What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice and everything nice...
What are little boys made of?
Frogs and snails and puppy dogs' tails...
This famous English nursery rhyme is many hundreds of years
old. It testifies to a basic awareness that little boys have
different parameters of behavior than little girls. The
official DSM has only one checklist for ADHD characteristics.
It does not distinguish between boys and girls or children or
teenagers or adults.
Statistics show that many more boys are diagnosed as being
ADHD than girls. However, there is a growing feeling that
the reason for this discrepancy is not because more boys are
`handicapped' but because the average girl's behavior is
regarded as the norm by which all pupils must be judged.
Every parent of a large family knows how girls are different
from boys. There are some girls who are `tomboys' and there
are some boys who are quiet, neat and tidy. However, the
average boy is wilder than the average girl. He has his
pockets full of bits and pieces and his style of play is
rougher; he runs and climbs and jumps and plays with sticks
and stones. In class, he likes to question and attack and
rarely sits still for long.
Imagine the following scenario:
Dr. Genius decides to set up a system for evaluating
paintings. He takes a collection of famous paintings and
begins to analyze them. He counts how many colors and shades
each painting has, what proportion of the canvas is covered
by each color, computes spatial relationships between the
areas of colors, and so continues to develop parameters for
analyzing the paintings. Eventually, he builds up a database
of statistics and from that, he produces a standard which
defines a `Classic Work of Art.' He then develops a checklist
to indicate the artistic level of a painting based on the
percentages of the various parameters as compared with his
Standard Definition.
After some time, Dr. Genius himself realizes that his
original GSDWA (Genius Standard Definition for Works of Art)
does not relate to the frequency, spread and depth of the
brushstrokes (now known as `Keratin Filament Pigmental
Applications' or KFPA's). To correct this omission, he
produces the GSDWA II.
After a while, fellow academics realize that Dr. Genius's
parameters do not fit other types of works of art. Professor
Brilliant develops the "Brilliant Waterpainting Screening
Schedule" -- known as the BWpSS Test. Mrs. Jenny develops the
Jenny Ceramics Art Analysis Schedule -- the JCAAS Test.
Academics all over the world work to produce different types
of Artwork Screening Tests (ASTs) using different
parameters.
Soon, colleges establish Departments of Art Analyis which
include analytical evaluation of works of art and the
training of Artwork inspectors.
Dr. Genius' initiative also opens the door to important
research which helps change the face of art. For example,
Egbert's research on how PFR (Pigment Flow Rate) is affected
by the KF angle enables artists to increase the KFPA (Keratin
Filament Pigmental Applications) rate by 8.5%. It also
inspires Willimosan's pioneering paper, "The Modal
Relationship between PFRs and KFs, and their effect on GSDWA
II and BWpSS" (Proc. Insti. Artistic Assessment, 1997) which
is now required reading for anyone who is interested in
painting.
Dr. Genius' work also inspires research into the development
of remediation techniques for those who suffer from AD
(Artistic Deficiencies). Johnny, who cannot draw a straight
line, is diagnosed as suffering from LMV (Linear Muscular
Vectoritus), and Fred, who cannot tell the difference between
mauve and orange, is diagnosed as suffering from SPCISD (Sub-
Primary Color Interaction Sensitivity Deficiency).
*
Mr. Realerty, an accomplished painter, applied for a job in
the college. At the interview, the Professor of Art asked him
what his MPCDI was.
"What's an MPCDI?" Mr. Realerty asked.
The professor reeled in shock. "You mean you call yourself an
artist and you don't know what your Mean Primary Color
Distribution Index is?"
"My father was an artist and I am an artist and I have been
painting and teaching art for many years and my paintings
have been hung in many famous exhibitions," replied Mr.
Realerty meekly.
The professor looked at Mr. Realarty with scorn. "I'm sorry,
but that is irrelevant. Before I can consider you for a
position in my college, you will have to study for at least 5
years in order to attain a minimal level of
qualification."
In response, Mr. Realarty gave up painting and looked for an
office job.
*
Mr. Kold, who is a top financier but does not know a
Rembrandt from a Rorschach, wanted to set himself up as the
director of an art gallery. So he went to an art appreciation
course based on Dr. Genius' work. On completing the course,
Mr. Kold became a certified Art Appriaser (CAA). Mr. Kold was
now qualified to evaluate painting and reject those which did
not meet the "Dr. Genius Painting Standard (DGPS)."
If an artist protests that his painting has been praised by
fellow artists, Mr. Kold will send a polite rejection slip
stating that "We appreciate your feelings but we work
according to the International GSDWA II Standards and
unfortunately, your work did not meet the standard we
require. We wish you good luck in the future."
*
Of course, the above scenario will never take place. Though
Dr. Genius' project is an interesting intellectual
experiment, no one would take it seriously, least of all, a
true artist. If Dr. Genius really believes that he can
determine the level of artistry of a painting using his
checklist, it shows that he has no idea of the nature of art
and what a painting really is. Dr. Genius is attempting to
bypass the real skill required to evaluate paintings, and
replace it with inhuman techology.
At a more fundamental level, Dr. Genius would be undermining
the whole nature of art and its role in life and the
relationship between the artist and his work. He would also
be providing a tool which will enable someone who does not
understand art to play a signficant role in art.
Various "Dr. Geniuses" have produced parsing systems for
evaluating the readability of English texts by analyzing
different aspects of the text, but no publisher would base
his decision of whether or not to publish a book only on such
an analysis. No one listens to the "Dr. Genius'" when they
buy or sell books.
However, in the field of educational psychology, Dr.
Genius has succeeded. Batteries of complex, sophisticated
tests and psychometric evaluations are changing education
into an unemotional technology and teachers into education
technicians. Repeatedly, mechanchim meet with
children, teenagers and adults who have been diagnosed as
having one or many `learning disabilities,' only to find that
the individual is really highly gifted but does not fit into
the `parameters' required by the educational
technocrats.
Because of the fundamental differences between English and
Hebrew, much of the research performed and remediations
developed for English is irrelevant to Hebrew, and it would
probably be counterproductive to attempt to remediate Hebrew
reading using a technique designed to remediate English
reading. None of the regular psychological educational
screening tests have been validated for the chareidi
community. Furthermore, the nature of learning chumash,
mishna and gemora is unlike any secular
discipline.
This implies that regular psychometric screenings and
remediations are probably of little value to the chareidi
population. Anyone who truly wants to remediate should first
spend his time helping in classes, studying experienced
mechanchim, meeting with hundreds of children, both
regular and gifted, of all ages, developing the ability to
relate to them as individual personalities, and above all, to
develop a love for children and a heartfelt desire to help
them.
Next time you read the biography of one of our great sages,
ask yourself, "If he had been sent for present-day
psychometric evaluation, how would he have been rated?"
