. I have no idea even what I turned down. :)
To me that was the joy of college. The ability to say no to whatever I wanted without fear of parental censure. (If only because they didn't know anything.)
It would be interesting, and I'm sure someone's done it, to see a study of effectiveness as president or prime minister as compared to IQ. I never think of a really high IQ as being something I look for in a candidate. I tend to look for integrity and ideals that match with mine and a certain amount of charisma that would enable them to get the job done, and an ability to work well with others (ok, maybe the last one isn't true). But when I think over the five or so political figures in my adult lifetime that I've actually supported (as opposed to considering the least bad choice), I know that two and possibly three or four had an IQ well above above average and significant intellectual accomplishments. Hmmmmm... I'll have to think of what that says about me.
Ok, does anyone know about my favorite historical leaders? Did they have high IQ's? Washington, Lincoln, Winston Churchill?
My favorite all time leader (in terms of leadership style) was fictional. Captain Kirk. But I don't think he was portrayed as a genius.
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2006, at 19:04:40
In reply to Re: A bit about PBK for non-US posters... » Racer, posted by Dinah on March 21, 2006, at 18:44:15
I definitely need to take a good look at myself.
Posted by Bobby on March 21, 2006, at 19:47:00
In reply to Did you know that GWB failed to join PBK?, posted by Racer on March 21, 2006, at 0:27:09
Pretty big klutz?
possible butt kisser?
Posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:50:29
In reply to Please be kind?, posted by Bobby on March 21, 2006, at 19:47:00
i'm wary of IQ tests as tests of 'intelligence' too...
i mean...
if you define 'intelligence' as a score on a test i guess it is a reflection of intelligence by definition but that seems fairly ininformative...there are serious issues around intelligence testing...
cultral bias... how much the answers are generalisable to other kinds of task (as it is assumed they will be) the difference between theorietical rationality and practical rationality etc etc.
most people could get into mensa if they studied for the tests...
if it is important to you...
Posted by Bobby on March 21, 2006, at 21:55:39
In reply to Re: Please be kind?, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:50:29
No worry. I'm mostly full of it--it's all jive.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:43:08
In reply to Re: Please be kind?, posted by special_k on March 21, 2006, at 21:50:29
"most people could get into mensa if they studied for the tests..."
This is untrue. The test is a measure of reasoning ability, not of knowledge. They take the top 2% so it is impossible for everyone to get in.
It is also not a predictor of how well a person will do in life. Success is *much* more dependent on hard work, the ability to get along with others - and a bit of luck.
Posted by Dinah on March 22, 2006, at 9:49:00
In reply to Re: Please be kind? » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:43:08
My son qualified when he was four, and I really wanted my husband to join with him. Just to open all the doors I could open for him. I figured he could always close them later. He finally agreed but was never able to contact anyone, and by that time I'm guessing my son would have to be retested.
I'd have a hard time making it. I've got some specific deficits in my spatial abilities that would make it hard for me to pass the test. So no, not everyone could pass the test, no matter how hard they study. Sigh. Which bugs me, because I think I'd enjoy it. I've met some really funny and interesting Mensa members, although admittedly perhaps the subset who declare their membership is not representative of the group as a whole.
I agree with you about the link between intelligence and success. And of course there are also a lot of different ways to measure success. :) The Mensa members mentioned above were enormously successful at being absolutely hilarious, and fun to be around, but wouldn't have been deemed huge successes by society's standards.
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:51:57
In reply to Re: Please be kind? » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 22, 2006, at 8:43:08
>> "most people could get into mensa if they studied for the tests..."
> This is untrue. The test is a measure of reasoning ability...The test is a measure of a *certain kind* of reasoning ability. You can practice the specific kinds of reasoning by practicing with different instances of those kinds of tasks. You can learn little heuristic tricks that will help you too. For example... Some of the tasks are mental rotation (if I remember rightly) you can practice and practice and practice mental rotation tasks if you like. You can learn little tricks that make it much easier to spot the odd one out.
My claim isn't that EVERYONE could get up to speed just by sheer slog. My claim is more that... Maybe... 40% of the population could get in by sheer slog of the above mentioned variety.
There are books that have been written on how to get into Mensa. People who have managed to do it via the above technique. They scored a bit above average on the tests pre study and now... They are members (or qualified for membership).
> They take the top 2% so it is impossible for everyone to get in.
Clearly. But then also remember that some people qualify but choose not to join... How much does it cost to sit the Mensa test these days? Some people don't like the thought of those kinds of groups...
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:56:33
In reply to Re: Mensa and Intelligence Testing » AuntieMel, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:51:57
So...
'the test is a measure of reasoning ability'
I have problems with this claim...
Significant problems with this claim...
I do not believe that it is. There are more kinds of reasoning ability than are tested in the test. The test tests a very limited kind.
It also suggests (for the appeal of Mensa to be so great) that the test shows you something of where you are placed in society regarding your reasoning ability (top 2%) and where you are likely to remain (i mean if people's reasoning ability went up and down a lot then the test would be fairly meaningless re: predicting long term reasoning ability)
Fact is... It is not a measure of reasoning ability. It is a measure of very specific kinds of reasoning ability.
The existence of tests like that also suggest that where one reasons (where one scores) is likely to remain fairly constant through ones lifespan. But that is crap. A bit of study and what do you know.
I'm not keen on testing in general...
Intelligence testing
Personality testing
etc
etcIMO those kinds of tests tend to do more harm than good.
And people (psychologists typicallY) overgeneralise from the score to something meaningful about the person who has been tested.
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:58:14
In reply to Re: Mensa and Intelligence Testing, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:56:33
and the 'meaningful generalisation' is what tends to do more harm than good.
i mean...
say someone doesn't score very well on the test.
from there people get to 'you aren't a very good reasoner'
from there the person tends to take that on board and what...
doesn't bother trying.
self fulfilling prophecies.
but then maybe...
something is wrong with my reasoning ability ;-)
Posted by Racer on March 22, 2006, at 19:37:29
In reply to Re: Mensa and Intelligence Testing, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 17:58:14
The whole Intelligence Quotient is a long standing discomfort of mine, which I won't go into here right now. Suffice it to say, it's something I've thought about.
My two comments:
Define "intelligence?"
You can't, because there really isn't any one definition. Unless, of course, you're eight years old and can say, "It means 'smart'"
And keep in mind the original purpose of the tests -- one which I think was and is appropriate and rather progressive: it was about making education available to more children. Before the IQ test came along, a lot of kids were catagorized as uneducable, due to mental retardation, when in fact it was cultural factors, or vision or hearing loss, or other factors totally unrelated to intelligence. Today, we don't think of that in the US, and probably not in Oz or NZ, either. There is a promise of free, public education, with special education for those who require it. That wsn't the case not all that long ago. The IQ tests were meant to show which of the kids really could learn, and to get an idea of how much they could learn.
Nowadays, though...
So, sometimes things get perverted from their original purpose. Kinda like how the internal combustion engine somehow became a Ferarri...
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 20:03:57
In reply to Subject close to my heart » special_k, posted by Racer on March 22, 2006, at 19:37:29
> The whole Intelligence Quotient is a long standing discomfort of mine, which I won't go into here right now. Suffice it to say, it's something I've thought about.
:-)
Me too :-)
> Define "intelligence?"
> You can't, because there really isn't any one definition. Unless, of course, you're eight years old and can say, "It means 'smart'"
Yep. Another way to make the point 'what do all intelligent acts have in common' is just like 'what do all games have in common' which is to say it is a cluster concept and there is no essential property (that can be tested) running through all the instances...
w.
> And keep in mind the original purpose of the tests -- one which I think was and is appropriate and rather progressive: it was about making education available to more children.
sigh. was it? i don't remember the history.
> Before the IQ test came along, a lot of kids were catagorized as uneducable, due to mental retardation, when in fact it was cultural factors, or vision or hearing loss, or other factors totally unrelated to intelligence.
oh. i thought intelligence tests were designed to show that... well... initially it was a screen for brain damage / mental retardation - wasn't it?
then it got used for... well there was a finding that yellow people were smarter than white people were smarter than black people. the bell curve. and that was used as justification (even though that DIDN"T FOLLOW) for not even trying to educate black people. 'cause the thought was it would be a waste of resources because they were innately stupid.
I think a guy from Wellington NZ showed how bogus the bell curve conclusions were...
Yeah. Ones IQ score was supposed to generalise to what one was capable of learning...
Kind of like how the GRE is supposed to generalise to ones success in graduate school...
I feel really angry when I think of how these tests tend to be used and interpreted...
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 21:43:10
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart » Racer, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 20:03:57
You are right about the origins, Racer.
'The most widely used intelligence tests in the United States today are those originally developed by psychologist David Wechsler during the 1940's and 1950's... Wechsler (1939) emphasised that an IQ test measures functional intelligence, not intelligence itself... According to Wechsler, a score on an IQ test is a reflection of what one has learned, which is a function of the opportunities to which one has been exposed and one's ability to take advantage of those opportunities. The subtests on Wechsler's tests represent samples of behaviour but they are not exhaustive'.
"Introduction to Clinical Psychology Science and Practice" pg 200-201.
And hence... The wealthy aren't just wealthy... They come up 'smart and deserving' as well... In virtue of their getting more learning opportunities in the first place...
And the status quo is preserved.
Sigh.
Posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 22:00:42
In reply to Re: Subject close to my heart, posted by special_k on March 22, 2006, at 21:43:10
'Classification as a Characteristic Activity of Humans
Classification of people and their problems has been a hotly contested issue throughout much of the history of clinical psychology and psychiatry. On the one hand, many professionals have argued that classification or diagnostic systems are necessary to facilitate our understanding of people and their problems, to provide a basis for understanding of people and their problems, and to provide adequate treatment to those in need of help (Clark, Watson, & Reynolds, 1995). On the other hand, critics have argued that classification systems for personality and psychopathology are inherently problematic because they lead to the dehumanisation of individuals and contribute to the development of stereotypes of individuals who are placed in certain diagnostic categories (Kutchins & Kirk, 1997). Critics also argue that stigmas and other negative attitudes are attached to the labels that emerge from classification systems (Tucker, 1998)...
THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF CLASSIFICATION
The decision to classify psychopathology has both benefits and costs. There are two major benefits
- Organised information about the characteristics of people whom we try and help can be useful when clinician's make treatment decisions...
- A classification system allows professionals to communicate with one another in an informed manner, which facilitates better undersanding and treatment of problems and leads to new insights.
In response to the first... That will only happen if you can make generalisations from dx to the kind of treatment that will benefit.
In response to the second... That will only happen if you can make generalisations from dx to symptoms and from dx to the kind of treatment that will benefit and from dx to insights.
The point is that generalisation... Doesn't constitute knowledge.
There can be more symptom variability between two individuals with the same dx than there is between two individuals with different dx.
IMO currently... dx just promotes stereotypes which do not count as knowledge because they are more likely to be inaccurate than accurate and because you cannot generalise from dx to treatment...
Sigh.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.