Beyond I.Q.

I.Q. (intelligence quotient) ... we're all familiar with the concept. It is measure of raw intelligence.

But, is it a good predictor of how "smart" someone really is? We're all familiar with the stereotype of a "geek" who can multiply two seven-digit numbers in his head, but doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain. Ben Franklin said, "Jack was so smart he could say 'horse' in seven languages, but so foolish that he road a cow into town."

We call that ability, the one that says, "come in out of the rain," "common sense." Another word for that is "wisdom." You don't even have to be particularly "smart" to be wise. Sometimes all you need is a bit of experience ... "last time it rained, I got soaked to the bone, and caught a bad cold ... so this time, I'll go inside when it starts raining."

Perhaps, when it comes to our leaders, we need to stop focussing so much on I.Q. and instead look at their W.Q. (wisdom quotient). Rather than ask what grades they got in Econ 510 at Harvard, we need to ask do they balance their checkbooks at home and can they keep to a household budget. Maybe how many languages they speak is less important than how often they stick their foot in their mouthes.

We have eleven months before we have to choose our next set of leaders, I think it would be wise of us to listen more to WHAT they say and less to HOW they say it. Maybe next round we can have at least a few who either know what they are doing, or at least enough not to screw up things that they know nothing about.

Buz

We've Been Framed

It's an old cop story. The police have a suspect that they are "just sure" committed a crime, but they don't have any solid evidence, so they plant some evidence on him and arrest him. The end of the story goes one of two ways ... (1) his defense attorney is able to prove that the evidence was planted and the case is thrown out of court and the police are shamed, or (2) he is convicted, but then, the police later find the true perpetrater, and when he is brought to justice, the person who was framed is exhonorated, and again the police are shamed.

It would appear that the same has been done with scientific data regarding human caused climate change. Evidently there have been some who are so sure that this is happening, but they just don't have any supporting evidence, so they framed us. (Un?)fortunately, the fact that things have been tampered with has come out. And they have been shamed.

If this were a police show on TV, it is time for the judge to throw the case out. However, this may not be the case here. In the U.S. we have always stood on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, in scientific endeavors, the burden of proof of a theory initially rests with the person or group that proposes a theory. Even as proof mounts up, it still only takes a small amount of proof to the contrary to disprove a theory (i.e. if you claim that all cars are Fords, you can count Fords all day, but all I have to do is show you one Chevy.) It seems that the interim leader of the group in East Anglia, Peter Liss (his predecessor stepped down due to the apparent falsification of evidence) believes:

"LISS: [...] I think it’s very hard to be a denier. And in some sense, you might say it’s really up to the deniers to explain why it is when we’re pumping so much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, why it wouldn’t have such an effect. [...]"

which sounds to me a lot like "we JUST KNOW you are guilty, but we can't prove it ... so it is up to you to prove you are innocent."

What I tell my friends is, "if it wasn't for global warming, we'd be sitting on a glacier by now."

Buz

A Fable

Once upon a very long time ago, before the animals had lost their ability to reason, a dispute arose between the bear and the snake. The bear was willing to settle the problem by brute force, but the snake, knowing that he would be ripped to shreds in seconds was less willing to fight without some rules. So they went to the council of animals. The council consisted of the donkey, because he was a hard worker, the dog because he was very loyal, the tortoise because of his age, the elephant because of his gentle strength, and the owl because of his wisdom. However, the owl was visiting a sick friend, so only the donkey, the dog, the tortoise, and the elephant were on hand.

“Here is my concern,” voiced the snake. “If the bear is permitted to settle this dispute by force, then we will dissolve into anarchy. I am willing to fight, but the bear has huge claws and sharp teeth. The fight would not be fair, and I should lose in a moment, as would any other animal who would come up against the bear. He could easily become a tyrant.”

“What is your suggestion?” asked the donkey, speaking for the entire council.

“If animals must fight, then I propose that we have a rule. Since not all animals have huge claws or sharp teeth, I submit that no animal be permitted to use these in fights.”

The council thought about this for a moment, and since it seemed fair, they agreed. This especially appealed to the donkey, because he had neither claws nor sharp teeth.

“Furthermore, since some animals, like myself, do not even have arms with which to hit, or legs with which to kick, I also propose that these be banned in fights, also,” added the snake. “Since all animals have bodies, I propose that bodies be the only things which animals are allowed to fight with.”

At this suggestion the council began to voice concern. Even the relatively unarmed donkey still had his ability to kick. To deny him this simple defense seemed to be too much. “Since the owl is not here, I believe that we should wait on ruling on this matter until he returns, sir snake.”

But the snake replied, “surely, something so simple as a fair fight should not require the owl’s great wisdom. I am not asking for some great ruling on complex matters, only a simple ruling on having fair fights in the animal kingdom.” The snake continued to cajole the council trying to force a ruling.

Finally the council conceded that since every animal had a body, the only fair fight would be body to body.

The snake then told the bear he was ready to fight. But, it was no fight. Without his claws and teeth, the bear was quickly crushed in the snake’s coils. The snake then challenged any other animal who might dispute him. He quickly became the tyrant he portrayed the bear to be.

When the owl returned, he found that the snake had deposed the council and was now ruling the forest. Since he was no match for the snake, he fled to the top of a high cliff.

Finally, the fox came to dispute the snake’s tyranny. As they prepared to fight, the snake struck out at the fox. The fox grabbed the snake’s neck with his teeth and began to rip the snake’s body with his claws.

“Unfair!” cried the snake. “You are ignoring the council’s ruling and using your teeth and claws on an animal who has neither teeth nor claws. I am defenseless.”

“Ha,” replied the fox. “You tried to ensure victory by making sure that all animals fought only with their bodies, but our weapons are teeth, claws and hooves. Your body is your weapon. We cannot fight with our bodies, but yours is made for fighting. I will not give up my weapons while allowing you to use yours. The council may have been duped by your cunning words, but I am not.” With that, he finished off the snake.