Books and Intelligence

[novella]

jay, I'm certainly not trying to keep you in check. On the contrary, a little debate is very refreshing. I just don't think you make your points very well. You are definitely of the best-offense-is-a-good-defense school of debate, as if it's all about you.

On the main point, what a person chooses to read is strictly a matter of personal preference and taste, and while it does not reflect on intelligence at all, it's a clear indication of whether the person is intellectually curious, which is another thing entirely. And a vital sign of an active mind, IMO.

That said, some of the biggest dummies I know bought Chaos and Genius and Stephen Hawking's books and worked their way from cover to cover, as if looking at all those words would somehow make them better thinkers, as if by osmosis. They boast about reading the 'big' books, but have nothing original to say.

BTW, editors don't get paid well at all. I don't know where you got that impression. Sure, there are a few famous acquisitions people with their own imprints, but the majority of editors get paid on about the same scale as public school teachers, but without union benefits or the summer off.

 

[Ice]

On the main point, what a person chooses to read is strictly a matter of personal preference and taste, and while it does not reflect on intelligence at all, it's a clear indication of whether the person is intellectually curious, which is another thing entirely. And a vital sign of an active mind, IMO.

What would you say about people that read and enjoy a wide variety of books? Would you say they are intellectually curious or not?

 

[jay]

On the contrary, a little debate is very refreshing. I just don't think you make your points very well.

My points were -and are- fine in the context they were meant to be used in.
They were not meant as “‘reviews’” or, for that matter, a listing of fish breeds.

You are definitely of the best-offense-is-a-good-defense school of debate, as if it's all about you.

Sorry, when I see “jay” I’m kind of thinking it’s a lil’ bit about me.

On the main point, what a person chooses to read is strictly a matter of personal preference and taste, and while it does not reflect on intelligence at all, it's a clear indication of whether the person is intellectually curious, which is another thing entirely. And a vital sign of an active mind, IMO.

Well, some of us have tossed around the looseness of the term “intelligence”, which I initially chose only to replace “age”, and I think it _does_ fit better, or is more apt, for the case – but I ever so totally fail to see how if someone is not “intellectually curious” it has nothing (at all, no less!) with um, intelligence.
I would have just left this alone but you do seem to be contradicting yourself and even stressing it.
Not too get risqué but it’s not a stretch to say this would mean someone thinking about (or not thinking about), for example, exploring bi-sexuality (out of ‘curiosity’) that this has nothing (at all) to do with (their) sexuality.

BTW, editors don't get paid well at all. I don't know where you got that impression.

Better than scientists…T
The “impression” came from reading the actual impression left by a printer on an editor’s check. (This was a few years ago, back when we actually got paychecks (as opposed to simple Direct Deposit)
Not bad pay for having little to no skill in even basic grammer (sic) and/or how to guide a writer, by the likes of some stuff that gets published.
As always: rules have exceptions.

And with that, I will try to call it a day.
j

 

[novella]

jay,

Could you be more specific? How much do you think editors in the US make, on average? I was a full-time editor for 15 years in NYC, working in fiction, nonfiction, and sci/tech publishing. I do know what the pay scale is. Starting salaries are among the lowest in white-collar employment, and they don't climb very steeply from there.

Also, I did read this entire thread, believe it or not, so I'm not only referring to the last few posts when I say you don't make your points very well. You're very good at conflating meaning, whether intentionally or not.

For instance, a person who scores very highly on a conventional IQ test, is gifted at math from an early age, and has a great, fluent vocabulary might be considered intelligent, but if that person spends all of his free time surfing the net for porn and watching Seinfeld reruns, he is not intellectually curious.

Intellgence and intellectual curiosity are not the same thing. Nor are they necessarily related. By the same token, a slow and witless person might try very hard to self-educate throughout his life and be interested in learning new things all the time.

This is just one example of your failure to understand subtleties of meaning.

 

[Jennifer]

I disagree with jay on Harry Potter, but I'm not going to rabidly defend my right to read it. However, I do think the books you choose to read reflect something about your "intelligence" (for want of a better word) - or rather, how far you wanted to push your brain at the time.

I read the Da Vinci Code. I remain stunningly unimpressed. I'm not going to suggest that anyone who enjoyed it is less intelligent than I am. If you read the damn thing expecting nothing more than a mindless couple of hours then it was probably fine, but it was touted as the next great masterpiece and as a boundary-pushing phenomenon, as though the church was going to hold its hands up and say "Yeah, sorry, we've been hiding all this stuff for years." So in that sense I view it as an unintelligent choice, as many people read it on the basis of this mass hysteria which was unfounded in any merit of the book.

The same can be applied to Harry Potter. The books aren't works of literary genius - they're children's books, and seeing them as much more than that is, I think, a mistake. Again, I don't think reading them suggests stupidity - I read the sixth one the day it came out, and I don't consider myself stupid. The problem lies with the phenomenon of publicity which surround such books, when few of us would deny that there are better books around. I had to read the Half-Blood Prince the day it came out, because otherwise my friends would have called me to tell me the whole plot, rendering the whole exercise of reading it pointless (which I'm sure jay would say it is.) I think the popularity of such books is not doubt to a lack of intelligence in readers, but to a facet of the publishing industry I don't much like.

To clarify, I think it's perfectly acceptable in an intelligent person to read such books from time to time. However, I also think that it's only by reading more challenging works that one truly gains more from reading than watching TV - which gain, I am aware, is not something everyone is interested in. So I will read Harry Potter, and then go back to Ulysses, and consider that a good day's reading.

(I did feel so guilty a while ago over Harry Potter, however, as a lover of excellent and classic literature, that I read the fourth one in French. So at least there I improved my vocabulary - albeit in another language.)

 

[Renee]

Ohhhhh believe me, I knew what you were *trying* to achieve in your post. I was just giving you a blatant indication that your _attempt_ at irony was well beyond way-off the mark.
Don’t trip on the double-entendres…

Maybe if you (not necessarily you-you, but still) started trying a little offense you’d be a bit less defensive.
Granted it’s not a game but let’s not continue on trying to make excuses for me.
Worry about thyself.
Stop trying to figure me out.

We’re on a discussion forum, you toss fungos: I’m going to park them. You come with solid thought: we got ourselves a conversation.
And it damn well could be interesting!

j
who logged far too much ‘net time today…and will now go jump in the lake.

Your attempts to provoke and inflame me are as laughable as you suggestion that reading material somehow indicates or dictates a persons intelligence.

Indeed, we are on a discussion forum, which would suggest that one attempt to discuss their opinions rather than use insults, provocation, and inflaming remarks to present them. It is discussion that is interesting rather than verbal affronts; and discussion that may lend insight to ones intelligence rather than the material a person chooses to read.

Careful of the assumptions you make as they often will reflect more on you than the person you apply them to. You were wrong in your assumptions. This doesn't bode well for your asserted intelligence. Dare I say that your intelligence comes across at the very level that you wish to attribute to readers of Harry Potter.

 

[sirmyk]

How much do you think editors in the US make, on average? I was a full-time editor for 15 years in NYC, working in fiction, nonfiction, and sci/tech publishing. I do know what the pay scale is. Starting salaries are among the lowest in white-collar employment, and they don't climb very steeply from there.

I thought you might find this link interesting, although I'm not too sure how acurate it is: industry salaries I would guess these numbers are high, or at least the person who came up with these numbers was high.

For instance, a person who scores very highly on a conventional IQ test, is gifted at math from an early age, and has a great, fluent vocabulary might be considered intelligent, but if that person spends all of his free time surfing the net for porn and watching Seinfeld reruns, he is not intellectually curious.

My brother-in-law, for example, was tested with an IQ around 160, but has trouble spelling basic words (thay, wich, allumenum, etc.) and uses horrible grammar. He has no communications skills and somewhat keeps to himself. He has a PhD in physics and a major in mathematics. I don't think he's ever read fiction (schooling aside), besides Anime and graphic novels. He is considered a genius, but watches Pokemon with passion and plays RPGs and card-type games about ten hours a day. You could say he is only intellectually curious about two things: fantasy, and quantum physics.

Intellgence and intellectual curiosity are not the same thing. Nor are they necessarily related.

See above example.

By the same token, a slow and witless person might try very hard to self-educate throughout his life and be interested in learning new things all the time.

Look at me, for example.

 

[sirmyk]

(I did feel so guilty a while ago over Harry Potter, however, as a lover of excellent and classic literature, that I read the fourth one in French. So at least there I improved my vocabulary - albeit in another language.)

Je suis Harry Potter. Dear god!

 

[Jennifer]

Je suis Harry Potter. Dear god!

Indeed. I don't know if you're taking the mickey or not, but that's how I felt on first encountering the phrase "baguette magique".

 

[novella]

I thought you might find this link interesting, although I'm not too sure how acurate it is: industry salaries I would guess these numbers are high, or at least the person who came up with these numbers was high.

Those look about right to me. Note that the art director makes about 50% more than the editor.

I started in the biz as an editorial assistant and left my last full-time in-house gig as a managing editor with acquisitions powers. Some people call it a 'pink-collar ghetto' because the pay scale is so shitty.

Anyone who thinks those numbers are high ought to try living on a salary like that, paying rent, etc., in any major US city. Figure you take home net 60% after taxes to pay health care, rent/mortgage, and other living expenses.

 

[SFG75]

To clarify, I think it's perfectly acceptable in an intelligent person to read such books from time to time. However, I also think that it's only by reading more challenging works that one truly gains more from reading than watching TV - which gain, I am aware, is not something everyone is interested in. So I will read Harry Potter, and then go back to Ulysses, and consider that a good day's reading.

You are really on to something here. There is nothing wrong from "time to time" engaging in some escapist exercise, be it t.v. or a less than challenging book. In this example, I don't believe that it can be maintained that your intelligence is less if you engage in reading less than high-brow material from time to time.

 

[Ice]

Anyone who thinks those numbers are high ought to try living on a salary like that, paying rent, etc., in any major US city. Figure you take home net 60% after taxes to pay health care, rent/mortgage, and other living expenses.

60%? For some reason I assumed you paid less in tax than we do - that is slightly worse than the UK (assuming you are talking about average income families and not those in the higher tax bracket).

 

[Jennifer]

At this juncture I'd like to point out something jay said in the "required reading" thread, which suggests he may not be as tyrannical over low-brow literature as we might have thought...

“The Guilty Pleasure”... I’d imagine we all have some things we like in all fields that we like (or think are “good”) regardless of the actual achievement or quality or whatever.
But *knowing* what we like about it and what is flawed about it is a foundation to systematic and ideal thinking.

It's evidently a touchy issue, as no-one likes their basic intelligence being called into question. But I think there's opportunity for some kind of concensus that we're allowed the odd "Guilty Pleasure", if we retain the ability to see it as entertainment, and to criticise it accordingly.

 

[sirmyk]

Those look about right to me. Note that the art director makes about 50% more than the editor.

That's just fucked up. Notice they don't list Author... maybe they rounded down and decided to leave it off the list.

 

[novella]

60%? For some reason I assumed you paid less in tax than we do - that is slightly worse than the UK (assuming you are talking about average income families and not those in the higher tax bracket).

Well, in the US, you pay federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, and local property tax which goes to support the public schools. You also pay Social Security (mandatory), which mythologically you are supposed to get a benefit from after you retire but which looks less and less likely for someone my age (retirement or getting SS).


My hub and I bring home net 55% of our income and out of that we pay for our own healthcare ($700/month), mortgage, and other expenses.

I know taxation and mortgages are really high in the UK (hub is English and his mom and sis live there now), but at least you get healthcare and pensions out of it. To say nothing of very low university rates. (A decent private university here costs more than 30K/year in just tuition, not including room and board.)

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Well, in the US, you pay federal income tax, state income tax, local income tax, and local property tax which goes to support the public schools. You also pay Social Security (mandatory), which mythologically you are supposed to get a benefit from after you retire but which looks less and less likely for someone my age (retirement or getting SS).

My hub and I bring home net 55% of our income and out of that we pay for our own healthcare ($700/month), mortgage, and other expenses.

I know taxation and mortgages are really high in the UK (hub is English and his mom and sis live there now), but at least you get healthcare and pensions out of it. To say nothing of very low university rates. (A decent private university here costs more than 30K/year in just tuition, not including room and board.)

I can't believe how expensive it is to live in "The Land of the Free" Here you get 22% taken from your salary and that's it. We have free healthcare, free dentists (until you are 18), SS is not mandatory, and you can get a student loan for University which you can pay back at pretty much any rate you like.

 

[Shade]

22% is just income tax, Monkey. You also pay 10-11% National Insurance contributions. Roughly a third of income is taken up in direct taxation. Of course if you earn over £36,000, that goes up to 40% income tax plus National Insurance on the earnings over that.

 

[Stewart]

Is the UK tax system identical to that of New Zealand?

 

[Ice]

Shade - Monkey is in NZ. I assumed they were not identical even though we do pay 22% tax in our middle band. NI is compulsory and is currently 9.4% (11% if you do not pay superannuation). Superannuation is optional but that is normally a further 6%.

So for the average wage earner in the UK you have 37.4% deducted from your pay. Obviously if you fall in the higher tax bracket you then pay a lot more.

 

[Zolipara]

I always thought the tax in the US was really low compared to Europe. I pay about 35% direct income tax at the moment. Schools, universitys, healthcare is all free but we do pay a bit of extra tax on certain goods and services.