You might want to examine the academic credentials of the scientific elite, before you start ranting and raving. The bottom 90% of society does virtually nothing of intellectual worth.

YanShen wrote:You might want to examine the academic credentials of the scientific elite, before you start ranting and raving. The bottom 90% of society does virtually nothing of intellectual worth.

Evidence?

If you define anything significant as having been accomplished by an elite, then your circular argument does hold. That's fine if you like comfortable fallacies as your basis for perceiving the world.

You might try examining test scores for one, be it tests like the SAT or GRE in America, etc.
Or you might try reading this for starters.

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/07/an ... inent.html

It's hard to imagine that one can obtain a PhD these days in America in an intellectually rigorous field, without attaining a certain level in terms of test scores(SAT, GRE).

Of whom? A selected set of people who've accomplished something? The plural of anecdote is not data.

A broad sampling of random eminent scientists reveals that the average IQs are fairly high. You tell me what's more likely given the data. That the average eminent scientist doesn't have significantly higher IQ than the average person, or that in fact the scientific elite are intellectually gifted. Let's think in terms of hypothesis testing here.

YanShen wrote:It's hard to imagine that one can obtain a PhD these days in America in an intellectually rigorous field, without attaining a certain level in terms of test scores(SAT, GRE).

This suggests that you've had limited exposure to PhD candidates. My experience is that they have widely varying backgrounds and capabilities. I've known candidates who've barely been literate (to the extent of having substantial help writing up their research), but have produced excellent, insightful results because they understand their field so well, or can see through the clutter to the gems beneath the dross. How do you think these people would have done on standardised tests?

Note that I added the important caveat of focusing on intellectually rigorous fields. I'm sure there are some people obtaining their history or sociology PhD's at third rate universities who probably aren't too intelligent.

Addit: I've also known excellent scientists of decidedly average IQ. The key to success is being able to formulate a good question, and develop a project that provides meaningful responses to those questions. Your premise that you have to have a high IQ to achieve something is at odds with reality. At worst, it's simple bigotry against the many hard workers who build the corpus of knowledge from which a few achieve fame.

Addit 2: Define 'intellectually rigorous'. The 'hard' sciences? These in many ways are much easier to make breakthroughs in than the 'soft' sciences.

And my point is that these "regular people" HAVE contributed something of value (mechanical and electronic inventions no less) that revolutionize living and industry (and much wider than a 10%).

To say a tiny elite alone are responsible for innovation is flat out wrong, when I just gave the proof.

King Hazza, that's a fine and noble statement however it seems to lack a certain sociological element. Anyone can state that the average Joe has "contributed something ov value". These societal "truths" are mere general observations that do not contribute to any intellectual discussion. Pointless.

Obviously, a social/scientist has to have a certain IQ in order perceive and analyse his/her field of study but at the same time perserverance the key element to a good study. By maintaining focus on your collected data and using ones sociological immagination the study has the ability to get more substance.

'low' in this context would be those found to the far left of a bell curve of distribution, I should think.
That said intelligence is difficult thing to define and tests are a crude but generally effective way of measuring it. Consider, however, myself and an Australian aboriginal straight from the bush. He would barely survive in my environment and yet if it were his environment I would be the struggler. His intelligence is defined I suppose by his ability to exist and indeed thrive in his environment, where mine is equally defined by my environment and culture.

What a bump up!

I wouldn't go by the IQ thing. I was told I had a very high IQ in highschool and I have totally wasted my life up until this point (mostly due to religion, which I have since amended). I dropped out of college and have only recently started a degree. At this point in time I would count myself as being in the 10% of humanity who have contributed the least to society and I have a lot to catch up on! The IQ argument doesn't wash with me. If you want any sort of measure for value then it should be an individual's output, regardless of their IQ. IQ is an estimate of potential ability at best.

Most people have trouble understanding that IQ is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for real world success. There's not a simple one to one correspondence between how smart you are and how successful you'll be in life.

YanShen wrote:You might want to examine the academic credentials of the scientific elite, before you start ranting and raving. The bottom 90% of society does virtually nothing of intellectual worth.

Universities are mainly sheltered workshops for people who are too intelligent for their own good.

michael^3 wrote:

YanShen wrote:You might want to examine the academic credentials of the scientific elite, before you start ranting and raving. The bottom 90% of society does virtually nothing of intellectual worth.

Universities are mainly sheltered workshops for people who are too intelligent for their own good.

Churches are mainly sheltered workshops for people who are too delusional for their own good.

michael^3 wrote:

YanShen wrote:You might want to examine the academic credentials of the scientific elite, before you start ranting and raving. The bottom 90% of society does virtually nothing of intellectual worth.

Universities are mainly sheltered workshops for people who are too intelligent for their own good.

Yeah fancy that, putting a load of smart people together in a 'Workshop' and paying them very little money (comparatively) to work on difficult problems that can have a huge impact on the whole of humanity and spend the rest of their time teaching other people what they know.

Ridiculous idea. They should all be out digging ditches and praying to jeebus for goodness sake.

This disparaging of Universities doesn't have anything to do with the fact that on average someone who is highly intelligent and educated had rejected the ludicrous claims of middle eastern goat herders that thought bats were birds and couldn't count the number of legs on an insect does it?

michael^3 wrote:

YanShen wrote:You might want to examine the academic credentials of the scientific elite, before you start ranting and raving. The bottom 90% of society does virtually nothing of intellectual worth.

Universities are mainly sheltered workshops for people who are too intelligent for their own good.

Big lulz.

Tell you what. Go up to those weird egg-heads in the Universities who developed every medicine and technical gadget you ever used and which enabled you, your family and friends, etc. to lead the life you live and tell them that. Please do.

michael^3 wrote:

YanShen wrote:You might want to examine the academic credentials of the scientific elite, before you start ranting and raving. The bottom 90% of society does virtually nothing of intellectual worth.

Universities are mainly sheltered workshops for people who are too intelligent for their own good.

Can you lay out how one calculates one's level of intelligence to 'own good' ratio?

Fallible wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

YanShen wrote:You might want to examine the academic credentials of the scientific elite, before you start ranting and raving. The bottom 90% of society does virtually nothing of intellectual worth.

Universities are mainly sheltered workshops for people who are too intelligent for their own good.

Can you lay out how one calculates one's level of intelligence to 'own good' ratio?

Surely this is a task that only an intellectual elite can accomplish.