Why IQ tests of the past lacked smarts.

retro_classroom

The following is a guest post by Mary Pranzatelli about the matter of how the standard IQ tests those of us of a certain age had to endure as children only tested for one aspect of intelligence, when there are actually 6. This was damaging because kids who scored low on the standard (Iowa) IQ test in those days were often assumed to be “slow” (and sometimes put in special ed classes) when they may have actually been very bright–in aspects those tests didn’t measure. This is what happens when an IQ test for children is developed through the limited and damaging lens of cerebral narcissism.

Fortunately things are improving today. Psychologists are recognizing there are at least 6 different types of intelligence.

Mr. Smarty Pants and the Dumb IQ Test
Guest Post by Mary Pranzatelli

Does anyone remember those placement tests we took way back in the day? Those lengthy evaluations timed to measure our intellectual level in the 60s and 70s. They called them the Iowa tests. They were used to evaluate, place and devalue students in categories to tell them who they were and what they could be.

Did you ever wonder who created these nerve racking, sweat inducing tests that gave you nausea in the pit in your stomach? His name was Everett Franklin Lindquist. He was a Professor from Iowa, who created these standardized tests known as the ACT He started administering them in 1959.

I don’t know about you, but when I was a little girl I wanted to play on the swing outside and when I was a teenager I wanted to hang out with my friends, be creative and write poetry and stuff. I found these standardized tests completely boring, disturbing and even insulting. I’d start reading the first few questions and I my mind would become completely overwhelmed. I thought, “Oh..No…No…No! Its none of your business!” How dare them hand me a paper, pencil and a multiple choice test that will evaluate me and place my entire life into a category. Some placement analogy that was based on a multiple choice test made up by this Smarty Pants; A Professor from Iowa. A cerebral Narcissist that thought he was more superior then everyone else because he had a high IQ.

I’m sure I’m not the only student who became frustrated with all those little machine ready printed dots that intimidated us as they stared us in the face. A hundred or more multiple choice questions that would determine one’s future in attempt to brainwash us to believe we were either stupid or smart based on Professor Lindquist’s analogy of who we are. I use to think the man who made up the Iowa test was really a brilliant man. I thought he was a real genuine Smarty pants. I was brainwashed. I believed smarty pants was smarter then me. And this asshole had us all by the seat of our pants because he was in control of our academic direction, future and career path. This cerebral Narcissist screwed up a whole lot of people.

A portrait of ACT CoFounder E.F. Lindquist.

A portrait of ACT CoFounder E.F. Lindquist.

They ran those answers through the Iowa test machine and let us know what our IQ scores were. The measurements that actually brainwashed most of us and our thinking. He squashed our abilities to explore ourselves and enjoy our dreams our wants and what we loved to do. Mr. Smarty Pants never had the insight to know us better then we knew ourselves. No standardized machine driven test has the ability to determine who we are.

So who are we? Aren’t we all humans. And humans are love, and feelings. We have 7 major components. We think, feel (emotions, love, pain and empathy). We taste, smell, touch, see and we have instincts. So what would a Modern Hierarchy of intelligence look like? A realistic Hierarchy.

*The Modern Hierarchy of thinking

1. Remembering

2. Understanding,

3. Applying

4. Analyzing

5. Evaluating

6. Creating

IQ only measures number 1, which is the lowest order of thinking.

Unfortunately, Smarty Pants and the rest of all the know it all’s have difficulty moving on. Many of these, I am so smart assholes, never move on because they believe that they are superior and they are stuck on number 1. In many ways it is societies fault for telling them that they are so smart.

Creating, which is number 6 is the highest form of thinking. That includes music and art. So don’t let anybody tell you that you are not smart when your heart and mind is advanced in all the categories.

A final note to the late Mr. Smarty Pants who developed the Iowa test….

I’m sorry your thinking was so overwhelming, and that you lacked the ability to feel for all the children you hurt. I’m also sorry for all the children who ended up suffering from hardships and low self esteem due to your silly standardized test.

Professor Everett Franklin Lindquist, May Your Soul Rest in Peace…

Are all vain people narcissists?

vain_woman

People who don’t know much about NPD confuse narcissism with physical vanity. If you say the word ‘narcissist’ to them, they visualize a glamorous woman preening in the mirror or trying on 10 different outfits and spending an hour on her makeup before she goes out. Or they picture a buff man with a well defined six pack, lifting weights in front of a mirrored wall.

The confusion is understandable. But not all people who seem to obsess over their appearance or fitness are narcissists. And of course, not all narcissists are physically vain. In fact, most cerebral narcissists care nothing about their appearance.

If a vain person is a narcissist, they are of the somatic subtype. My mother was this type of narcissist, and many of them do spend a lot of time looking at themselves in the mirror, working out at the gym, or constantly shopping for new clothes. But they are in the minority. Most narcissists, even somatic ones, don’t spend a lot of time doing these things. Their narcissism isn’t defined by how much time they spend preening before a mirror, but by their lack of empathy, self-centeredness, and their propensity to manipulate others to get what they want. Some of the most out of shape, slovenly looking people you could imagine are narcissists. And some of the most physically fit and well-dressed and groomed people are not.

A gorgeous woman who spends several hours a day trying to look perfect is not a narcissist if she also cares about the feelings of others and is making herself look good for her husband, boyfriend or herself. But if the same woman tries to look perfect because she wants to attract a man who is married to another woman–and feels no shame about this–then she is a narcissist.

There is nothing wrong with interest in one’s physical appearance. Most of us want to look attractive. For some people, it’s almost a hobby. An attractive man or woman usually knows they’re attractive, but that doesn’t automatically make them narcissists.

The only danger with having too much interest in your physical appearance is you may fail to develop other qualities that make you a more well-rounded, interesting person. Getting older will be tough for a person who has failed to develop their mind or their personality because their appearance was their first priority. A person only interested in how they look is also a very boring person. But they may not be narcissistic, just vain.

I used to know a beautiful woman who spent all her money on clothes and makeup, and worked out at the gym every day. People used to accuse her of being vain and narcissistic, but she was also one of the most sincere and sweet people you could ever hope to meet. Her vanity, in fact, was due to her anxiety that she didn’t look good enough for her overly critical, narcissistic husband. This woman was codependent and worked hard to please him, and that meant she had to look like a fashion model at all times–and it still was never good enough for him.

When her husband finally divorced her for a younger woman, she became depressed and let herself go. She gained about 50 pounds, stopped styling her hair, and stopped wearing makeup. It was hard to believe she was the same person. Eventually she recovered from her depression enough to start caring about her appearance again, but this time it wasn’t an obsession. She also began to develop her interest in art and signed up for art classes at the local community college. Today she looks attractive again, and has a fashion style all her own that reflects her artistic style.

Narcissists come in all shapes and sizes. Some are obsessed with their appearance, but the vast majority are not. Don’t dismiss someone as a narcissist just because they seem to spend too much time on their physical appearance. Like the woman I described above, they may not even be doing it for themselves.

Notes of first therapy session with Sam V., male, 43, diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

samvak3

The following is about ten years old, I think. I’m not going to editorialize this further, but let the therapist’s words speak for themselves. (I do not know who the therapist was). Pretty interesting stuff and a vivid picture of how NPD can manifest itself in one person, in this case a well known author who writes about his own disorder. Sam Vaknin suffers from the cerebral form of narcissism; the other type is somatic.

Notes of first therapy session with Sam V., male, 43, diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/personalitydisorders65.html

Sam presents with anhedonia (failure to enjoy or find pleasure in anything) and dysphoria bordering on depression. He complains of inability to tolerate people’s stupidity and selfishness in a variety of settings. He admits that as a result of his “intellectual superiority” he is not well placed to interact with others or even to understand them and what they are going through. He is a recluse and fears that he is being mocked and ridiculed behind his back as a misfit and a freak. Throughout the first session, he frequently compares himself to a machine, a computer, or a member of an alien and advanced race, and talks about himself in the third person singular.

Life, bemoans Sam, has dealt him a bad hand. He is consistently and repeatedly victimized by his clients, for instance. They take credit for his ideas and leverage them to promote themselves, but then fail to re-hire him as a consultant. He seems to attract hostility and animosity incommensurate with his good and generous deeds. He even describes being stalked by two or three vicious women whom he had spurned, he claims, not without pride in his own implied irresistibility. Yes, he is abrasive and contemptuous of others at times but only in the interests of “tough love.” He is never obnoxious or gratuitously offensive.

Sam is convinced that people envy him and are “out to get him” (persecutory delusions). He feels that his work (he is also a writer) is not appreciated because of its elitist nature (high-brow vocabulary and such). He refuses to “dumb down”. Instead, he is on a mission to educate his readers and clients and “bring them up to his level.” When he describes his day, it becomes clear that he is desultory, indolent, and lacks self-discipline and regular working habits. He is fiercely independent (to the point of being counter-dependent – click on this link: http://samvak.tripod.com/faq66.html ) and highly values his self-imputed “brutal honesty” and “original, non-herd, outside the box” thinking.

He is married but sexually inactive. Sex bores him and he regards it as a “low-level” activity practiced by “empty-headed” folk. He has better uses for his limited time. He is aware of his own mortality and conscious of his intellectual legacy. Hence his sense of entitlement. He never goes through established channels. Instead, he uses his connections to secure anything from medical care to car repair. He expects to be treated by the best but is reluctant to buy their services, holding himself to be their equal in his own field of activity. He gives little or no thought to the needs, wishes, fears, hopes, priorities, and choices of his nearest and dearest. He is startled and hurt when they become assertive and exercise their personal autonomy (for instance, by setting boundaries).

Sam is disarmingly self-aware and readily lists his weaknesses and faults – but only in order to preempt real scrutiny or to fish for compliments. He constantly brags about his achievements but feels deprived (“I deserve more, much more than that”). When any of his assertions or assumptions is challenged he condescendingly tries to prove his case. If he fails to convert his interlocutor, he sulks and even rages. He tends to idealize everyone or devalue them: people are either clever and good or stupid and malicious. But, everyone is a potential foe.

Sam is very hypervigilant and anxious. He expects the worst and feels vindicated and superior when he is punished (“martyred and victimized”). Sam rarely assumes total responsibility for his actions or accepts their consequences. He has an external locus of control and his defenses are alloplastic. In other words: he blames the world for his failures, defeats, and “bad luck”. This “cosmic conspiracy” against him is why his grandiose projects keep flopping and why he is so frustrated.

Cerebral vs. somatic narcissists

cerebral_narc somatic_narc
Either of these narcs are poison–run away as fast as you can. The chihuahua is probably okay.

I’m in a blah, uncreative mood tonight and can’t think of anything to write about (I had an irritating day and just want to read), so tonight I’m just going to post this interesting article by Sam Vaknin here where he describes the differences between the two types of narcissists: cerebral and somatic. Either type can be malignant or non-malignant. I haven’t really covered the two types of narcissists in much depth before, so this should take care of that oversight.

My mother is a somatic narcissist, histrionic type. They are prone to over the top dramatic behavior, shallow sexual relationships, and tantrums. If my daughter is a narcissist, then she would also be a somatic histrionic type (which can be confused with Borderline PD, which she may actually be). Female narcissists are probably more likely to be somatic (vain, preening, overly concerned with appearance and/or health) but both types can be found in either gender. Most gay male narcissists I’ve met are of the somatic type, but that doesn’t mean most gay narcissists are necessarily somatic. I’ve know one or two cerebral ones too.

Here is that article.

Dr. Jackal and Mr. Hide: Cerebral vs. Somatic Narcissist

Narcissists are either cerebral or somatic. In other words, they either generate their Narcissistic Supply by applying their bodies or by applying their minds.

The somatic narcissist flaunts his sexual conquests, parades his possessions, exhibits his muscles, brags about his physical aesthetics, youthfulness, sexual prowess or exploits, and is often a health freak and a hypochondriac. The somatic narcissist regards his body as an object to be sculpted and honed (via extreme diets, multiple cosmetic surgeries, bodybuilding, or weightlifting). When coupled with psychopathic tendencies, the somatic appropriates other people’s bodies and treats these as “raw materials” to be dismembered, tampered with, altered, invaded, or otherwise abused.

Somatic narcissists are often portrayed as sex addicts or histrionic. But really they derive their narcissistic supply not so much from the sex act as from the process of securing it: the conspiracies and assignations, the chase and conquest, the subjugation and habituation of their targets, and even from dumping and discarding their prey, once having extracted the attention and admiration they had sought. These extracurricular activities endow them with a sense of omnipotence and all-pervasive control. Their sway over their paramours and would-be lovers proves to them (and to others) their uniqueness, desirability and irresistibility.

The cerebral narcissist is a know-it-all, haughty and intelligent “computer”. He uses his awesome intellect, or knowledge (real or pretended) to secure adoration, adulation and admiration. To him, his body and its maintenance are a burden and a distraction.

Both types are auto-erotic (psychosexually in love with themselves, with their bodies and with their brain). Both types prefer masturbation to adult, mature, interactive, multi-dimensional and emotion-laden sex.

The cerebral narcissist is often celibate (even when he has a girlfriend or a spouse). He prefers pornography and sexual auto-stimulation to the real thing. The cerebral narcissist is sometimes a latent (hidden, not yet outed) homosexual. [Interesting.]

The somatic narcissist uses other people’s bodies to masturbate. Sex with him – pyrotechnics and acrobatics aside – is likely to be an impersonal and emotionally alienating and draining experience. The partner is often treated as an object, an extension of the somatic narcissist, a toy, a warm and pulsating vibrator.

It is a mistake to assume type-constancy. In other words, all narcissists are BOTH cerebral and somatic. In each narcissist, one of the types is dominant. So, the narcissist is either OVERWHELMINGLY cerebral – or DOMINANTLY somatic. But the other type, the recessive (manifested less frequently) type, is there. It is lurking, waiting to erupt.

The narcissist swings between his dominant type and his recessive type. The latter is expressed mainly as a result of a major narcissistic injury or life crisis.

I can give you hundreds of examples from my correspondence but, instead, let’s talk about me (of course…:o))

I am a cerebral narcissist. I brandish my brainpower, exhibit my intellectual achievements, bask in the attention given to my mind and its products. I hate my body and neglect it. It is a nuisance, a burden, a derided appendix, an inconvenience, a punishment. Needless to add that I rarely have sex (often years apart). I masturbate regularly, very mechanically, as one would change water in an aquarium. I stay away from women because I perceive them to be ruthless predators who are out to consume me and mine.

I have had quite a few major life crises. I got divorced, lost millions a few times, did time in one of the worst prisons in the world, fled countries as a political refugee, was threatened, harassed and stalked by powerful people and groups. I have been devalued, betrayed, denigrated and insulted.

Invariably, following every life crisis, the somatic narcissist in me took over. I became a lascivious lecher. When this happened, I had a few relationships – replete with abundant and addictive sex – going simultaneously. I participated in and initiated group sex and mass orgies. I exercised, lost weight and honed my body into an irresistible proposition.

This outburst of unrestrained, primordial lust waned in a few months and I settled back into my cerebral ways. No sex, no women, no body.

These total reversals of character stun my mates. My girlfriends and spouse found it impossible to digest this eerie transformation from the gregarious, darkly handsome, well-built and sexually insatiable person that swept them off their feet – to the bodiless, bookwormish hermit with not an inkling of interest in either sex or other carnal pleasures.

I miss my somatic half. I wish I could find a balance, but I know it is a doomed quest. This sexual beast of mine will forever be trapped in the intellectual cage that is I, Sam Vaknin, the Brain.

Sin of self-love possesseth all mine eye
And all my soul and all my every part;
And for this sin there is no remedy,
It is so grounded inward in my heart.
Methinks no face so gracious is as mine,
No shape so true, no truth of such account;
And for myself mine own worth do define,
As I all other in all worths surmount.
But when my glass shows me myself indeed,
Beated and chopp’d with tann’d antiquity,
Mine own self-love quite contrary I read;
Self so self-loving were iniquity.
‘Tis thee, myself, that for myself I praise,
Painting my age with beauty of thy days.

(Sonnet 62, William Shakespeare)

Plac’d on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas’ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus’d;
Still by himself, abus’d or disabus’d;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl’d;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.

(Essay on Man, Alexander Pope)