In the establishment of tests designed to weigh the intelligence of any individual's capacity for knowledge, it is arguable that the overall calculation is formulated by a populous opinion, moreover that of factual information.
Due to the amount of resources made available for the expansion of one's individual knowledge, there are simply too many subjects to be explored, to ever truly certify a specific acclamation of knowledge or to accompany any realistic measure of truth in totality.
Hypothetically, we can easily conduct innumerable experiments whereby we can weigh one subject against another, and seldom will these results produce exacting results, or share relevance greater than the other.
In the case of mathematics and sciences, certain establishments can be made to prove irrefutable truth's containing only one true conclusion, and even still, such formulas often lead only to the next arrangement of unsolved equations.
Thus, in determining a score relevant to one's cognate intelligence, it is in fact a matter of probability, more than that of scientific or mathematical equation with any resolute or absolute definition.
Perhaps a greater example can be allocated given Napoleon Hill's; "Think and Grow Rich" book published in the early 1900's where he takes philosophical thinking, and weighs it against the sciences of understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, and the actions required to employ one's knowledge.
In chapter 5, Hill speculates that many people undermine the true value of knowledge. Using a wide variety of examples, he stresses that in the case of Henry Ford, the general public challenged his knowledge due to his lack of "schooling."
However, if one is to mimic, or memorize a vast abundance of knowledge, and does not conceive the greater principle for the acquisition to be expanded upon afterward, then the knowledge is no greater than that of teaching an African Grey parrot to recite certain words or phrases. Clearly, it might appear the parrot has a formal gene of sort, or the capacity to do so, but it does not solidify any truth to the parrot's intelligence.
As was in question with Henry Ford, after being publically ridiculed, and even having been rumored as being called an "ignorant idealist, or ignorantly rich," it was implied he was less than intelligent enough to be seen by many as worthy to possess the great wealth he had built and had acquired.
Certifiably, an IQ test can be seen as a great prop, or study tool to increase one's chief aim of proving their knowledge is sound, however, this does not justify the intelligence through practical or logical application, as aforementioned with the African Grey parrot learning catchy phrases, or mimicking the intellect or intelligence of human speech.
Henry Ford was eventually brought on trial to be weighed in the eyes of the people to determine if a man of his considered "lack of knowledge" should be respected, and uncontested to keep the fortune he had built, and was continuing to build.
Although Ford struggled on the stand to answer some scholastic questions, he turned the tables in the courtroom, when he simply stated, and I'm paraphrasing; "look I may not, and do not know the answers to many of these questions. However, upon my desk is a device with 12 buttons, to wit, should such an improbable question arise during the course of business, I can simply push a button, call on any number of intelligent employee's and have the answer within minutes."
He closed the case against himself, with a rebuttal; "Therefore gentlemen; who might be considered more intelligent now?"
Respectively, Ford Motors is still a very well run, solid operation in the American automotive industry. Even though I am a Chevrolet lover, I reserve a great measure of admiration for Henry Ford's accomplishments, and ultimately his intelligence and perseverance!
In closing,I firmly believe IQ tests do serve their purpose, but when we understand the demographics of knowledge at the root principle of the very word "educate", we can see the word derives from a Latin word "educo" which means to educe, to draw out, or to develop from within.
Therefore, to attempt to scale or weigh ourselves and our intelligence solely on the basis of an IQ test clearly lacks insight, and ultimately limits one's true intelligence, for in most cases, the information assembled in an IQ test is merely randomized, and may not constitute any substantial truth to the results they provide, nor the true intelligence a person possesses.
Meanwhile, I took a literary IQ test the other day just for kicks, and scored a 102, against an average low score of 55, and a high of 155. Ironically, I currently hold an 8th grade education according to the "status quo" -Go figure!
Should I have come to believe an IQ test held more truth, then debate, I would have reserved my agrument.
No comments:
Post a Comment