Hello Rachel,

You wrote i.a.

Quote Originally Posted by thefreeprisoner View Post
Hi Maarten,

Having said that, I am not sure IQ is an accurate thing to rely on (much as it gives my ego a lot of stroking) to assess the quality of research, seeing as it was also invented by a psychologist and controversies abound in the method of testing. I am sure you know all of this already.

Yes, I suppose so - and I don't believe a high IQ as such proves much or indeed is a clear concept. On the other hand (and what I also meant) is that it is a kind of SAT-score, and that's indeed what it is used to predict - Scholastic Aptitude, that is - and that succeeds statistically speaking fairly well. And yes: if one's students on average have not so high an aptitude for learning complex matters, and one is in business to graduate the average with a university-diploma, the quality of courses will have to get adjusted to allow the average to graduate. And this - very roughly, very sketchily - is what happened as the universities got "democratised" since the late nineteensixties. Also, it didn't happen (mostly) in the best universities, and that mostly because these still required high SAT-scores and because the professors there were generally too intelligent to believe postmodernism.

Anyway... high IQ and high intelligence are correlated, but the former is a far from perfect correlate of the latter. And since I am at it: Richard Feynman - Teejkay posted a video-link on this forum - was a genius in physics, at least; wrote beautifully about it (you should read his "Lectures on Physics" in your course of Holy Books, esp. in view of your IQ - I am serious!); and also spoke beautifully about modern science and its pseudo-varieties in "Surely you must be joking, Mr. Feynman!", esp. the pieces titled "Is Electricity Fire?", "Judging a book by its covers" and - in re psychology-as-a-science - "Cargocult science". Highly recommended, and if you don't know who Feynman was, read the Wikipedia. O, and he had an IQ of 124 (and since then poked fun at IQ-testing, understandably so: a misclassification of his scholastic aptitude of epic proportion. His biography by James Gleick goes by the - well-deserved - title "Genius").



However, one thing is clear, (which does prove your point, but doesn't rely on psychological research) and that is the fact that the amount of people admitted to University is increasing rapidly (in the UK at least) and a dilution of quality research would naturally follow, allowing dross to become mixed in with the gold. Unfortunately, in the water tank of ME research, the dross tends to float to the top and I think we can both agree on that.

Rachel xx

Well... there seem to be some really good scientists and remarkable personalities also to work for us. But if we are speaking of psychiatry and psychology, yes - in part. However, even there: professor dr. Wessely is NOT a stupid man. Not at all. Also, from what I have heard, he seems to be capable of being quite charming and he evidently has a nice professorial patter. And while I am personally quite sure a man of his intelligence is not honest in his publications about ME, I am not sure whether I understand and know all or most of his reasons for not being so, including the subconscious ones, as you may understand. (These appeal to my satirical glands. And a psychologist can do amazing things with them!)

As to the universities: These are allover the Western world not what they were from say 1900-1970 and have been much levelled or dumbed down. The hopeful thing is that this has happened to a far lesser extent in the real sciences, for the simple reason that these do require some real talents, and indeed are about something that is really and experimentally there.

Best regards,