I do want to apologize to Raghu for my too quick 'reading'of (actually, listening to) of his post. He had a right to complain. But I also agree with mjs below; raghu's argument doesn't save "intelligence" as an objective trait of a person..
Carrol > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 6:51 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] The Rise of the Evolutionary Psychology Douchebag > > > As soon as you refer to IQ you lose me. Can you restate your argument > > without such mythology. > > Raghu's argument is that intelligence is like beauty: there's > no scalar metric like IQ -- that's a myth, as he agrees -- but > we can all tell a stupid person from an intelligent person, just as > we can all tell an attractive person from a troll. > > It's an original argument -- or at least, I haven't heard it before -- > but it gives away a lot to the anti-intelligence crowd, like Carrol > and me. > > After all, everybody knows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; > what was beautiful to Rubens is pretty repulsive to a lot of people > nowadays. > > So it's odd to see Raghu in the same breath claiming that Obama > is 'objectively' more intelligent than Bush. How can something so > subjective be objectively determined? > > Perhaps this is shorthand. Perhaps the objectivity of Obama's > greater intelligence consists in the claim that most currently > living subjectivities would concur that I(Obie) > I(Bushie). > > Hmm. Well, would they? > > I think I know what lies behind all this foofaraw. Obie talks > like a teacher, and Bushie talks like a frat boy. That's what > it boils down to, really. > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
