Time-scales

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Minchau"
> wrote:
> > I think that the first group to
> > establish an orbital colony will do so because they have put
their
> > butts and wallets on the line, not because they have scored high
on
> > an IQ test. Sure, many of those who do get up there first will
be
> > quite intelligent, but they won't get up there just because they
> are
> > smart; they will get up there because they _do_something_ about
it.
>
> Expcetional intelligence is SO frightening to "the other 97%" that
> the moment it's mentioned, it's a huge psychological relief for
non-
> spookybruight audiences to spuriously insert an "and that's ALL we
> care about" into any statement by any individual or group which
> asseerts that intelligence is of value.

First off, let me state that I had never heard of your group before
you posted to this forum.

>From my above statement I think it is reasonable to assume that the
only way I can get to know you is from your statements to this group
and from the public statements your group has made, e.g. your

Injecting my own opinion into the analysis, the description of
yourselves as "spookybrights" actually diminishes you in my eyes. I
reiterate that this is just my opinion, so take it at that level.

>
> Hence all the false dichotomies hurled as weapons against
anyperson
> or group which values intelligence AND:
> "Smart BUT unethical"
> "Smart BUT underachieving"
> "Smart BUT psychologically unbalanced"

These comparisons are often cited because instances abound in most
people's lives of just such combinations of intelligence and other
characteristics being displayed in people.

>
> Nobody bothers to read on, to discover that the value ACTUALLY
being
> promoted are:
> "Smart AND ethical"
> "Smart AND productive"
> "Smart AND liberty-loving,"
> etc.

See, here's the thing. For "spookybrights" to not realize that they
are judged by how they present themselves, kind of takes away from
their "spookybright" personas, doesn't it?

You accuse us of not reading on, but your introduction to the group
didn't make mention of these characteristics. Further, your website

http://pages.ivillage.com/orionaut/index.html

presents this picture to the world:

1.) "cognitive-elite breeding population"
2.) "Any adult with a tested IQ of 130 or higher (if you've never
been tested, ask us how!) who shares this Dream, or simply wishes to
learn more about it, is warmly welcomed to apply for Membership in
this "spookybright spacefarin' Tribe."

presents this picture to the world:

"Anyone with a tested IQ of 130 or higher (if you've never been
tested, ask us how!) who shares this Dream, or simply wishes to
learn more about it, is welcome to apply for Membership here"

So, any objective (even objectivist) observer can come to only one
conclusion: your only stated criteria is an IQ of 130 or higher.

>From your clarifications over the course of a number of postings to
this forum you've not been proactive in introducing the other
criteria you make mention of above, rather those criteria have been
introduced into discussion in a defensive fashion. That said, I
believe most of us have taken you at your word and not brought up
those issues after you've allayed our concerns.

>
> It would be idicoy indeed to discount or diminish the very real
> contributions that have been made to this world of ours by persons
of
> goo dhacracter who nevertheless are endowed with only average
> intelligence or below. I fail to see, however, why groups like
this
> one invariably LEAP to the conclusion that people like me and
groups
> like ORION revere intelligence AND NOTHING ELSE, perfectly willing
to
> forgo morality in general and work ethic in particular.

As I've stated above, we have no need to leap to that conclusion
when you've presented it to us on a silver platter via your group's
public declarations.

>
> Please, will someone explain to me how it is morally pernicious to
> say "We value ethics, liberty, and achievement...and we believe
that
> SMART folks who possess all those sterling qualities of character
> might, just might!, in a psychologically supportive environment,
be
> able to do more with them than folks of average-or-below
intelligence
> who ALSO possess those sterling qualities of character"?

You're begging the questions here. This would be a valid question if
your group presented this statement from the outset and then others
raised their criticisms. The criticisms were raised before your
qualifying statements, so the events that this paragraph is
predicated on did not occur, thus your are begging the question to
provide a conclusion.

>
> It's really the hidhgt of irony that we wouldn't come in for
anywhere
> NEAR the same sort of terrified resentment if we were aiming to
form
> a community with the very same ethics and politics, but instead
chose
> to limit it to left-handed folks.

Actually, my personal opinion is that it is the height of irony
for "spookybrights" not to realize that by declaring themselves to
be "spookybrights" and then not demonstrating that they are
indeed "spookybrights" in their public pronouncements, that they
will be viewed skeptically by their intended audience. If you solely
stress IQ of 130+ in your public documents, then you're fair game
for criticism on the exclusivity of that criterion.

As for a group of left handed folks, well they wouldn't be setting
themselves apart as somehow superior on the basis of their left-
handedness, now would they?

I wouldn't characterize the response that you're receiving as being
resentment. I'd say you're getting hard questions from skeptics who
want you to earn the respect that should go with the
moniker "spookybright." I, personally, don't resent you. I happen to
think that you're ahead of the curve on a number of genetic issues
that are confronting the world. Further, taking account of your
clarifications on a number of issues, your goals are not
unreasonable.

Surely you must have expected skeptics to react to your message and
how you present yourselves as self-styled "spookybrights?"

You know, Andrew Wiles, Alan Dershowitz, Steven Pinker, Stephen
Hawking, James Watson, and others could present themselves to this
group under psuedonyms, and they'd have to earn their respect and
the title "spookybright" by how they presented themselves not by
self-declaring. I think that any such self-declaration would make
them the target of skeptics. Perhaps in their "spookybright" fashion
they've conceived a strategy of rebuffing such skeptical challenges
by engaging in serious debate so as to highlight
their "spookybright" intellects.

"It's senseless," you'd say, "to
> screen folks on the basis of a trait THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY MAKE
ANY
> DIFFERENCE." The inescapable inference, of course, is that it IS
> legitimate to screen folks on the basis of a trait that VERY
LIKELY
> will make A VERY LARGE DIFFERENCE INDEED (like, ummmm,
> intellgence ;)) not only to the eventualy success vs. failure of
one
> orbital colony, but also and far more importantly to the survival
vs.
> extinction of the Human species entire.
>
> spike

I'm not saying it's senseless, and I'd venture a guess that even
opponents of IQ testing don't dispute the value of intelligence
(their bugaboo is with the test being able to measure it) but what I
take issue with is how well you're making the case for your position.

TangoMan