Old Classics or New Literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

Eldest children have a statistically higher I.Q score, I'm not sure I.Q can be raised through nurture.

---

There's no genetic reason that eldest children should have a higher I.Q. score than their siblings, so I.Q. clearly CAN be affected by nurture. (I suppose there may be one possible reason, which is that older women are more likely to bear children with birth defects, but I think this alone can't explain the I.Q. differential.) The influence of nurture has also been proven with identical twin studies. Genetically identical twins who have been adopted and raised in different families can have significantly different I.Q.s. In addition, studies show that proper nutrition (as just one example) affects I.Q. -- which is just one example of nurture's impact.

My guess is that eldest children are more "adult oriented", because their significant relationships in their early life are with their parents. They are therefore more likely to achieve "adult-oriented" goals, including scoring well on I.Q. tests. Younger children are more "peer-oriented", because in addition to their relationships with their parents, they have early relationships with siblings. I'll grant this is just a guess.

I would be interested in reading about the twins actually. And yeh there's evidence to suggest that younger parents bear healthier children but I would assume it more likely comes down to the family unit in European/North American cultures if there are consistent trends among eldest, youngest and middle children.

I find IQ tests dubious considering they are based on certain knowledge the participant might have. I remember reading somewhere how black people in the 60's always scored lower than their white counterparts on IQ tests. It was later shown this was because many black people had never gone to highschool, or something to that effect, so they would not have had the knowledge to take the tests properly. I'm probably not relaying this quite accurately, but that was the gist of it.

There are people that regularly practice these tests to get higher scores. Right off the bat this should tell you something about the nature of these tests.

My anthropology teacher made a pretty good case against the validity of IQ tests once by using aborigines as an example. He said that these people would utterly fail a typical IQ test, but you could place 100+ items in a particular organization in front of them, and then they could repeat that from memory. Now I don't know about you, but the only people that I know that can pull off this kind of feat of memory are people who specialize in card and number memorization.

I'm not saying IQ tests have no validity, but what they test or prioritize doesn't tell the whole picture or give an accurate account of a person's intelligence. I've typically scored extremely high in English tests, and writing essays has always been extremely easy for me, but my math ability is just average. I have very high artistic talent/ability in both painting and music, but chemistry drives me bat**** crazy.

All I'm saying is that IQ tests are a little dubious in what they really say.

I've used the word dubious twice in this post. Double checking to see if it means what I think it means...yes. Inconceivable.

IQ tests aren't based on knowledge though and they seem to be pretty accurate, why Africans score fairly low and East Asians fairly high is a different argument.

IQ tests are based on knowledge. How can you actually test someone's IQ without a reference base of some sort? You can't. Recognizable symbols are still symbols with which we are all familiar with, but you showed an aboriginal certain symbols they might not know what to do with them.

I already mentioned people practicing IQ tests to score higher on them. If IQ tests weren't based on knowledge then it would be impossible to increase your score through practice.

Intelligence tests should use ten or more kinds of test before a generalisation can be made about a score. In practice they tend to focus on three areas : verbal reasoning, numerical aptitude, spatial awareness. I'm sure many of us are already saying but what about ... I find them a crude but perhaps interesting tool to determine a limited number of intellectual abilities. The post above saying the results can improve with practice is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vota

IQ tests are based on knowledge. How can you actually test someone's IQ without a reference base of some sort? You can't. Recognizable symbols are still symbols with which we are all familiar with, but you showed an aboriginal certain symbols they might not know what to do with them.

I already mentioned people practicing IQ tests to score higher on them. If IQ tests weren't based on knowledge then it would be impossible to increase your score through practice.

---

They usually gauge spatial reasoning with a series of logic puzzles, none of which rely on any knowledge base. You can improve through practice though so I agree, they aren't perfect.

That's interesting. I wonder why they emphasize spatial reasoning when basic Math and English skills are much more valued in general?

Well IQ isn't really 'intelligence' as most people would define it. If someone with, say a 110 IQ spent all of his time reading and studying he or she would certainly be more knowledgeable and contribute more to any discussion than someone with a 130 IQ who never learned to read and spent all of his time digging ditches... or something.

Spatial awareness is significant in lots of engineering tasks and tasks which requires the ability to "see" something three-dimensionally before it is made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eiseabhal

Spatial awareness is significant in lots of engineering tasks and tasks which requires the ability to "see" something three-dimensionally before it is made.

---

I suspect engineers as a group have a higher median IQ than most.

I assume my spacial awareness is pretty good. I remember having to make the most complex molecular model in the class and getting it right on the first try. The teacher kind of looked at me funny.

I've taken a few IQ tests and usually come out in the low to mid-130's, but I don't put much stock in it. I've had a couple of friends that were in the mid-140's and it felt like our intelligence levels were very even with each other.

I think Clopin's point about knowledge and experience playing a big factor is accurate.

hhhm, I clicked onto this thread thinking the title and the content of the thread would be related....

^ what you said. lol.
To the OP, there are also lots of lists of contemporary literature too. There is a very good top twenty five at quicklit for example. I would include a link, but i'ma newbie and the system won't let me.
I don't know the classics as well as some here, but is the author's body of work a factor in "canonization"?
For example would the fact that E.L. Doctorow has a fairly impressive body of work score points for his best work, where as someone like Claude Brown might get whacked because he only ever produced one great book? I know Harper Lee is the exception and most people consider To Kill A Mockingbird a modern classic. But still...
I also liked what the OP said about 1984 and some others making the grade because of the ideas put forth rather than the actual quality of the writing. I would add to that books that capture the spirit of a specific time, event, or social climate so well that they become synonymous. Dickens did this superbly, Fitzgerald had the roaring 20's, etc. I don't think anyone would call Roots a literary masterpiece, but does it matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by easy75

^ what you said. lol.
To the OP, there are also lots of lists of contemporary literature too. There is a very good top twenty five at quicklit for example. I would include a link, but i'ma newbie and the system won't let me.
I don't know the classics as well as some here, but is the author's body of work a factor in "canonization"?
For example would the fact that E.L. Doctorow has a fairly impressive body of work score points for his best work, where as someone like Claude Brown might get whacked because he only ever produced one great book? I know Harper Lee is the exception and most people consider To Kill A Mockingbird a modern classic. But still...
I also liked what the OP said about 1984 and some others making the grade because of the ideas put forth rather than the actual quality of the writing. I would add to that books that capture the spirit of a specific time, event, or social climate so well that they become synonymous. Dickens did this superbly, Fitzgerald had the roaring 20's, etc. I don't think anyone would call Roots a literary masterpiece, but does it matter?

---

Good points. I think the one about a body of work is interesting as we haven't really touched on it, though we skirted the issue a bit when discussing Cormac McCarthy.

I suppose it depends. Dickens clearly has a well known body of work, but there are authors like Melville for whom only one is regarded as a classic. Maybe Don Delillo's work will qualify.

By the way, from this thread we started the Nominations for modern classics thread where the intention is to recommend modern works as potential classics. I, personally, am bored by the extensive lists of books that are regularly posted in response to questions. They often don't say very much about what really recommends the books.

I'm much more interested in why posters nominate certain books in terms of ideas, narrative form and other stylistic features. I think it adds a bit more depth to the discussion.