Re: No Genius Left Behind

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger Dodger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> >The IQ-160's are the folks who are going to make the Nobel Prize
>> >winning breakthroughs that seriously improve society: Cure cancer,
>> >make fusion power work, stop the OzoneHole and GlobalWarming,
>> >save species extinction, reclaim toxic waste, improve crop yields,
>> >to name a few.  

>> Any evidence that Nobel prize winners are generally IQ 160 types, as
>> opposed to IQ 120 types who worked harder than usual and got lucky?

Working hard at what is known, or routine development of 
what is known, can achieve results, but rarely major ones.
Breakthroughs come from those who do can see what others
do not, and which is quite often obvious once it is pointed
out.  There can be a great deal of luck.

>I'm more interested in "Motivational Quotient" or MQ, rather than
>IQ.  That is what separates Nobel prize winners and other genii
>from ordinary folk.  Richard Feyman supposedly had an average IQ,
>but he worked like a demon to become a top physicist.

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi

Often it is seeing what nobody has even noticed.  I can give
many examples where anyone could have used the approach if
it had been seen, and it just was not seen.

>> Can a single Nobel prize be earned without an army of more ordinary
>> people growing the food he eats, building the lab equipment, educating
>> his children, and taking out the trash he generates?  

>> I think not.

>I agree.  That's why we need to give everyone their chance, and not
>force them all to be the same.  Unfortunately, too many educational
>authorities see a 6 year old child with an "unhealthy" interest in
>science as a monster, and they forcibly "broaden his mind", and in
>the process ruin his scientific talents.

Not only that, they refuse to allow that 6 year old to be
learning the material which in the usual course is not even
available to high school students; they not only stupidly
try to "broaden his mind", but even more stupidly keep him
with other 6 year olds.  Putting a 6 year old who can read
close to adult material in a first grade class should
result in those responsible having to pay for attempts to
make it up by private tutoring, plus advancement, plus a
large fine.

>> Are they not just as necessary as he is?

>> I think so.

The difference is that the army is available, and there 
may even be too many of them.  But when it comes to doing
a decent job of educating, we have a major shortage of
people who have any understanding of their subjects.  
The type of person who can do research is not going to
be able to teach the same material in the same manner
year after year.
-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558