The Internet and our Classmates

<p>When you think about it - pretty much every Internet website - pretty much every medium of academic or philosophical discussion you find on the Internet - is populated by people who are among the smartest few students in their high schools/middle schools. When I think of mine, I can only think of at most 20 (this may be a large overestimate) people who are smart + motivated enough to actually read books on the popular science level - at the level of say, the Selfish Gene of Richard Dawkins. Even the popular science books are only read by the more intelligent and motivated individuals (maybe the top few percentiles of intelligence). </p>

<p>It only gets worse. State universities capture the disproportionate majority of students, and most of those students are not particularly smart or motivated.</p>

<p>Yet, the Internet seems to be full of intelligent motivated students who seem to have come out of nowhere. Even the online gaming forums I went to had a large contingent of people who did CTY Talent Search. </p>

<p>Maybe more in my high school, but my middle school had pretty much less than 5 people smart or motivated enough to even pursue popular science texts. Now, none of them are pursuing anything remotely theoretical. It's pathetic.</p>

<p>Only a very minute number of those in "gifted" (not really)/Honors classes have students who are motivated enough just to read a freaking popular science book. The number, of course, reduces to almost 0 of them in the non-Honors classes.</p>

<p>Maybe they don't like science? You're saying that reading a couple science books makes you "better" or "more intelligent" than someone who reads, for example, Discipline and Punish by the French philosopher Michel Foucault? </p>

<p>Since you love it so much, why don't you go shove Scientific American up your ass.</p>

<p>Which leads me to the question...has anybody else read Elegant Universe? :D
It's the nerd stereotype..we claim the internet for ourselves! Mwhahahaha...
But, our counterparts use the internet too..Look at myspace :D
But, it could be that certain traits correlate to certain websites which correlate to intelligence and so fort. Remember correlation is not causation...So CC won't make you smart!</p>

<p>You know, aside from assigned reading, I really would never pick up a science magazine or science-based book. I'm just not interested in that genre -- classic literature for me. However, I understand what you're trying to say, and rather disagree -- there are plenty of low-intelligence/low-motivation websites out there. I can point to a role-playing game I used to (and sometimes still do) play -- half the people are complete and utter idiots.</p>

<p>It really depends on the purpose of the website; to have fun, and you'll get people of all intelligences, mainly because they find that purpose interesting; to have intelligent discussion and it'll be a lot more elitist.</p>

<p>Darcy: Really. Chill out. Inquiline also says "Now, none of them are pursuing anything remotely theoretical." The OP is using science as an example, I think. No one could argue that reading Foucault means one is stupid/not motivated enough.</p>

<p>InquilineKea: For some reason I thought you were home schooled? </p>

<p>There are millions of high school students in hundreds of thousands of high schools nationwide. You take even 2% of each school and you have thousands of people who are coming on here. It is simply because we are in such a concentrated space that there seems to be so many. It's kind of like the people applying for college on here ARE NOT typical students. </p>

<p>Oh and I HATE science magazines. But I love futuristic science novels.</p>

<p>^^ I think college now so not homeschooled.</p>

<p>I believe intelligence is just the general heading for it's many sub-categories:
<a href="http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Blah, Garner's Theory of Multiple intelligence is just to bloat people's self-esteem</p>

<p>LOL! What you mean "Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence" isn't intelligence!!!</p>

<p>HOW COULD YOU!</p>

<p>It's not just here - it's also all across the Internet. You see all of these interesting discussions on academic blogs, on academic websites, and all sorts of books of an academic content have been released - yet absolutely no one from one's high school has them.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that everything on the Internet is academic- all I'm saying is that the Internet exposes you to an audience far more intelligent than the audience in high school - and that you can find that audience if you choose to do so. In fact, it gives the impression that there is a large and active community that is able to sustain itself even though it only manages to capture a very very small percentage of the population. But yet if you take all academic communities together - you still find that none of your fellow HS students have ever engaged them. It's frustrating.</p>

<p>And no, I was never homeschooled. It's just that I argue for it since public schooling really killed my imagination for a number of years (an imagination I was only recently allowed to develop). I never had the imagination to pursue textbooks on my own time since I thought that I was among the smartest people in the school - and was discouraged from pursuing anything more theoretical. Sad thing is that I also thought I was so unique and special as well. But a wider exploration of the Internet killed such conceptions of mine. I just went to college early and recently went for low course loads and I finally developed an academic and philosophical maturity that I never developed in the past (by reading and writing a lot). So I'm still angry and resentful towards public education (don't know how long the anger will last).</p>

<p>I'm not pure science. I appreciate sociology, psychology (especially cognitive psychology), neurobiology, economics, and the other social sciences. In fact, my anger towards school is some sort of a product of the fact that I never had the imagination to self-educate myself in those fields until last year (though if I stayed in HS I would have done AP Psych self-study - actually I did do that - take a few APs in college :p). And guess what? NO ONE in my school appreciated these fields to any remote extent. Not even the kids who did CTY Talent Search. None of them appreciate anything in academic research - or academic discussions for that matter. Yet those discussions abound on various Internet websites.</p>

<p>Sure, college gives them some time to "explore". But that's very little time, and there are so many fields. And then there comes the mentality of "you can only learn if you take a course in the subject material". It doesn't help that people rarely check out library books - I've managed to pretty much check out every library book related to some areas, and keep them for months on end because no one was interested in them. People are so amazingly ignorant of other fields. </p>

<p>Of course school doesn't coerce the student towards forcing oneself to not self-educate onrself. Nonetheless, indirect psychological influences can still be as far as direct ones. We're raised to seek only grades - and to "have fun" when we get straight A's. And kids are very impressionable. </p>

<p>And interest in science is generally correlated with interest in anything theoretical/academic. Sure, students of all kinds do read literature - but that does not indicate an interest in anything more theoretical than that. People read literature - but there is little incentive to contribute anything new on such literature. Moreover, I think there is little disagreement that literature does not equate with research.</p>

<p>==
Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences: well, the fact is, only a couple of those intelligences are even relevant to the information age. And those are the intelligences that we have always spoken about.</p>

<p>The problem is that it SOUNDS LIKE you're IMPLYING that just because you don't read anything "theoretical," you're not intelligent, and if you do your better than everyone else.</p>

<p>So, what Darcy said, but several shades lighter.</p>

<p>Okay, sorry if that implication was made. There are actually a number of intelligent students who don't pursue theoretical material - just because they don't have the incentive to do that.</p>

<p>Though it is true that most students are not intelligent enough to pursue theoretical material - given that most students suck at passing state standardized tests.</p>