1

"Yet we can take malicious satisfaction in knowing that she will never accomplish anything of worth."

You don't know that.

2

Three and a half years later and I do not see any accomplishments.

3

The confusion of "fame" with "celebrity" is disconcerting and diminishes your point. Proverbs 22:29 seems to meet this standard for Fame: Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will stand before kings; He will not stand before obscure men. Celebrity (mere popularity and visibility) cannot create Fame.

The subjects of the last two sentences seem to transfer blame (responsibility) from the media to us the viewing public in generall and as a whole. I view our culture as being only able to buy at the McDonalds of entertainment and not at (at least) Red Lobster. It's all the world knows, but certainly not all go there.

Let's try to view Paris & Co., as people with real spiritual needs and not as objects deserving attention and emulations, criticism, or to serve as examples. Their lives aren't over yet. Let's see what the Lord will redeem.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

4

"Which is why Ms. Hilton is the purest of celebrities. She has no talents or skills to her credit."

Actually, she is a pretty good fashion model, especially considering that she doesn't have to do it.

"She appears to be, at best, of average intelligence and beauty."

In interviews, such as that on Larry King last night, she comes off as slightly above average intelligence. You probably have no idea how low average intelligence is, as I did not before I began teaching. I formed my erstwhile idea of average intelligence based on my peer group. It turns out there is an entire intellectual underclass I was almost completely unaware of because I didn't have any classes with them. And average beauty? Tell me where Paris Hilton's looks are average; I'm ready to move! I don't approve of her lifestyle or share her priorities, but it's clear to me she has striking physical beauty. I think you let your approval or disapproval of a person color your perception of qualities unrelated to your approval or disapproval, as shown by your unwarranted attacks on Richard Dawkins, among others.

"And while she has money, her trust fund is hardly awe-inspiring, at least by current standards of wealth."

Perhaps I am more easily awed than you. I'm sure she makes much more money in a year than I will make in my lifetime. I'm not just awed by the top one percent; I'm awed by the top two percent.

"She has, in fact, nothing that would cause her to warrant notoriety. Hilton is famous simply because she is famous."

Nonsense. She is a wealthy heiress and socialite with scandals to boot. She is made for notoriety. What did Helen of Troy have besides beauty? What did Valentino have? There are no hard and fast rules for fame. Fame makes up the rules as it goes along.

5

Seeking "fame" in the former sense of the word and seeking notoriety might be noteworthy distinctions to make. I think our modern celebrity worshiping culture blurs the difference between the two.

Just my two cents.

Also... women of history have this weird habit of starting out on the wrong foot and surprising people with how they turn out. I'm thinking Catherine the Great of Russia and the like. So who knows whither Paris Hilton goes?

6

Rob,

You probably have no idea how low average intelligence is, as I did not before I began teaching. I formed my erstwhile idea of average intelligence based on my peer group. It turns out there is an entire intellectual underclass I was almost completely unaware of because I didn't have any classes with them.

Do you think that you might be confusing academic skills with intelligence?

Perhaps ability in school, or in a particular classroom, is part of a person's broad portfolio of intelligence. And perhaps intelligent people tend to do better in school than less intelligent people.

But isn't it just as true that an inspiring teacher can reach inside a young person's mind and kindle a bright flame of intellectual curiosity where there wasn't one before? It is certainly true that a person is not a static vessel of intelligence. Our brains fall under the category of "use it or lose it".

So to describe someone as not very smart seems misleading to me. It could just be that a person doesn't seem to making the most of his potential. And that could very well be a result of the environment in which you happen to be interacting with him.

7

Even if fame were still noble, would it be rational? Fame alone, even from worthwhile accomplishments, can bring pain (Charles Lindbergh). Perhaps those who are most likely to achieve fame are the ones who least want it.

On a more trivial note, here is a comic about the idea that beauty can bring about suffering:
http://www.thadguy.com/comic/how-bad-is-beauty/149/

8

Matthew: I assure you I am not confusing intelligence with academic skills, although I see a fairly strong correlation between the two. Obviously, I see many smart but unmotivated kids, as well as strivers of low intelligence.

To make it clear, the word "intelligence" as used in my initial post refers to that which is measured by IQ tests. That may or may not square with what you consider intelligence. I understand the theory of "Multiple Intelligences". I'm not talking about Body/Kinesthetics Intelligence or Musical Intelligence. Of the multiple intelligences, only the first two (Linguistic, Logical) relate to my general definition of "intelligence". I assume Joe was using the word in the same way; most people do.

Long time no see, Matthew. :-)

9

Obviously Paris Hilton and Pat Robertson need to do a reality TV series together.

10

Rob,

Hi!

I.Q. tests measure a person's ability to do well on an I.Q. test. They are coachable.

A student who studies the kind of questions on an I.Q. test can raise his I.Q. score. So what does that imply about your definition of intelligence? Normally one associates smarts with some kind of innate ability, not an acquired skill.

The idea that an I.Q. test can measure intelligence is even more dubious to me than choosing to describe someone as not very smart. At best, an I.Q. is a fleeting snapshot of someone's ability to answer a long series of the special questions that appear on I.Q. tests.

As you are a teacher, it is not surprising that you put a lot of faith in tests and testing. But I am surprised that you seem to agree with Charles Murray (of "The Bell Curve") that I.Q. tests are so useful.

11

It amazes me how some of you guys (Matthew, Boontoon, Rob, etc.) can debate the most obscure topics until you've defined every base term. Not poking fun, just making a sincere observation.

12

It amazes me how some of you guys (Matthew, Boontoon, Rob, etc.) can debate the most obscure topics until you've defined every base term. Not poking fun, just making a sincere observation.

13

Drew,

My seventh-grade English teacher (actually, the class was called "Language Arts"), Sister Bonaventure, taught us to "say what you mean and mean what you say".

I could have just said to Rob, "I don't think you should call your students dumb because they don't meet your expectations." But that wouldn't have expressed my meaning precisely, and it would likely have short-circuited any meaningful, productive back-and-forth before it could have even started.

I've found that a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication results from people using the same words with different definitions. The best way to deal with that fact is to state one's meaning carefully and thereby avoid arguing over things that aren't even in contention.

For example, does your definition of obscure topics include the war in Iraq and the truth/falsehood of Christianity? Because those are two of the most popular items we like to debate in these comment threads.

But even other topics that most people would consider somewhat obscure, such as the nature of free will, are interesting in their own right and are well worth pondering, provided one has a taste for such things. The going might get a little heavy at times, but it's probably unreasonable to expect a payoff from engaging in a conversation without putting some effort into it as well.

14

Matthew:

"For example, does your definition of obscure topics include the war in Iraq and the truth/falsehood of Christianity?"

I think Drew was politely noting that we had gone far afield of Joe's topic. We shall remain so briefly.

"So what does that imply about your definition of intelligence?"

It implies that a person can raise the sort of intelligence I am talking about. Not that much, though.

"The idea that an I.Q. test can measure intelligence is even more dubious to me than choosing to describe someone as not very smart."

You're kidding about the "choosing to describe" part, right? Matthew, there really are people out there who aren't very smart. Some people are at the low end of the intelligence scale. Why tiptoe around that fact?

"But I am surprised that you seem to agree with Charles Murray (of "The Bell Curve") that I.Q. tests are so useful."

I haven't read that book, but I'm familiar with bell curves and their application to IQ scores. I also recall a controversy regarding that book vis a vis racial inequities. I recognize that IQ tests have varying degrees of cultural bias, but they still provide useful bits of data.

You seem to think I think tests are the be-all and end-all. I don't, but they are useful; they can provide information that helps me to better target my instruction to help students meet their performance objectives.

15

Rob,

You seem to think I think tests are the be-all and end-all. I don't, but they are useful;

Good.

they can provide information that helps me to better target my instruction to help students meet their performance objectives.

Fair enough.

I should point out, though, that perceptions of intelligence are not always accurate, and inaccurate perceptions have been shown, in the educational literature, to be self-fulfilling prophecies.

I hope you are not engaging in the unintentional dampening of some students' performance due to low expectations on your part.

You're kidding about the "choosing to describe" part, right? Matthew, there really are people out there who aren't very smart. Some people are at the low end of the intelligence scale. Why tiptoe around that fact?

The job of a teacher is to teach, not to judge. If you find that segregating students according to apparent ability level is helpful or necessary, then more power to you. But don't assume you can determine the level of intelligence of every student, because in at least some cases, you very probably can't.

In fact, judging someone's intelligence strikes me as a fundamentally arrogant exercise, no matter how well-intentioned the judge.

Are some people smarter than other people?

I suppose so, but when I teach someone, I'm focused on what that person already knows, and on what he can attach to that foundation of knowledge. I'm not focused on some vague notion of how smart or not-smart he is, because ordinarily it's really just a tangential consideration.

It's my job to continually gauge how much a student is understanding, and adjust my teaching to that, rather than rely on some pre-conceived notion of what he is capable of learning.

16

Dang, Matthew! I comment on my perception of Paris Hilton's intelligence, and then you come up with all this hand-wringing balderdash that my perception of my students' intelligence might be causing me to give them short shrift. Give me a break; I'm a professional. I'm also passionate about teaching and doggedly committed to the welfare of my charges. I entered the field because I love it, not because I had to. So stop being such a worrywart. ;-)

"The job of a teacher is to teach, not to judge."

Observation, inference, and evaluation are all part of my job. "Judge" is a loaded word in this context, and you know it.

"If you find that segregating students according to apparent ability level is helpful or necessary, then more power to you."

I don't, and I have no idea why you would think I might.

"But don't assume you can determine the level of intelligence of every student, because in at least some cases, you very probably can't."

Of course I make no such assumption.

"In fact, judging someone's intelligence strikes me as a fundamentally arrogant exercise, no matter how well-intentioned the judge."

I'm sorry you feel that way. I do it all the time. I thought everyone did.

Matthew, I'm afraid your comments reveal an unflattering misperception of my educational philosophy. I'm rather disappointed; I thought you were the great advocate of charitable interpretation.

17

Rob,

[Matthew said:] "The job of a teacher is to teach, not to judge."

Observation, inference, and evaluation are all part of my job. "Judge" is a loaded word in this context, and you know it.

[ ... ]

Matthew, I'm afraid your comments reveal an unflattering misperception of my educational philosophy. I'm rather disappointed; I thought you were the great advocate of charitable interpretation.

Perhaps I am guilty of an unflattering misperception of your educational philosophy. Perhaps not.

Take a look again at what you wrote in comment 4:

You [Joe] probably have no idea how low average intelligence is, as I did not before I began teaching. I formed my erstwhile idea of average intelligence based on my peer group. It turns out there is an entire intellectual underclass I was almost completely unaware of because I didn't have any classes with them.

In the context of what you have written, my use of the word "judge" seems altogether charitable on my part. I could have very easily have used the words "dismiss", "put down", "disrespect", and "degrade".

If you truly regard the bulk of your students as members of an intellectual underclass, then "judge" is the most charitable spin I could place on your attitudes.

[Matthew said:] "If you find that segregating students according to apparent ability level is helpful or necessary, then more power to you."

I don't, and I have no idea why you would think I might.

I said this on the basis of what you wrote in comment 14:

I recognize that IQ tests have varying degrees of cultural bias, but they still provide useful bits of data.

You seem to think I think tests are the be-all and end-all. I don't, but they are useful; they can provide information that helps me to better target my instruction to help students meet their performance objectives.

If you are targeting your classroom instruction on the basis of I.Q. scores, then it seems to me you would approve of sorting students into different tracks according to their perceived or demonstrated abilities: honors track, regular college-bound track, regular non-college-bound, vocational, remedial, special-ed, and so on.

At the least, it would appear that you believe you should filter work assignments and lessons to students in your classroom on the basis of your estimate of their intelligence. That would constitute a kind of pedagogical as opposed to physical segregation. If you prefer to use the word "targeting" or "tracking", go ahead -- at least I didn't say you were "discriminating" :)

[Matthew said:] "In fact, judging someone's intelligence strikes me as a fundamentally arrogant exercise, no matter how well-intentioned the judge."

I'm sorry you feel that way. I do it all the time. I thought everyone did.

I agree with you that it is a part of human nature to judge, categorize, pigeon-hole, and compare people on the basis of intelligence, and on the basis of many other attributes as well. Teachers are people, not robots or superheroes, and will fall into the same habits of thought as anyone else.

I would suggest to you, though, that a teacher would be well advised to try to transcend the tendency to judge others as relatively smart or dumb. Why? Because it is a fundamentally degrading exercise to treat an individual student as an intellect that should be graded on some kind of scale.

How is it degrading? It is degrading because it assumes you are in a position to do so in the first place, which, to put it charitably, you might not actually be in a position to do. And it is degrading to grade or rank intellects because to do so is, under most circumstances, strictly unnecessary to the project of teaching and learning.

If someone is having a tough time with something in your English class, it might be because he is not a star when it comes to what you have termed "linguistic" and/or "logical" intelligence. Or it might be that his linguistic and logical intelligences are just fine, or even high up on the bell curve, and something else is interfering with his mastery of the material you are working on.

Citing the student's allegedly low intelligence is unjustified, since there are so many variables that could be generating his difficulty. But much more importantly, it is ultimately just an excuse on your part (or his part) for accepting a low level of performance.

18

"If you truly regard the bulk of your students as members of an intellectual underclass, then "judge" is the most charitable spin I could place on your attitudes."

I never said the "the bulk" of my students. I merely pointed out the existence of an intellectual underclass. It comprises a small minority of students, but it must be taken into account when figuring average intelligence. You made my targeted comment a sweeping one. Uncharitable.

"If you are targeting your classroom instruction on the basis of I.Q. scores, then it seems to me you would approve of sorting students into different tracks according to their perceived or demonstrated abilities: honors track, regular college-bound track, regular non-college-bound, vocational, remedial, special-ed, and so on."

1. I do not target instruction based on IQ scores. I rarely even have access to such information. I target instruction based on item analysis of tests related to the curriculum, among other things. When I say IQ tests are useful, I do not refer to any educational application; I refer to their usefulness in a sociological sense in terms of providing data that can be cross-referenced with other demographics.

2. I do not segregate students in the classroom according to ability. This is done by the school system, and it is a good thing. There is no way I could consistently engage in the same classroom the student who can barely read and the honors student. Both need to be challenged, but the nature of that which challenges them differs widely. Surely you wouldn't want your child, an honors student, enduring lessons in subject-verb agreement, a skill he mastered years ago. Likewise, it is lunacy to teach "A Modest Proposal" to a class of severely developmentally disabled students for whom the vocabulary and complexity provide an insurmountable challenge. Students have the best chance for success when they are challenged, not overwhelmed. I would not put my eleven-year-old daughter behind the wheel on the interstate; she is not ready. When she is ready, she will receive driving instruction.

Most of the behavioral problems I deal with are related to inappropriately placed students; a bright child in a Fundamental class or a slow child placed in a College Prep class. I can't believe you think all children should be in the same English classroom. What a disservice that would be!

"I would suggest to you, though, that a teacher would be well advised to try to transcend the tendency to judge others as relatively smart or dumb."

Poppycock!

"Because it is a fundamentally degrading exercise to treat an individual student as an intellect that should be graded on some kind of scale."

Non-sequitur. Making inferences degrades no one.

"If someone is having a tough time with something in your English class, it might be because he is not a star when it comes to what you have termed "linguistic" and/or "logical" intelligence. Or it might be that his linguistic and logical intelligences are just fine, or even high up on the bell curve, and something else is interfering with his mastery of the material you are working on."

Obviously. Do you think this profound insight has never occurred to me? I've had plenty of bright kids who have struggled for various reasons unrelated to intelligence.

"Citing the student's allegedly low intelligence is unjustified, since there are so many variables that could be generating his difficulty. But much more importantly, it is ultimately just an excuse on your part (or his part) for accepting a low level of performance."

Whose low intelligence has been cited as causing his difficulty? Who is making excuses? Where are you getting this stuff?

I'm very tired of your attempts to portray me as the teacher who complains that his students are dummies. It is simply not true, and it is insulting. I only pointed out that there is a significant group of people with below average IQs. You haven't mounted a challenge to that point; you've merely cast aspersions on on my professional conduct based on my stating the obvious.

When I was in high school, I took college placement courses, and my group of friends took them as well. I was only dimly aware that there were other levels; such is the egocentricity of the adolescent. Now I see all levels, and it has affected my estimation of the average intelligence of the population as a whole. Such is the perspective of experience.

I happen to like the slower kids, and I do not patronize or condescend. I encourage them. I do so with respect and even affection. I simply challenge them on their level, as I would want a teacher of my child to do.

19

I should clarify on point in my last comment. I wrote "I do not segregate students in the classroom according to ability. This is done by the school system, and it is a good thing."

It would be more accurate to say that the school system provides for different levels of instruction. The students and their parents select the student's courses. Teachers and guidance counselors provide input, but the students and/or parents make the choice.

20

Rob,

My understanding of intelligence is very different from yours.

Intelligence, to me, is something that everyone possesses. We are all, each of us, intelligent, until the time we are dead or significantly brain-damaged.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure a person's intelligence. And it is very difficult, to the second power, to try to compare the levels of intelligence for two persons.

For example, my statement [from comment 17],

"I would suggest to you, though, that a teacher would be well advised to try to transcend the tendency to judge others as relatively smart or dumb."

could be considered to be an item on an intelligence test.

Then your response, which was

Poppycock!

could be used to judge how well you used your linguistic and logical intelligences in the context of our dialogue. And I could then mark you, for this particular item, as having failed to give an intelligent response.

But of course, I have no grounds, other than my disagreement with you, for judging your response to be un-intelligent. But of course, neither does anyone else have any valid grounds for judging any particular response to any particular question on any particular I.Q. test to be intelligent or not intelligent.

Yet the educational psychologists charge full-steam ahead anyway. They administer and mark the tests of millions of children (and adults), pluck out some level of "correct" responses to be par for the course, and on that basis label everyone in their reach to be either above or below average intelligence (and they even use the scores to assign a rough intellectual age to everyone).

This to me, is the height of arrogance and foolishness.

Since you are not an educational psychologist, I am not accusing you personally of arrogance and foolishness. But you do seem to condone, if not approve of it.

Up till now I have emphasized my disagreement with you. I would now like to shift gears and add some necessary nuance to my dumping on you.

Your latest comments reassured me that your heart is in the right place. Thank you for taking the time and effort to make such a thorough response.

I don't agree with everything, but this time around I do agree with a lot, or even most of what you say.

One problem I had is that I misunderstood your meaning when you made reference to teaching classes with students from the "intellectual underclass".

I understood you to mean that you had a large group of students clustered below the intelligence mean, but still on or near the central hump of the bell curve. Apparently you meant a small group of outliers on the lower tail of the bell curve who had a disproportionate affect on the arithmetic mean. Thank you for the clarification.

I do not target instruction based on IQ scores. I rarely even have access to such information. I target instruction based on item analysis of tests related to the curriculum, among other things. When I say IQ tests are useful, I do not refer to any educational application; I refer to their usefulness in a sociological sense in terms of providing data that can be cross-referenced with other demographics.

Very good, very reasonable.

Big caveat, though: as I have said repeatedly, these tests do not measure intelligence. They only measure a transient capability to answer certain kinds of questions. Such a measurement is a rather arkward, if not altogether meaningless, tool for trying to gauge any particular person's intelligence.

I can't believe you think all children should be in the same English classroom. What a disservice that would be!

I agree with you that it makes sense to place students into classes that challenge them on an appropriate level. Although that has more to do with acquired skills than with intelligence, so I don't think it is very helpful to analyze the situation as if we were dealing with kids of different intelligence levels.

That said, I should point out that classrooms with mixed levels of ability are not necessarily a bad thing. Advanced students can help less-advanced students, and everyone gains, as long as the advanced students also get to learn new material at their own pace.

That is the rationale for one-room schoolhouses, some of which work a lot better than others in practice.

[Matthew said:] "I would suggest to you, though, that a teacher would be well advised to try to transcend the tendency to judge others as relatively smart or dumb."

Poppycock!

Right back at you:

As I started to explain above, intelligence is a very difficult thing to understand, and a much more difficult thing to measure. Sometimes it is practically impossible to measure.

Schools are not supposed to be issuing intelligence credentials. They should be in the business of issuing accomplishment or achievement credentials. And that goes triple for any teacher in a classroom.

A teacher who takes it upon himself to judge the level of intelligence of each student is being just as arrogant as someone who is trying to judge a person's character. At best, all we can do is make provisional, incomplete judgements, leavened with a strong acknowledgement of our own lack of information and our need to be modest.

[Matthew said:] "Because it is a fundamentally degrading exercise to treat an individual student as an intellect that should be graded on some kind of scale."

Non-sequitur. Making inferences degrades no one.

Making inferences degrades no one, provided you can keep it to yourself.

Perhaps most of the time it's not too hard to keep such inferences compartmentalized in a safe place. But even if you don't post a list of your favorite students on the bulletin board every week, I think it's safe to assume that your judgements on the intellectual worth of diverse individuals manage to get reflected in various subtle and perhaps not-so-subtle ways over the course of the school year. I hope, though, that you are right about this and that I am wrong.

Whose low intelligence has been cited as causing his difficulty? Who is making excuses? Where are you getting this stuff?

Partially this is just me misinterpreting some of what you have written. But I still think that you've got this above-average vs below-average intelligence thing going on in your brain, and that it is inserting itself into how you evaluate the performance of your students.

If I am guilty of over-stating the case, then I am glad to hear it, and I apologize for offending you.

I'm very tired of your attempts to portray me as the teacher who complains that his students are dummies. It is simply not true, and it is insulting.

Well, except for the word "complains", it simply is true, because you wrote in comment 4 that "there is an entire intellectual underclass I was almost completely unaware of because I didn't have any classes with them".

I didn't goad you into saying it; you freely introduced this factoid into a comment thread that had nothing to do with your class.

When I was in high school, I took college placement courses, and my group of friends took them as well. I was only dimly aware that there were other levels; such is the egocentricity of the adolescent. Now I see all levels, and it has affected my estimation of the average intelligence of the population as a whole. Such is the perspective of experience.

This is all well and good, except that you seem to be assuming that academic achievement by an individual closely corresponds to the level of intelligence in an individual. That assumption is false.

If you were to just replace the whole notion of "average intelligence" with the much simpler idea of "academic accomplishment", then I would have nothing to criticize.

I happen to like the slower kids, and I do not patronize or condescend. I encourage them. I do so with respect and even affection. I simply challenge them on their level, as I would want a teacher of my child to do.

I agree with you 100% that you and I and everyone else needs to challenge a person at his level. But not at the level of his alleged intelligence -- he should be challenged at the level of his ability to process the new material, which is largely a function of how much he already knows, regardless of how smart or dumb he may be.

And although you clearly don't mean to be patronizing or condescending to your slower students, the simple act of referring to them as "slower" students is pretty patronizing in itself.

A student is not "slow" when compared to himself - he is who he is. He is only "slow" when compared to someone else. Students should be not be referred to disparagingly because some other students do better. A student has the right to be acknowledged and accepted on his own terms, from wherever he is coming from.

And this is not a matter of using politically correct euphenisms. It is just simple respect.

Mr. Ryan, when we first crossed paths a long time ago at the Evangelical Outpost, I claimed that I would love to sit in in one of your classes, because you are a smart and funny and talented person. I still believe that, and I'm sorry if I have come across as implying that your attitudes make you any worse than 99 out of 100 other teachers.

Estimating the intelligence of students is not a crime against humanity, and perhaps you even find it helpful in managing your classes. I'm just concerned that it's a habit that might be keeping you from tapping the highest potential of yourself and some of your students.

Thanks again,
Matthew

21

Matt, I believe you said "Intelligence, to me, is something that everyone possesses. We are all, each of us, intelligent, until the time we are dead or significantly brain-damaged.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to measure a person's intelligence. And it is very difficult, to the second power, to try to compare the levels of intelligence for two persons."

Scenario: Matt, you're flying to Atlanta and you have a choice of flying with a pilot = I.Q. of 120 or a pilot = I.Q. of 75. Which pilot do you choose?

If you choose to fly with second pilot then there are at least TWO people on board that plane with borderline intelligence.

I.Q. tests actually do differentiate.

22

Jb,

What if the 75 I.Q. pilot is a dyslexic with 5,000 hours of flight time, and the 120 I.Q. pilot is a rookie who's on his first commercial flight?

JFK, Jr., was a bright, successful person, but he ended up killing himself and his wife eight years ago this month, apparently due to poor judgement about his abilities to fly with instrumentation.

In any case, my discussion with Rob is about teaching students, not about flying airplanes. Students have a right to the best education they can get. Nobody has a right to be an airline pilot.

I.Q. tests differentiate how well persons perform on an I.Q. test. That can be a real difference among persons, but it is not constant over time, and it is not predictive of or strictly correlated with an individual's intelligence.