Educational level

[ECOCKS]

The gentleman knocking formal education as being for "second rate minds" is himself a fool in that regard...at at least he lacks experience with some of the truly bright people in various disciplines for which a doctorate is a prerequisite.

In my case, I have a doctorate--but in law, where that was a required entry into the profession. I had no desire to practice, but wound up doing it for a decade anyway. My desire was to have the background. Some incredibly bright people were in school with me--certainly not "second rate minds" by any fair and objective measure.

My wife is a medical doctor and also the brightest lady I have known. Again, for a physician a doctorate is a requirement. While not all physicians are first-rate intellects by any means, a sizable number truly are.

Personally, I have never cared one way or the other about whether my mate had a formal degree or not, but I was quite interested that she be intelligent. It so happened that the lady I found is a physician here in Ukraine.

That said, in the FSU many people have gone through a university course of one sort or another. It is true that some are not very good schools, but that is true all over the world and is by no means a unique phenomenon here.

David

Good summation counselor. Welcome to RWD.

Ed

[Jack]

The gentleman knocking formal education as being for "second rate minds" is himself a fool in that regard...at at least he lacks experience with some of the truly bright people in various disciplines for which a doctorate is a prerequisite

Yes, I agree. If we do find cures for cancer on day, it will be largely due to the work of countless PhD's in biochemistry and other such researchers. To put down an entire class of people as second rate intellects or minions of fools is for me the true sign of stupidity 

On a side note and a little off topic. RWD has gotten a little more class and a whole lot more wiser with the participation of David

[Daveman]

As an interesting aside (which I've posted before), I read a statistic once, though I cannot remember the publication now other than to mention that it was something which didn't give me pause to question the numbers at the time, which stated that the average IQ of a Ph.D. holder is 127 (or perhaps 129).  That was a little surprising.  Of course that is 27 points above the national median, but seemed really low to be the average for "Dr.'s" in whatever field.  

IQ, in a nutshell, does measure one's ability to solve little puzzles/brain teasers as opposed to an ability to master one's field of choice.  However, it does seem that the Ph.D IQ average would be higher. 

[dbneeley]

As an interesting aside (which I've posted before), I read a statistic once, though I cannot remember the publication now other than to mention that it was something which didn't give me pause to question the numbers at the time, which stated that the average IQ of a Ph.D. holder is 127 (or perhaps 129).  That was a little surprising.  Of course that is 27 points above the national median, but seemed really low to be the average for "Dr.'s" in whatever field.  

IQ, in a nutshell, does measure one's ability to solve little puzzles/brain teasers as opposed to an ability to master one's field of choice.  However, it does seem that the Ph.D IQ average would be higher. 

Dave,

I quite agree that IQ is not a particularly good measure of much beyond the ability to take a standardized test well.

That said, you seem to have a common misperception. In terms of IQ scores, the generally accepted level to be considered a "genius" is 140 or above--which in total represents about one quarter of one percent of the population. 120 to 140 is considered "very superior" intelligence; 110 to 119 "superior" and 90-110 is considered average. (Approximately fifty per cent of the entire population falls between 90 and 110, or "average" intelligence."

That would seem to indicate that an average score of 127 among graduate Ph.D. holders isn't quite as bad as you may think.

There is an organization called the Mensa Society--to get into it you must score in the top 2% of the population on a standardized IQ test. I visited three chapters to see if I wanted to become an active member--and in all three cities, I found the typical Mensa members who actually participated were, as one person put it in a rather memorable turn of phrase, a "bunch of fat losers." At the time, there were many members who weren't very active who were much different and much more successful in life (at least I am told there were), but those who went to the gatherings I attended weren't very successful either professionally or in their personal lives either from all appearances. Thus, I never renewed the membership I was actually suckered into receiving when a lady I was dating arranged for the local newspaper to make write a story illustrated by photographs of a few of us taking the Mensa exam. To be part of the background scenery, I agreed as a favor to take the darned thing--even though my prior scores on various tests would have qualified had I been actually interested in joining. Once I was admitted to membership on the basis of the silly test, I went to a few of their gatherings with the results mentioned.

Most of the most financially successful people I have met are of average intelligence--although the very most successful usually have some incredibly bright people working for them. As it turns out, a knack for business success is not something that is necessarily accompanied by high intelligence--I have often thought that kind of intelligence may often get in the way, in fact. Very often, the brighter someone is the more questions they wind up asking--which makes determining a particular course or objective very difficult at times.

Also, it is interesting to note that people often make mistakes about the intelligence of others because of relatively meaningless indicators. For example, both George W. Bush and John Kerry went to Yale and received Masters degrees there. George W. actually had slightly better academic records than Kerry did--yet the majority perception has been that Bush is somehow mentally deficient and Kerry was the "smart" one.

In my case, many men would be extremely intimidated by my wife. As I said before, she is without question the brightest lady I have known. Fortunately, I am simply very proud of her and not intimidated by that sort of thing. In fact, I have always found very smart ladies extremely attractive.

In my wife's case, her biggest weakness is her inexplicable taste in husbands--but I work to try to keep her from discovering this particular fact!   

David

[Blues Fairy]

Having been brought up in an R&D town whose population largely consisted of degreed researchers and university students/alums, I've always had a high regard for higher degrees.  The PhDs I get to meet here, however, are surprisingly clueless about anything except their particular field of study.  These PhDs, particularly those employed by state colleges, are also fiercely and irrationally liberal (not an indicator of high intelligence in my book  ) - a product, I assume, of having zero experience, or interest, in the business world.  I also notice that some of my old-time friends, whose intelligence and common sense I had never doubted, become increasingly liberal after a long career in academia and exposure to those circles.  Therefore, I wouldn't say Shosty is entirely, 100%, wrong.

[pitbull]

I also notice that some of my old-time friends, whose intelligence and common sense I had never doubted, become increasingly liberal after a long career in academia and exposure to those circles.  Therefore, I wouldn't say Shosty is entirely, 100%, wrong.

I have observed a similar phenomenon - academics are overwhelmingly liberal, in both state and private colleges and universities.

However, I've observed that the opposite phenomenon is also true. If I meet/see on TV a hopelessly brainless redneck, a proud owner of GED and a truck, and one totally certain that all Russians are communists, they turn to be fiercely conservative, the worst specimen belonging to the tea-party movement.

[Blues Fairy]

a hopelessly brainless redneck, a proud owner of GED and a truck, and one totally certain that all Russians are communists, they turn to be fiercely conservative, the worst specimen belonging to the tea-party movement.

What's so horrible about owning a truck and being proud of it?
As for Russians=communists, such a redneck would not be too far from the truth, as the vast majority of Russians indeed have a profoundly statist mentality and think little of the free market system. 

[dbneeley]

I have observed a similar phenomenon - academics are overwhelmingly liberal, in both state and private colleges and universities.

However, I've observed that the opposite phenomenon is also true. If I meet/see on TV a hopelessly brainless redneck, a proud owner of GED and a truck, and one totally certain that all Russians are communists, they turn to be fiercely conservative, the worst specimen belonging to the tea-party movement.

You've apparently been drinking the Kool-Aid put out by the mostly leftist mainstream media regarding the Tea Party. I know many people who are a part of that movement, and very few are as depicted by the press and, of course, by the Democrats.

The one common theme of the Tea Party is that the government must get spending under control.

Of course, they are huge believers in the Constitution, which the past few years Congress has seemed to increasingly ignore.

David

[Boethius]

Having been brought up in an R&D town whose population largely consisted of degreed researchers and university students/alums, I've always had a high regard for higher degrees.  The PhDs I get to meet here, however, are surprisingly clueless about anything except their particular field of study.  These PhDs, particularly those employed by state colleges, are also fiercely and irrationally liberal (not an indicator of high intelligence in my book  ) - a product, I assume, of having zero experience, or interest, in the business world.  I also notice that some of my old-time friends, whose intelligence and common sense I had never doubted, become increasingly liberal after a long career in academia and exposure to those circles.  Therefore, I wouldn't say Shosty is entirely, 100%, wrong.

George Soros, Ted Turner, Ted Gill, Michael Bloomberg, John Doerr, Ron Burkle, and Gary Winnick have all built multi billion dollar businesses.  All are also "liberals", known for funding many such political and social causes.  I don't think one can make a correlation between running a business and political perspectives, nor do I think your comment was accurate.

[Shostakovich]

Having been brought up in an R&D town whose population largely consisted of degreed researchers and university students/alums, I've always had a high regard for higher degrees.  The PhDs I get to meet here, however, are surprisingly clueless about anything except their particular field of study.  These PhDs, particularly those employed by state colleges, are also fiercely and irrationally liberal (not an indicator of high intelligence in my book  ) - a product, I assume, of having zero experience, or interest, in the business world.  I also notice that some of my old-time friends, whose intelligence and common sense I had never doubted, become increasingly liberal after a long career in academia and exposure to those circles.  Therefore, I wouldn't say Shosty is entirely, 100%, wrong.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Einstein

BF -- I'll take what I can get.

Ya, a continental doctoral degree probably designates wide learning instead of the specialized gauntlet a modern Ph.D. runs.  And my comments, too, are not from the sidelines.  I'm a CTO for a tech start-up.  I work on a major US campus and am affiliated with another university.  I've been managing Ph.D's for years.  Interesting Mishima's comment about cancer - that is our business.  Our devices have been facilitating the cure of cancer for years, all over the world.  We work with some interesting people: Nobel laureates, PIs who run clinical trials funded with Federal funding to the tune of 100s of millions - some are the top shelf in American science.  That is an interesting debate, however; the cure of cancer - personally I think it is a social problem, not a medical one.  In many ways, medicine just wipes the spittle from the chins of those who won't smarten up.  There is a debate as to whether we continue to fund it.

And Ph.D's - a lot of them just went on because they did not know what else to do.  Brilliant.  What do we find in this elite?  Nutty professors who love any arcana that has no practical value, those with encyclopedic memories, excellent test takers.  You can spot an over educated person because they never offer solutions, only options - they are excellent at reciting.  But there are plenty of competent and hardworking people, creative, bold and helpful, great to work with.  They are just not in the top tier.

The second rate is fine. Think if your FSU girl quest landed a 9 in anything: looks, intelligence, virtue?  Not doing too bad.  A Ph.D. is respectable - certainly a lot better than the 'minions of morons".  It's just that the ones who've got a real spark go to their goal directly - think B. Gates, they don't need the hand holding - they blow off Harvard, same as the guy who founded Facebook.  But Gates and Co. are second rate - they introduce a wrinkle that affects a generation or two.  The first rank rarely enter the public eye, the public does not know how to take them -- these are the ones who set the debate for the next centuries: Nietzsche, Bhodi Dharma -- people so far ahead of their age that their works are sold for scrap paper - what do they have to do with a Ph.D. -- they create what it is that Ph.D.'s go to school for.  That is the test of intellectual brilliance: to ride it out without recognition - to live in your own light, something J.C. knew about - imagine that: being so certain of yourself that you let 'em crucify you for it -- that'll keep impressing people long after the name Jobs will only illicit the kind of snore that the name Carnegie now commands. That's the first tier - you know them by their fruits, not their degree.

[Blues Fairy]

George Soros, Ted Turner, Ted Gill, Michael Bloomberg, John Doerr, Ron Burkle, and Gary Winnick have all built multi billion dollar businesses.  All are also "liberals", known for funding many such political and social causes.  I don't think one can make a correlation between running a business and political perspectives, nor do I think your comment was accurate.

Soros is a notorious USA-hater who has stated that China has a better-functioning government.  

Boethius, I'm sure you know how fascism is advanced through merging of big business and the government apparatus, creating above-market ties and mutual favors and thus eliminating smaller players and stifling free competition.  Of course such big businesses will be interested in promoting the regulation and big-government agenda as it benefits them directly at the expense of others ("too big to fail", etc). I would say that the bigger the business, the more likely its owner is to form such ties and declaratively jump on the liberal bandwagon, in order to gain and keep the benevolence of those in power, and, if smart enough, steer it in the desired direction.  Do you really believe the above mentioned gentlemen have the good of the country at heart when they declare and promote their liberal views?

[Misha]

The PhDs I get to meet here, however, are surprisingly clueless about anything except their particular field of study.

Quite unlike most PhD's that I meet. Besides, the same could be said about many people with a focused interest in one thing and one thing only. You can find individuals who have memorized all there is to know about baseball trivia or a particular make of car, yet will be completely clueless about everything else 

These PhDs, particularly those employed by state colleges, are also fiercely and irrationally liberal (not an indicator of high intelligence in my book  )

Your bias sees being liberal as irrational. Has nothing to do with intelligence per se.

I also notice that some of my old-time friends, whose intelligence and common sense I had never doubted, become increasingly liberal after a long career in academia and exposure to those circles.  Therefore, I wouldn't say Shosty is entirely, 100%, wrong.

I know more than my share of very conservative academics.

[Misha]

And Ph.D's - a lot of them just went on because they did not know what else to do.  Brilliant.  What do we find in this elite?  Nutty professors who love any arcana that has no practical value, those with encyclopedic memories, excellent test takers. 

Yes, professors never invent anything useful  Here is just a list of inventions by a bunch of "nutty" professors from one university likely from one year of research and the list from this one university is likely not complete: http://www.otc.utexas.edu/News/UTAustinProfessorsPresent.jsp. Your ignorance as to the contribution that professors and researchers with PhD's make to society is sad but speaks volumes about you...

[Shostakovich]

Yes, professors never invent anything useful  Here is just a list of inventions by a bunch of "nutty" professors from one university likely from one year of research and the list from this one university is likely not complete: http://www.otc.utexas.edu/News/UTAustinProfessorsPresent.jsp. Your ignorance as to the contribution that professors and researchers with PhD's make to society is sad but speaks volumes about you...

I never said they don't make contributions - just said they are not of the first rank.  I hope they make contributions - my livelihood depends on it.  Reread without the acrimonious lens and you'll see.

[pitbull]

You've apparently been drinking the Kool-Aid put out by the mostly leftist mainstream media regarding the Tea Party.

You apparently like to jump into conclusions 

I am not affiliated with a particular party and like to make conclusions for myself. It has just been my observation that conservatives, especially on the extereme end, tend to be uneducated, ignorant and religious at the same time.

The intellectual elite on the other hand tend to be liberal. True for most societies, not just for the US.

[OlgaH]

Soros is a notorious USA-hater who has stated that China has a better-functioning government.  

I don't think his a notorious USA-hater just because of his critics and his opinion on the World order set by U.S. and his wish to remove Bush from office  

Soros is also famous by donating to anti-communist groups in Eastern Europe and particularly his role in the  transition from communism to capitalism in Hungary. Yes, it was not easy for him to say such statement but you should take it in the content "There is a really remarkable, rapid shift of power and influence from the United States to China. China has risen very rapidly by looking out for its own interests. They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well. Today China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States" China is the first  major foreign owners of US Treasury Securities.

There was a commercial on the US TV. I saw it 2-3 times, after it was banned, but that commercial I think would go well with the Soros' bitter statement, that in my view means that China's government knows what it is doing to become a major player in the World economy and geopolitics as well.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYKAbRK_wKA[/youtube]

[pitbull]

Soros is also famous by donating to anti-communist groups in Eastern Europe and particularly his role in the  transition from communism to capitalism in Hungary. Yes, it was not easy for him to say such statement by you should take it in the content "There is a really remarkable, rapid shift of power and influence from the United States to China. China has risen very rapidly by looking out for its own interests. They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well. Today China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States" China is the first  major foreign owners of US Treasury Securities.

Have to agree with this quote. Like it or not, Chinese government is much more efficient at getting things done than American government.

[Blues Fairy]

Your bias sees being liberal as irrational. Has nothing to do with intelligence per se.

True, rational liberals are a rarity - but they exist, even on this forum.

Have to agree with this quote. Like it or not, Chinese government is much more efficient at getting things done than American government

"Getting things done" is a motto of any dictator(ship).  Hitler and Musso were incredibly efficient in getting things done.  However, I don't think I would prefer such efficiency to the slow process of a constitutional democracy with separated powers. 

[OlgaH]

"Getting things done" is a motto of any dictator(ship).  

"Getting things done" (The Art of Stress-Free Productivity) an organization by David Allen  
http://www.davidco.com/

Hitler and Musso were incredibly efficient in getting things done.  

as any other government in this World, or a single businessmen or a politician on the stage    It is about different approaches.

However, I don't think I would prefer such efficiency to the slow process of a constitutional democracy with separated powers.  

Nobody even argues about the preferences. The slow process is going in Russia right now, and I think there will be time when China will come to a constitutional democracy with separated powers as well.

[OlgaH]

...  merging of big business and the government apparatus, creating above-market ties and mutual favors and thus eliminating smaller players and stifling free competition.  Of course such big businesses will be interested in promoting the regulation and big-government agenda as it benefits them directly at the expense of others ("too big to fail", etc).

Reminds me two government agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with their "getting things done" particularly "to help low-income families" and mortgage crisis. And who got the butter - bailouts and loans? of course Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

[acrzybear]

I am not affiliated with a particular party and like to make conclusions for myself. It has just been my observation that conservatives, especially on the extreme end, tend to be uneducated, ignorant and religious at the same time.

Interesting point of view Pitbull

Let's see what category I fall into

I only have a GED= uneducated & ignorant

I own several guns and drive a pickup (in Texas no less)= redneck

I don't subscribe to a set religion, I believe that if there is anything after I die then I will be judged on my actions not money given to some idiot(s)

Although I work for the government, I agree with our founding Fathers that the federal government's interest should be with national  security, education etc... and the individual states should govern themselves.  I don't want the government telling me I can't own a gun or what kind of car I have to buy and unlike the idiots in Washington D.C I can make a budget and not spend money that I don't have.   I believe in the death penalty (and if it were up to me that would include child molesters), I believe in a woman's right to choose and I think that marijuana should be legalized like alcohol (with penalties for driving under the influence etc..)

My experience with the educational elite has been that they are very intelligent, like to spend their time telling each other of their great achievements while they look down on others, but they have no common sense.

Everyone has something to offer, with some you just have to dig more to find it.

[Misha]

My experience with the educational elite has been that they are very intelligent, like to spend their time telling each other of their great achievements while they look down on others

Yet, paradoxically, IMHO the ones doing precisely this in this thread are the ones who don't have a PhD 

[dbneeley]

The debate about people holding Ph.D. degrees compared to the rest of the population shows how untutored so many people are in logical thinking and the difference between statistically valid research and anecdotal evidence.

As always, there is a huge variety of people holding or lacking degrees with a wide mix of characteristics both positive and negative. Opinions based upon perceptions of only a few examples are often flawed--yet so many of us cling to them for reasons of our own.

While it is not at all true that liberals or conservatives either one have any sort of monopoly on intelligence, rational thought, or education, I would indeed suggest that a relatively high percentage of the most visible elitists are liberals. 

David

[Misha]

I would indeed suggest that a relatively high percentage of the most visible elitists are liberals. 

David

Define elitist. Also, vision is often selective, as we see what we want to see and ignore all else.

[Faux Pas]

I am not affiliated with a particular party and like to make conclusions for myself. It has just been my observation that conservatives, especially on the extereme end, tend to be uneducated, ignorant and religious at the same time.

Really? My observation is, I could use that same description for the liberals I know and likely 2-1.  Both sides of that political spectrum have their fair share of "intellectual elite". Anyone that thinks either far right or far left can't be considered intellectual elite IMHO