Session: 1234567891011121314         Page 357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407 of 763

I do not mean, you know, violence. Wars. What not. Although I see that that's the more popular approach toward either defending injustice or seeking to change it.

I, again, am caught in the position of believing that the fight has to be with intelligence, and has to be a blending -- because I believe that what intelligence really means, and that's one of the discussions I had last week, at the meeting of the APA, on a panel that I committed myself to be dragooned on, about intelligence -- the point I made was that psychologists are doing a disservice by talking about intelligence as if one can define this and measure it independent of the total moral, ethical capacities of individuals.

There's not a damn thing on any of the intelligence tests that we now have that addresses itself to a sense of social responsibility. All of our intelligence tests talk about intelligence as if it were an isolated cognitive capacity, and intelligence tests are constructed and used as if the only function of intelligence is competitive, you know.

Well, I happen to believe that this is a terribly erroneous, destructive approach to intelligence; that intelligence, in its most meaningful, functional way, has to include moral sensitivity. Superior intelligence, to me, is not the restricted ability to make high scores on a graduate record exam, or, -- as they're now constructed-- SAT's, or the foreign service entrance exam, as they're now constructed. But superior intelligence includes compassion, empathy, sensitivity, respect for the rights of