Date: 2007-01-19 08:43 pm (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does Murray closely define "average".

Yeah, he plays pretty fast and loose with his terminology. The rhetoric reads more like an impassioned plea than a carefully diagrammed argument.

He writes:
While concepts such as "emotional intelligence" and "multiple intelligences" have their uses, a century of psychometric evidence has been augmented over the last decade by a growing body of neuroscientific evidence. Like it or not, g exists, is grounded in the architecture and neural functioning of the brain, and is the raw material for academic performance.


Now, I admit I'm a little behind on my reading, so I don't have a firm grounding in this sort of theory. But he doesn't even bother to cite a shred of the neuroscientific evidence he claims has piled up over the past century.

I will say this: I do think that our culture makes a strong correspondence between education and social class. And I do think it's dangerous to value certain types of education over others-- a master craftsman, for example, is a damn fine craftsman, and his or her skills should not be disparaged by the person with the MBA. So in that, I can agree with the author. Until he starts talking about Aztecs and Greeks. Then I have to punch him in the junk.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

sen_no_ongaku

June 2025

S M T W T F S
123 4567
891011121314
15161718 192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 11th, 2025 02:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios