Hi, Diana,
Let me rebound on what you've said, I've got a few things to rant about...
:)
[great deal of snippage]
> I read a book on child development recently in which the writer identified
> intelligence as the ability to see patterns in their observations.
Patterning
> just means organizing and associating new information with previously
> developed mental hooks. Gifted children have an unusual ability to pick up
> all kinds of patterns and relationships in everyday experience.
It is, in fact, what IQ tests are supposedly testing : the ability to deduce
patterns from raw data. I believe that defining intelligence by this ability
is probably too restrictive. I have a friend that isn't too good at finding
logical patterns, but who seems to have incredible "intuitive" insights into
fields as diverse as art, politics, sociology or human psychology.
Unfortunately, he probably wouldn't get too good results on an IQ test, and
has repeatedly failed scholarship exams. I would *never* call him stupid
(*far* from it !), but then his scholarship shows me wrong. So much for
"objective" tests...
The fact is, he doesn't value such tests, and thinks they're boring and
insulting. The sad thing is that this most imaginative and creative person
is judged by society on criterions that show him to be far less than he
really is. This friend of mine is currently unemployed and I cannot see how
he will ever "fit in". Hopefully he'll find his own dynamic insight...
The capacity to form high-Quality judgments should be a part of *our*
definition of intelligence, but then how do you judge such ? The things that
interest us are not always in accord with what society at large is demanding
of its members, and its current definition of intelligence excludes people
that in the past might have been valued members of society, and who often
are at the vanguard of positive change.
Marco (glad to speak to you again, old pal !) told us how he's been deemed
"lazy" by his friends, because he doesn't engage in the kind of activities
that are sociologically valued (I'd almost add : "by the sheep"). I was
often accused of the exact same thing by teachers, parents and friends until
my interest in linguistics lead me into computers.
Now I'm a valued technician, earning a good salary. I've found a "bridge"
between society's values and mine's, but then I've always been lucky... ;o)
A little MOQ insight shows us that intelligence has only been defined by its
static component, which had dire social and psychological repercussions.
In ZAMM, Pirsig speaks about how the students he empathizes the more with
are the ones who are failing. The ones that can't find what's wrong with
them. Because they don't value the same things, they are deemed to be losers
and idiots, but if intelligence is about valuing what others considers
valuable, then it's the worst case of intellectual conformity, and would
never have landed us out of the Dark Ages. It is, in other words, a
self-contradicting definition.
In fact, if logical prowess, being "computer-minded", is a definition of
intelligence, then it tells more about what we, as a society, value than
about intellect itself.
Of course, before any one accuses me of building a strawman, they are some
people who *do* recognize this problem, and try to find ways to circumvent
the educational institutions' take on intelligence. A few years back, I
heard news about introducing an "emotional quotient" test, and putting more
funding into "creative courses" and such. I guess we all know what results
this had.
The institutional vision of intelligence (by which I do not mean the opinion
of academicians and intellectuals, but of the deciders and people at large ;
the ones who have a real influence, if you will :) is a static one. Their
only interest in it is *still* in how much social benefit they can reap from
it. I'd add that while neurologists and psychologists seem to me to be
making big advances in the domain of the workings of the "mind", they don't
seem to find any conceptual frame to validate or organize their new
knowledge. And so IQ tests are still delivered as the last static latch
western society found for measuring intelligence, even though most people
are now aware of their flaws. It's like using nuclear plants even though
everyone knows their usefullness is far outweighted by the problems they
pose : what do you replace them with ?
To understand what drove society to define intelligence by such restrictive
standards, we have to go back to the begining of this century. At this time,
two main factors influenced the adoption of IQ tests : big business and
positivism.
Big business needed methods to grade and test the people it would employ,
and because of the huge numbers of workers one had to manage, the old
methods of personal appraisal were no longer workable. OTOH, the mood of the
times was one of positivism : science would soon decipher all the mysteries
of the universe and nothing under the sun was beyond the power of rational
inquiry.
In an unholy union, those two factors produced one of the banes of the XXeth
century : standard tests. But what these tests *are* able to test has never
really been clearly defined. In the words of the american psychologist E. L.
Thorndike (1874-1949) about intelligence tests : "Just what they measure is
not known ; how far it is proper to add, substract, divide, multiply and
compute ratios with the measures obtained is not known ; just what the
measures signify concerning intellect is not known."
In the light of the MOQ, it is perhaps possible to hazard an hypothesis. If
what those test are testing is the ability to recognize logical patterns in
series, what they are measuring is the ability to form static latches of a
rational, causal nature. IOW, only a tiny fragment of the static side of
Q-intellect is measured, without regards to abilities of interpretation
(static latches of an non-causal/logical nature, such as those used in art
appreciation, politics, history, psychology or simple human relations), and
without ANY regards to the whole dynamic side of intellect, by which I mean
the creation of meaning, in whatever form. An ability which, I must stress,
CANNOT be tested, since no dynamic thing (by definition) can be measured by
a standard. Only Dynamic perception of Quality can judge those.
> I think all that Pirsig is doing in ZMM and Lila is attempting to organize
> "everything" into a pattern. Not necessarily because he thinks it's a
> worthwhile thing to do, but because he feels a complusion to do it. My
favorite
> part in Lila
> is where he analyses all the reasons not to create a metaphysics and then
> concludes
> with "aw go ahead and do it anyway, it's interesting." I could say the
same
> about running a mailing list;-)
Indeed. The tugging of "interest" *should* be a part of a MoQ definition of
intelligence.
It is the dynamic edge of intelligence, where new things are integrated in
our private intellectual world, either by creating new patterns or
assimilating old ones. Creating this mailing-list has been an excellent
idea, because it's created a space where we could reach our own static
latches on the MOQ, and find new dynamic insights in others.
>
> The concept of quality as a real thing has been important to me. I think
> I've followed my intuition more after reading Lila than I did before. Most
> of the work I do is creative in one way or another and when there are
> disagreements (which there always are) someone always says "oh but
> that's subjective." I don't usually launch into metaphysics to make my
point
> but knowing about the MOQ does give me more confidence in my own
> judgement.
And anyway, whoever shouts the loudest and last generally gains adhesion,
so... ;)
>
> After studying Lila for three years I've found some serious problems with
> the MOQ. I really can't take it as a complete theory any more. I've
> reached
> a plateau. I can't make any ground with the MOQ, and I'm fairly bored with
> going round in circles with it after all this time, but it still seems to
> be the
> best static latch I've got.
Diana, aren't I glad you're there... :)
I must confess, some of my retreating from the moq forums was due to the
exact same problem. While my service was time-consuming, my present job
isn't any less. But after a while, I felt I had to retreat and have some
time to think about all the things we had discussed and all the problems we
had uncovered in the MOQ. Going back to the text (when this forum decided to
re-start the LilaSquad) wasn't what I wanted anymore, and I felt that going
forward would need a bit of "slash'n'burn", first.
Emptying the cup is necessary, and I find that all too many people are
sloshing their tea around thinking what a great tea it is, if you get my
drift... ;)
Actually, I plan on trying not to write more than once a week. Subtituting
quantity for some Quality, I hope.
Love to you all
Denis
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:28 BST