Previous | Next
5960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108 of 763
Now, I said, a curious kind of environmentalist, because I
don't think this is absolutely true to the point where you could
make an Einstein out of anybody. But I think that each individual
has a larger boundary, range of potentials, than is generally recognized
or exploited. And the range there may vary from individual
to individual. You know, for example, Einstein has a range up here
somewhere, that various things determined at what point within his
range he would eventually fall. And Clark has a range down here,
and it may be that where I am on that scale will determine the scope
of my range. On both sides, you know. I mean, the people who have
very high potentials are up here, with probably a narrow range of
even the point below which they could fall, unless brutalized. The
people down here also have a narrow range.
You know, I really believe that one of these days, we are
going to be forced to do more by way of exploiting human potential,
to a much greater extent than we now believe that we need to or can,
or something of that sort.
My hunch is that, on the average, we get from human beings
less than 50 percent of what is possible. I'm talking about on the
positive side. I'm talking about, intellectually. I'm talking about,
morally. I'm talking about, constructive contributions.
This isn't an irrelevant or redundant question, in view of
what you've just said. When did you develop any awareness that the
intelligence tests, the aptitude tests, as constructed, may have
cultural assumptions which cause certain disadvantaged groups to
do much more poorly than their potential would suggest?
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help