4 ms·

True, but they hold something that is generally recognized as a mark of intelligence. Whether or not it is actually a mark of intelligence is irrelevant to his

True, but they hold something that is generally recognized as a mark of intelligence. Whether or not it is actually a mark of intelligence is irrelevant to his point.

elblanco 17y ago
And for being duped into believing this little lie, Mr. Guo has singularly proven that Stanford folks are not as smart as their reputation makes them out to be.
- elblanco 17y ago
  Downvoted obviously from a Stanford grad.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    You're new here, so please read the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - elblanco 17y ago
      Fair enough, I can see how that was trollish. So I'll elaborate. Mr. Guo exists in a world built upon a false axiom, "only the smartest make it into the top schools, and that people who don't make it into those schools are obviously not the smartest." Making it into a top school implies top grades. And since only top grades can get you into top schools, only the smartest get top grades. Since people who have made it into top schools are the smartest, it is obvious that they do not need to demonstrate their intelligence, schooling or other such This is the thrust of his entire argument, period. Yet anybody with access to the Internet knows that top grades correlate poorly to other measures of intelligence. Being common knowledge, perpetuating notion that top grades = top intellect is clearly a basic untruth (maybe "lie" is too trollish, dunnah). Therefore (spelling it out formally now), If top grades != top intellect and top grades implies entrance into top schools the students at top schools are not guaranteed to be persons of top intellect Since we have now formally established that not all the people at Stanford (just using Mr. Guo's school as an exemplar here) are not of the top intellect, we know that there exists people who attended non-top schools who are of the top intellect (or did not attend post 12th grade schooling at all!). And we also know that, using this article as an exemplar as well, that there exists people who are inclined, like Mr. Guo, to assume that people who did not attend a top school are also not of top intellect, that persons of top intellect who did not attend a top school must therefore clarify this basic truth to persons like Mr. Guo. The problem with this of course is that Mr. Guo works off of a false axiom, so people who have tried to clarify this to him are viewed as, to use Mr. Guo's own word choice, disreputable? In other words, he's calling them liars.
      - scott_s 17y ago
        His arguments are not built on that axiom. Never does he claim that the "only the smartest" people make it into the top schools. His argument is based on signals (such as grades and pedigree), not actual intelligence. His claim is that some people who lack one signal (academic pedigree) will try to compensate with another signal (elitism).
        pgbovine 17y ago
        thanks for that post, scott_s! that beautifully sums up the thrust of my article way better than my article actually did ;) sorry for seeming like i'm sucking up, but i think that comments on HN are amongst the highest quality i've seen on the web ... perhaps there should be an online service where an intelligent crowd reads articles and tries to summarize them succinctly in one sentence or paragraph. i think that this organically occurs with lots of articles posted on HN ... amongst the dozens of comments, there will be a few awesome summaries.
        elblanco 17y ago
        The central claim of the article "Given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one with less-reputable external marks of status will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery." and the content are in conflict. Before the first paragraph is even over Mr. Guo has provided his actual claim "the most arrogant and academically-snobby kids in the classroom were the ones who were undoubtedly smart but not the smartest. _The smartest kids in the class had reputable externally-recognizable marks of status --- their top-ranked grades on exams and homeworks --- and thus did not need to assert their intelligence._" I'm not really sure how much more clear that needs to be made. The parallel he then draws is: "As adults, one common external mark of status is the reputation of one's college. Just like how there are name-brand clothing lines and electronics products, there are also name-brand colleges: What college-educated person hasn't heard of Harvard, Yale, or Stanford? Thus, I assert that given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one who did not go to a name-brand university will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery as a form of compensation for his/her lack of visible status." The argument is clear and I stand by my statement. The elitism in the article is clear, and it's not the tier 1+n schooled folks. You'll have to recheck your receiver because the only signal I'm getting from this is, "hey state school, did I give you permission to talk? The grown ups can't hear each other over the racket you're making." Just because it's couched in fancified language like "externally-recognizable marks of status" doesn't change what he's saying.
  - timwiseman 17y ago
    If you meant me, I have an undergrad from Oklahoma State University and am working on a Masters at University of Nevada Las Vegas right now.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      Nice...I'm surprised you down-voted me when I was agreeing with you. But meh.
      - timwiseman 17y ago
        ??? I haven't downvoted you, and if you were agreeing with me then the choice of words is...unusual.
        elblanco 17y ago
        I think we have achieved a rare bidirectional miscommunication event. I thought I was agreeing with you, you thought I wasn't. I thought you downvoted me, you apparently did not. I think we the term is "violent agreement". I say we just call it a day before any children get hurt. :)

True, but they hold something that is generally recognized as a mark of intelligence. Whether or not it is actually a mark of intelligence is irrelevant to his point.

elblanco 17y ago

And for being duped into believing this little lie, Mr. Guo has singularly proven that Stanford folks are not as smart as their reputation makes them out to be.

elblanco 17y ago
Downvoted obviously from a Stanford grad.
- scott_s 17y ago
  You're new here, so please read the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - elblanco 17y ago
    Fair enough, I can see how that was trollish. So I'll elaborate. Mr. Guo exists in a world built upon a false axiom, "only the smartest make it into the top schools, and that people who don't make it into those schools are obviously not the smartest." Making it into a top school implies top grades. And since only top grades can get you into top schools, only the smartest get top grades. Since people who have made it into top schools are the smartest, it is obvious that they do not need to demonstrate their intelligence, schooling or other such This is the thrust of his entire argument, period. Yet anybody with access to the Internet knows that top grades correlate poorly to other measures of intelligence. Being common knowledge, perpetuating notion that top grades = top intellect is clearly a basic untruth (maybe "lie" is too trollish, dunnah). Therefore (spelling it out formally now), If top grades != top intellect and top grades implies entrance into top schools the students at top schools are not guaranteed to be persons of top intellect Since we have now formally established that not all the people at Stanford (just using Mr. Guo's school as an exemplar here) are not of the top intellect, we know that there exists people who attended non-top schools who are of the top intellect (or did not attend post 12th grade schooling at all!). And we also know that, using this article as an exemplar as well, that there exists people who are inclined, like Mr. Guo, to assume that people who did not attend a top school are also not of top intellect, that persons of top intellect who did not attend a top school must therefore clarify this basic truth to persons like Mr. Guo. The problem with this of course is that Mr. Guo works off of a false axiom, so people who have tried to clarify this to him are viewed as, to use Mr. Guo's own word choice, disreputable? In other words, he's calling them liars.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      His arguments are not built on that axiom. Never does he claim that the "only the smartest" people make it into the top schools. His argument is based on signals (such as grades and pedigree), not actual intelligence. His claim is that some people who lack one signal (academic pedigree) will try to compensate with another signal (elitism).
      - pgbovine 17y ago
        thanks for that post, scott_s! that beautifully sums up the thrust of my article way better than my article actually did ;) sorry for seeming like i'm sucking up, but i think that comments on HN are amongst the highest quality i've seen on the web ... perhaps there should be an online service where an intelligent crowd reads articles and tries to summarize them succinctly in one sentence or paragraph. i think that this organically occurs with lots of articles posted on HN ... amongst the dozens of comments, there will be a few awesome summaries.
      - elblanco 17y ago
        The central claim of the article "Given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one with less-reputable external marks of status will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery." and the content are in conflict. Before the first paragraph is even over Mr. Guo has provided his actual claim "the most arrogant and academically-snobby kids in the classroom were the ones who were undoubtedly smart but not the smartest. _The smartest kids in the class had reputable externally-recognizable marks of status --- their top-ranked grades on exams and homeworks --- and thus did not need to assert their intelligence._" I'm not really sure how much more clear that needs to be made. The parallel he then draws is: "As adults, one common external mark of status is the reputation of one's college. Just like how there are name-brand clothing lines and electronics products, there are also name-brand colleges: What college-educated person hasn't heard of Harvard, Yale, or Stanford? Thus, I assert that given two people with comparable levels of intelligence and technical skills, the one who did not go to a name-brand university will be more likely to display outward signs of elitism, arrogance, and snobbery as a form of compensation for his/her lack of visible status." The argument is clear and I stand by my statement. The elitism in the article is clear, and it's not the tier 1+n schooled folks. You'll have to recheck your receiver because the only signal I'm getting from this is, "hey state school, did I give you permission to talk? The grown ups can't hear each other over the racket you're making." Just because it's couched in fancified language like "externally-recognizable marks of status" doesn't change what he's saying.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  If you meant me, I have an undergrad from Oklahoma State University and am working on a Masters at University of Nevada Las Vegas right now.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    Nice...I'm surprised you down-voted me when I was agreeing with you. But meh.
    - timwiseman 17y ago
      ??? I haven't downvoted you, and if you were agreeing with me then the choice of words is...unusual.
      - elblanco 17y ago
        I think we have achieved a rare bidirectional miscommunication event. I thought I was agreeing with you, you thought I wasn't. I thought you downvoted me, you apparently did not. I think we the term is "violent agreement". I say we just call it a day before any children get hurt. :)