I am at a point in my social groupings that i no longer recieve intellectual feedback on the ideas i propose or attempt to debate. This has been a case for a period of time. I would generally reinforce my own thought with critisism from me self to help further my understandings on my general thoughts. This leads to a point of frustration and eventual conversations with dulled expressions and no more input then yes repeated. I decided to look into some of the High IQ groups for the potential to expand my peers and in turn my own understandings. I then realized i must undergo at the least, 1 test and in some cases much more.
Of course i would have no objection if the test made a degree of sense to me. However, i decided to send an email to the admissions department at a few of these groups detailing my objections. I personally felt it rather dehumanizing to have a test formulated with whatever rational algorith chosen to eliminate bias and potential discrepancies. Even with the math in place, the judge and jury on my intellect is left in the hands of questions and answers also created prior to my existence being recognized by the test givers and in turn still unrecognized by the test creator.
To have a test define my level of potential and current competence given a set of mathmatically improved questions felt rather unjust. I feel i aquire majority of my insight based on interaction with other like minds. I do not mean other individuals who perfectly align to my thought pattern, but rather minds open to evaluation of everything including that which has already been assigned as the correct path of thought.
If a group of individuals all of varying degree’s of supposed IQ come together for an intellectual debate, what are the odds that the group holding an open viewpoint as i mention above, would gain more from a member at 140 IQ in contrast to a group member with 100 as measured IQ? I will not claim independent research on the matter. I will not delve into the matter of proving my reasoning for disbelief, when what i am actually providing evidence for is to disprove the need to measure my own intellect. Counter productive to say the least.
My email described in detail my concerns, as my own personal motive for potential membership has no moral reason to include such a test. Seclusion from other less intellegent peoples forms exclusivity. Now we see the impact of such groups existing. Pure intellectual curiousness appears to be out the window, in place of potential jobs, careers, greater networking and of course core values now considered suprior to those who are of course excluded. I would not have a second thought discussing my intellectual curiosity with a gentlemen currently without home in contrast to a member in the highest ranking position in a government or similar. Striving to fuel a growing appetite for insight should not also carry with it restrictions based on taste.
I am at a point in my social groupings that i no longer recieve intellectual feedback on the ideas i propose or attempt to debate. This has been a case for a period of time. I would generally reinforce my own thought with critisism from me self to help further my understandings on my general thoughts. This leads to a point of frustration and eventual conversations with dulled expressions and no more input then yes repeated. I decided to look into some of the High IQ groups for the potential to expand my peers and in turn my own understandings. I then realized i must undergo at the least, 1 test and in some cases much more.
Of course i would have no objection if the test made a degree of sense to me. However, i decided to send an email to the admissions department at a few of these groups detailing my objections. I personally felt it rather dehumanizing to have a test formulated with whatever rational algorith chosen to eliminate bias and potential discrepancies. Even with the math in place, the judge and jury on my intellect is left in the hands of questions and answers also created prior to my existence being recognized by the test givers and in turn still unrecognized by the test creator.
To have a test define my level of potential and current competence given a set of mathmatically improved questions felt rather unjust. I feel i aquire majority of my insight based on interaction with other like minds. I do not mean other individuals who perfectly align to my thought pattern, but rather minds open to evaluation of everything including that which has already been assigned as the correct path of thought.
If a group of individuals all of varying degree’s of supposed IQ come together for an intellectual debate, what are the odds that the group holding an open viewpoint as i mention above, would gain more from a member at 140 IQ in contrast to a group member with 100 as measured IQ? I will not claim independent research on the matter. I will not delve into the matter of proving my reasoning for disbelief, when what i am actually providing evidence for is to disprove the need to measure my own intellect. Counter productive to say the least.
My email described in detail my concerns, as my own personal motive for potential membership has no moral reason to include such a test. Seclusion from other less intellegent peoples forms exclusivity. Now we see the impact of such groups existing. Pure intellectual curiousness appears to be out the window, in place of potential jobs, careers, greater networking and of course core values now considered suprior to those who are of course excluded. I would not have a second thought discussing my intellectual curiosity with a gentlemen currently without home in contrast to a member in the highest ranking position in a government or similar. Striving to fuel a growing appetite for insight should not also carry with it restrictions based on taste.