From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Jealousy (from the pages of omni....)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:37:06 GMT

In article <C16HoG.IGF@cs.dal.ca> kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>>Gilbert writes:
>>>I write:
>
>
>>>     that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and that intelligence
>>>     is in the mind of the thinker).   Are these people void of human
>>This is bending the analogy a bit too much.  The beholder is the observer,
>>while the thinker is the user.  You might argue that both are "observing",
>>but I think a basic problem is that everyone perceives themselves to be
>>"optimum thinkers" relative to their own expectations.  Any suggestion
>>of an "objective standard" is not only a bit foreign, but uncomfortable.
>
>	The analogy is quite valid I assure you.  The eye beholds...the 

No, not at all.  Sorry.

>	mind thinks.  Beauty is analyzed in the first case...intelligence, 
>	in the second.  If I see something beautiful I will know it.  
>	If I think someone is intelligent, I will also know that.  Of 

The discussion has been about being able to objectively measure
intelligence.  The debate has been that it cannot be effectively done.
To assert that it is always subjective is not only an extreme position,
but ridiculous.  

>	course, all things are relative to one's own experience.   
>
>	Note:  I didn't say 'intelligence IS the mind of the thinker'
>	       If I had wanted to say that, I wouldn't couple
>	       it with the 'beauty-beholder' statement, 
>	       not knowingly anyways.	
>>>     nature because their wisdom prohibits them from fulfilling the
>>>     requirements?  
>>Again, please clarify.  I feel as though I've missed a chapter.
>>Maybe I'm too stupid to intuit this without a feeling that I'm 
>>assuming too much.
>
>
>
>	You're not stupid...unless you say it.  What I said can be

I'm stupid if I say I'm stupid?   I'll have to assume that this is
a flippant remark, since if it is part of your position, it is again
ridiculous.

>	summed up in a phrase, "Wise people don't flaunt their wisdom".   
>	[subst. intelligent/wise]
>
>>>     Mensans are no more gifted than their 'highest value' member, 
>>"highest value"?  Most moral?  Most valued in some abstract sense?
>>Highest IQ?  Most intelligent by some unknown, objective criteria?
>>Most liked?  Highest position in the organization?  (I hope not)
>
>	Unless this is an open declaration of mischief, I suggest you 
>	reassess this trivial pursuit.   (If, off chance, you are lacking 
>	in either intent or intuition, 'highest-value' means 
>	highest-scoring Mensan indoctrinee or something to that effect.)

Wise people should make use of their wisdom, or they are themselves
useless.  The degree of "flaunt" is, I admit, in the eye of the beholder.
You must realize that some have a very low threshold of what they perceive
as "flaunting their intelligence".  Sometimes it is when the opponent
in a debate wins.

>>More than the 'highest value' member of Mensa?  Why?  What criteria
>>are you referring to?
>>>     would you rather belong to?  
>>Well, gee, I don't know.
>
>	I shouldn't be surprised
>
>ps:	I'm really not this cruel %99.99994 of the time...however, I 
>	have a low tolerance for elitists and those that ride the 
>	intellectual ferris wheel.

Cruel?  You really don't come off as cruel at all.  Just, well, muddled.
>
>	...up, down, 'round and 'round...not a destination to choose.

Yes, that's how I would describe it.

It's fine to say that there's something wrong with intelligence tests or
some group that you perceive as elitist.  But to say that intelligence
is always subjective is using quite a different definition of "intelligence"
than we've been debating.  Further, it is not an effective way of
addressing the issue of what we others have been discussing.  It's as
though you've said, "Bush is a bad man" and tried to prove it by saying,
"But Bush is defined as 'Hitler', see?"

It's also fine to get fired up about "elitists", but approaching the
issue with non-arguments accomplishes nothing.  Certainly nothing to
change the minds of the target "etlitists".
>
>	(...and I'm always cruel to myself    :)   )

Freedom of choice, and all :-) .

Entertaining post, otherwise.

GMS