Finding Meaning & Delivering Confessions

No_Finish_Line

and what about eastern philosophy?

those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?

are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?

delicious_cocktail

It's really easy, when you're kinda bright, to think yourself down rabbit holes. Find your community. It's not here.

Yep!

I'm not slamming the door on MFP - closing it quietly - but I agree.

"The Longest Goodbye: an Autobiography."

likitisplit

and what about eastern philosophy?

those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?

are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

_Terrapin_

rml_16

I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.

There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.

I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.

I feel like you are looking at a very small subsegment of the population. Every valedictorian for the four years I attended my high school was also a successful and talented athlete and had wonderful social skills.

I know many people who tested as gifted, were in AP-level classes, were put in the gifted and talented programs at my schools who were athletes, musicians and had active and healthy social lives.

You're making a sweeping statement based on your experiences in the inner city, which are not ideal by any means and are informed by an awful lot of other issues, such as gang activity, poverty, parents who abuse drugs or simply don't care. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every one of your students, but it would be far more prevalent there than in other places.

No_Finish_Line

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

likitisplit

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

No_Finish_Line

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent arguement, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amoungst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

MrTolerable

and what about eastern philosophy?

those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?

are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?

Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.

^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.

I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.

MrTolerable

and what about eastern philosophy?

those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?

are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

There is no desperate need to be classified as 'gifted' by me! - I already have a frame of thought on what the qualifications are to be labeled gifted, and I've gone over them.

^would they care? - lol certainly not.

MrTolerable

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent arguement, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amoungst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

lol your understanding of this is respectfully so far off tilt that it honestly brought me to laughter.

'why it makes them special or gifted' - no one is special - no one is significant - nothing, not even the cosmos is special - it just is. The average person having a sense of self-awareness (not an identity) feels entitled towards a sense of purpose and that they are special - they are not - they just are, and they will die and will be forgotten.

My point largely with existentialism is that you can create purpose in a meaningless world by taking on the role of crafting yourself - creating your ideal. Then when your created virtues and ideal's line up with your actions you begin to feel inner peace and far less turmoil. You have to create the meaning for yourself. Carl Sagan was such a good example of this and said it very elegantly.

We are in a void. We are meaningless. However we have self-awareness - an overly evolved self-awareness. We are as insignificant as all other biological animals and we will die just like them, but we know we will die unlike them. To cope people develop elaborate junk to stuff their time with - such as Christianity, and in a sense even my ideas on existentialism and the importance of personality development.

Being gifted does not mean you are special - you are just gifted - still entirely meaningless we are just more aware of the void, and we are more aware of our 'self'. My point is largely that their is not a great deal to life, you can live it any way you want, morality, ethics - all constructs. However, finding peace and happiness to me seems worthwhile in the worthlessness - so to find that peace and happiness you need to create your ideal you and live up to your ideal.

No_Finish_Line

and what about eastern philosophy?

those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?

are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?

Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.

^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.

I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.

Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.

I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.

when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation

MrTolerable

I think something else you should thing about is how you use that term "gifted." I teach high school English. I have encountered many "gifted" students, and although they have great propensity to understand complex ideas on a whole different level. If God didn't given them interpersonal skills then they are left to perhaps write about those ideas, but they lack the ability to communicate those ideas with their peers, even if they wanted to. It seems where God giveth in one area He taketh away in another and unfortunately this is almost always the case.
This is one of the reasons why universities are looking at a plethora of other attributes besides SAT scores, because people still have to go out into that big bad world and communicate with others and you're proof positive that intelligence alone is not enough. See Gardner's multiple intelligence theory.

There seems to be this weird belief in the US that you can't be both intelligent and socially or athletically adept. I can assure you that if you want to succeed in this world, that you need to at least be socially adept and intelligent, and a low golf handicap doesn't exactly hurt. Perhaps, our educational system (aka teachers) could stop discouraging athleticism and we'd see some improvement.

I believe you can be both to some extent; however, the extremely gifted in my experience thus far seem to be lacking in either athleticism or social skills or both. There's always a small kernel of truth in a stereotype.
I fully support athleticism as I truly believe that being fit and healthy will help someone, who is intelligent to be a more rounded individual overall. Where I work you only need a 2.0 to be an athlete, so you can fail a few classes and still make the cut. I really see it from a different perspective because we have so many young men at least in the HS I work-which is urban, lots of poverty--who see the pros and aspire to be like them, which I see nothing wrong with; however, statistically comes at the cost of their grades, and my question always is, what if that doesn't pan out? We have a culture at our school of male students, who see academics as effeminate and un-manly. I'm speaking for the general population of course, because my AP students are more mature and can see the flaws in that kind of thinking.

I feel like you are looking at a very small subsegment of the population. Every valedictorian for the four years I attended my high school was also a successful and talented athlete and had wonderful social skills.

I know many people who tested as gifted, were in AP-level classes, were put in the gifted and talented programs at my schools who were athletes, musicians and had active and healthy social lives.

You're making a sweeping statement based on your experiences in the inner city, which are not ideal by any means and are informed by an awful lot of other issues, such as gang activity, poverty, parents who abuse drugs or simply don't care. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every one of your students, but it would be far more prevalent there than in other places.

:drinker:

likitisplit

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

MrTolerable

and what about eastern philosophy?

those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?

are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?

Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.

^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.

I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.

Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.

I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.

when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation

Yeah - you are referring to the double slit experiment regarding electrons or protons not letting us observe them - not to mention they are random as crap to begin with. I've said previously this is no way disagrees with any of my stance put forth - In fact I'll be mentioning quantum physics a great deal because I think this is incredibly important.

"All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real." - Adi Shankara

If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described - Werner Heisenberg

Look at your body –
A Painted Puppet, a poor toy
Of Jointed parts ready to collapse,
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings.
-the Dhammapada.

likitisplit

and what about eastern philosophy?

those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?

are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?

Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.

^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.

I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.

Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.

I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.

when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation

Yeah - you are referring to the double slit experiment regarding electrons or protons not letting us observe them - not to mention they are random as crap to begin with. I've said previously this is no way disagrees with any of my stance put forth - In fact I'll be mentioning quantum physics a great deal because I think this is incredibly important.

"All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real." - Adi Shankara

If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described - Werner Heisenberg

Look at your body –
A Painted Puppet, a poor toy
Of Jointed parts ready to collapse,
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings.
-the Dhammapada.

Just because we don't know where it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere at a given moment in time.

MrTolerable

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

"Who cares?"

1st off - I will be crafting this work in the same manner I have crafted many of the forums - my life story is highly entertaining.

I have experienced many things - I've been tortured, I've been homeless, I've been in a mental hospital, I've been employee of the year,I've been a drug addict, I've been rich, I've been poor, I've been suicidal, I've been in bliss. I have an incredible life journey that is unparalleled by the average person - because I have willfully crossed over the lines - and then walked back with a deep understanding. I've observed a great deal despite only being 24.

2nd off - I think the gifted will care, those that display the overexcitabilities will find more meaning in them - and will hopefully come to the same conclusion to me on the 'why' behind a great deal of things, and in some cases I will simply be providing more 'why's'.

3rd off - If my book were to flop (which realistically it def will) so be it - at least it would be out of my head so I could finally move on - this is pressing - the urgency is something you can't feel - it will be very therapeutic for me to craft this out. I will feel a sense of purpose and meaning for myself.

MrTolerable

and what about eastern philosophy?

those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?

are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?

Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.

^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.

I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.

Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.

I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.

when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation

Yeah - you are referring to the double slit experiment regarding electrons or protons not letting us observe them - not to mention they are random as crap to begin with. I've said previously this is no way disagrees with any of my stance put forth - In fact I'll be mentioning quantum physics a great deal because I think this is incredibly important.

"All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real." - Adi Shankara

If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described - Werner Heisenberg

Look at your body –
A Painted Puppet, a poor toy
Of Jointed parts ready to collapse,
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings.
-the Dhammapada.

Just because we don't know where it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere at a given moment in time.

yeah I agree with you - but it just will get smaller - till we are talking quirks and leptons - then it gets even smaller - idk we can talk string theory? M-Theory - whatevs - it all points towards a stream of consciousness be it things at the subatomic level or through entanglement.

Not to mention with all the parallel universes in the multiverse - I mean talk about insignificant - my friend through the eyes of the cosmos - that is you and I.

likitisplit

and what about eastern philosophy?

those who reject a clearly defined sense of self because thier introsepection moves them to interpret it as an illusion?

are they precluded from a meaningful life or being thought of as gifted?

Yeah- actually I think they are on to something very profound - the ego death.

^I have personally felt the effects of ego death from messing with substance abuse - hallucinogenics in the past - it is very unnerving -experiencing depersonalization.

I in a sense agree with their line of thinking - quantum physicist as has been mentioned in even this thread keep pointing towards the fact that we are in an illusion or simply in a consciousness.

Once computering power has advanced to the point where we can accurately simulate the big bang... then the simple fact that this is possible makes it infinetly more likely that we are accually living in a computer simulation... because there would be a simulation within that simulation, and so on and so forth, like a russan doll.

I mean, thats BS but its almost hard to work your way out of the logic when you keep thinking about. there are experiments that suggests that matter behaves differently when its being observed, which has been liked to that fact that what is not currently being displayed on a monitor in a computer simulation in some ways does not exist. It exists but not in the same form as precieved on the monitor, it exists only as information in the simulation when not displayed.

when you keep drilling down... there will be no 'smallest particle'. there will only be quantum states... just information that is interpreted by the one percieving... much like the a simulation

Yeah - you are referring to the double slit experiment regarding electrons or protons not letting us observe them - not to mention they are random as crap to begin with. I've said previously this is no way disagrees with any of my stance put forth - In fact I'll be mentioning quantum physics a great deal because I think this is incredibly important.

"All things -- from Brahma the creator down to a single blade of grass -- are. . .simply appearances and not real." - Adi Shankara

If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle. . .the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being. . .belongs to what is described - Werner Heisenberg

Look at your body –
A Painted Puppet, a poor toy
Of Jointed parts ready to collapse,
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings.
-the Dhammapada.

Just because we don't know where it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere at a given moment in time.

yeah I agree with you - but it just will get smaller - till we are talking quirks and leptons - then it gets even smaller - idk we can talk string theory? M-Theory - whatevs - it all points towards a stream of consciousness be it things at the subatomic level or through entanglement.

Not to mention with all the parallel universes in the multiverse - I mean talk about insignificant - my friend through the eyes of the cosmos - that is you and I.

Whatevs. You kind of have to use two opposing arguments to get there. First, there is no meaning and second, that we need to look at ourselves in relationship to that lack of meaning.

However, if there is no meaning, then (woo hoo) I get to create my own: I'm the center of the universe!

If there is meaning, then I have significance in relationship to that meaning. Which is nifty.

In the mean time, just like the bonobos, I need to feed my kids. And that's pretty cool too.

No_Finish_Line

Would they care?

Where does this desperate need to be classified as "gifted" come from?

i would imagine they'd find any such arguments/theories pretty pointless. just introducing another point of view into the 'discussion'.

ie, i'm feeding the bears

It's a good point. It does underline the question - imagine that we'd successfully defined "gifted" in this context - what does the label do for the "gifted" person? What does it do for me?

i'm not sure i really follow your question, but i would basically say its a self serving title. which goes back to what i was saying about psychology being like english class, if you can make a decent argument, then you 'theory' is sound.

one could probably focus on any number of personality quirks, or some other aspect of human life, and come up with a rationale why it makes them special or gifted. even amongst those prone to critical evaluation, some will evaluate the ideas for what they are and some will support it simply because they see themselves in it.

Psychology is actually a science. It uses scientific method. (Then there's clinical psychology which applies it.) I'm not sure what all you took as a student but, trust me, there's more than just logical argument to the discipline.

The term "gifted" came about because Alfred Binet was tasked by the French government to find a way to separate kids for educational placement. So he developed an intelligence test to try to sort them. Voila - some scored low and some scored high and resources were meted out accordingly.

How this applies to anything other than doling out school resources has been hotly debated since then. Are we allowed to administrate intelligence tests as part of employment screenings, etc? What is the impact of a high IQ on career success, happiness, relationships, all of the things of life?

So, even if Mr. Tolerable was able to find some way of philosophically tying together these topic areas, he'd still have to answer the question, "Who cares?" What's the impact?

If I'm a Peruvian alpaca herder, who is happily married with six children and goes to church every Sunday, how do my over-excitabilities affect my context?

most schools only award a BA in psychology.

you could never impliment a truly emperical experiment testing human behavior, too many varibles and moral issues.

In the end its just interpreting data, which may or may not have inherent flaws. i suppose you could say the same of all science, but there are generally more facts to help one interpret when it comes to something like chemistry.

I'd say that other then the location and function of brain structures, and whom came up with what theory when, there are no facts in the discipline of psychology