D&D General Questions Regarding the History of the Term "Psionics."

[generic]

And @Aaron L, let it finally be said, in the context given by my previous posts, that those who obsess over their own intellect, and intellectual superiority, are rarely the most intelligent among us.

As a colloquial example, take William Gates, a man whose IQ has been measured as above 190, and whose genius is undeniable. Gates does not, in fact, speak in an enlightened and refined register.

 

[generic]

@Aaron L even Terence Tao does not speak in an incredibly elevated register. He, in fact, disregards genius and such notions of intellectual superiority, but instead emphasizes the value of persistence. His IQ exceeds 200.

 

[seebs]

pedantic moment: "IQ" as usually understood is a statistically-normed test and values >170-175 or so are basically meaningless. You can make up numbers in that category, but you can't validate them with small enough error bars to make them meaningful. So, any number over 170 is either (1) fake, (2) a fancy way of saying "outside the testable range and we have no meaningful ordering of numbers in this range".

 

[generic]

pedantic moment: "IQ" as usually understood is a statistically-normed test and values >170-175 or so are basically meaningless. You can make up numbers in that category, but you can't validate them with small enough error bars to make them meaningful. So, any number over 170 is either (1) fake, (2) a fancy way of saying "outside the testable range and we have no meaningful ordering of numbers in this range".

Indeed, but my point stands true, regardless of statistical deviations and classifications.

 

[generic]

pedantic moment: "IQ" as usually understood is a statistically-normed test and values >170-175 or so are basically meaningless. You can make up numbers in that category, but you can't validate them with small enough error bars to make them meaningful. So, any number over 170 is either (1) fake, (2) a fancy way of saying "outside the testable range and we have no meaningful ordering of numbers in this range".

This is the primary reason why I did not state that these 'IQ' values were measured, only that those values are generally accepted, even by organizations such as Mensa.

 

[LordEntrails]

Language is a tool. If your communication is successful (however that is to be measured) then you are using it correctly. If you talk with someone and they do not understand what you are trying to communicate, then you are a failure, no matter what rules of speech you use or intellectual superiority you claim.

When I talk with a Fortune 500 CEO I use one type/manner of speech. When I talk with a grade school drop out on a factory floor I use another. When I talk to a teen working the register at a grocery store, then I use a third manner. Use the tool in the manner in which it is intended (communication) to achieve the results you desire. Saying it must only be used one way is elitists and a significant basis for bigotry.

 

[Tony Vargas]

LOL. I love the notion that people are less erudite today than they were in yesteryear. What a joke. The average person is FAR more educated than the average person was back then...

The focus of education has shifted, though. Nobody reads the classics in school anymore, for instance, and certainly not in Greek or Latin.

 

[generic]

The focus of education has shifted, though. Nobody reads the classics in school anymore, for instance, and certainly not in Greek or Latin.

I read the classics during my primary education, so, your subjective example is subjectively proven false by a useless example.

 

[LordEntrails]

The focus of education has shifted, though. Nobody reads the classics in school anymore, for instance, and certainly not in Greek or Latin.

Because in general those "classics" are not as relatively valuable as they once were. They used to provide a common level of understanding to communicate across people with vastly different experiences. Now they are no longer the only means to do that, and often not relevant to many people's experiences.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I read the classics during my primary education, so, your subjective example is subjectively proven false by a useless example.

I did too, a bit, in English, on my own time...
...in the 80s.

Because in general those "classics" are not as relatively valuable as they once were. They used to provide a common level of understanding to communicate across people with vastly different experiences. Now they are no longer the only means to do that, and often not relevant to many people's experiences.

Sure. The point isn't that it's a tragedy education is different now than it used to be, it's just that it isn't exactly a lot 'more' (or less), now - even though folks in the US, at least, spend more years in school with each passing generation - but different.

But, as you get older, that difference looks like something. When I was in school, older folks (like my age now) would marvel at how much "kids these days" knew about computers, for instance, while simultaneous wringing their hands at how illiterate/innumerate/monoglot/impious we seemed to be.