traveller_76 said:
And labeling belongs to the realm of language. [...] And what you are learning, principally, is language-- to express what perhaps are indeed universal concepts, which is a question for philosophy.
What I meant was math - when in its purest form - is eternal. However, we cannot "teach" this concept to our children. Which is why we invented the mathematical system that we knew today. My point was, math (itself) is not something that can NEEDS to be learnt; however the human representation of it does. For example, ask a german guy to solve "What's Three Times Five?"
, he would probably go "What?" in german (assuming he doesn't speak any english). Does it mean he doesn't know any math? No, it doesn't. His math skills are not based on how well he can SHOW US his answer, but rather or not he KNEW the answer (in his head).
Obviously, like I said before, some degrees of language skills are needed to be able to READ the questions on an IQ test. I agree. However, the amount of education needed for that... really isn't a determining factor on the outcome. Imagine university students taking an IQ test... who would actually have problem "understanding" the questions? Yet... their result would still be very different. This counters the "Language Affects the Results" claim. Also, a lot of IQ tests ARE given to pre-school children (because they need to be sorted into gifted classes and whatnot in certain countries). In Prof. Rushton's data, he mentioned that some data were taken based on 6 years old.
traveller_76 said:
In other words HE didn't need training we need today. Before him there is a void. How did he do it? Beats me because, as ZM points out, there was not yet the concept of geometry. I proposed earlier the concepts of insight, inspiration and imagination, my
opinion is that this may be what distinguishes 'intelligent' people from the geniuses of history
[...]
Unless you think you're like Pythagoras
This discussion is in no ways about me. I simple used myself as an example on how math and physics CAN be figured out (luckily, I can use my own experience as examples).
To prove something exists, all I had to do is give ONE example. If Pythagoras CAN figure out math on his own, then it follows that Math does not need to be taught. Even if he hadn't, it still followed that SOMEONE did. It had to start somewhere. It didn't just "happen"; someone had to figure it out (then someone else applied his/her logics and managed to further the field).
Personnaly, I have been "figuring out" math all my life... I barely attend math classes (Physics classes, on the other hand, I have to attend, because there are a lot more terminology and rules to memorize). Abeit, I don't do it when it's Calculus (because Newton's ideas are far too powerful and far too complex for a few years of study), but most of the "lesser" math, I tried as hard as I can to "absorb" it.
Btw, Pythagoras needed to "read" and "write" to express his theorm as well (however, he doesn't need it to "KNOW" the theorm).
traveller_76 said:
I didn't mean it passively.
[...]
That means: when you have 'low' economic status you are more likely to not go on to university and onto a better paying job (or have 'low' acheivement) than people with "high" status.
This is not like saying 'poverty causes people to suck in school and have bad jobs'. It is a 'positive correlation'. When one goes up, so does the other. When one goes down so does the other. I didn't make this particular 'correlation' up--it's one of the few for which there is a consensus in the social sciences, including at your own school's political science department. I brought up this "socio-economic status" example up as a grain of salt to your IQ argument. Why is there a correlation? I'm sure the academic journals in this field are still accepting papers.
[...]
With that in mind, I propose that children who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to do well in IQ tests.
[...]
It is an assumption (a common assumption) to say that socio-economic background has no bearing on IQ scores. I'm saying it does (and I'm also making an assumption) because, if the evidence already shows that people from poorer socio-economic background tend to reach lower levels in the education system and in employement than people from wealthier backgrounds, and have higher rates of illiteracy, then it's not a far strech to suggest those same factors might also have an impact on IQ scores.
I apologize if I misused the word "dumb". Yes, you have not mention "dumb" anywhere in your assumptions. But to me, being bad in school or scoring low on IQ tests... equates DUMB. Which is why I simplified it and said "You meant poor kids are dumb".
I apologize also if I didn't state clearly what I meant by "cause". I, in no way, thought that you meant being poor is a DIRECT cause of bad performance.
Imagine if the As (being poor) and more likely to be Bs (bad former education); and Bs are likely to be Cs (bad current performance).
Now if someone asked why the event C happens? Would it be incorrect to say C happened "because" of the existance of A? Without A, C would likely cease to exist. So one COULD say that A cause C to exist, right?
So in a way, you ARE showing me a indirect cause/effect relations. The difference is that the relations are not 100%. Like you said "I propose that children who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to do well in IQ tests.". That claim shows indirect cause/effect; or else they are pointless coincidence.
Now let's try the Politically Correct version:
You showed me a correlation. In the strictest sense, you showed me nothing. You showed me that "It seems that when the Social-Economic background of children goes up, so does their performance in school". Without cause/effect, you are pointing out two interesting qualities that tend to raise and fall together.
If I choose to understand your correlation in the strictest sense (without making ANY leaps), I would've said "SO?" Because you merely showed me two values which tend to raise together and fall together... what's your point?
And then you would probably have to explain further, "Oh, I meant like maybe there is a relationship between the two." Because if you DON'T point that out, your correlation will simple suggest a coincidence. Correlation itself means nothing unless you tell me what you are MAKING of it.
After you make the above claim, THEN I would tell you, "Ah, I do not believe that is true." (I do not believe in the relation ONLY; I KNOW that the correlation itself is true)
"Why?" you would ask. Then I will explain that it's because lots of kids of poor social-economic background DO perform well (enough of them do); AND that they share something in common: a higher IQ. While there is a Correlation between Social-Economic status and Performance, there's also a Correlation between IQ and Performance.
"So, why do you choose to believe in the latter? and not the former?" you might have asked. Because I can EXPLAIN the former; Low IQ people tend to achieve less... THUS only getting low social-economic standings. Then these people pass their genes onto their children. Now these children will perform badly in school AND have a low social-economic standing. This would explain your coincidence.
But you ARE right on one point.
It is more likely for a child to perform badly in school if he comes from a low social-economic status familly. This statement being true does not mean Social Economic Standing plays more part in Performance than IQ. Why? Because IQ is correlated with Social-Economic Status. Which means the ONLY REASON Social Economic Status correlates with performance is that Social Economic status IS a pseudo-representation of IQ (due to their high correlation).
Example time:
Let's say when I drink, I grab random girls' asses. In turn, I get slapped.
If I said, I think "grabbing a girl's ass" can "get me slapped".
Would you suggest, that there's a correlation between "When I drink" and "Getting Slapped"?
Could the correlation be meant to show that getting slapped is more likely to happen when I drink? Yes.
Does it mean the CAUSE of getting slapped ISN'T "Grabbing a girl's ass"? NO !!! It still is the cause.
Defining the cause is the point here, not showing random "correlations".
The ONLY reason "getting drunk" is correlated with "getting slapped" is BECAUSE "getting drunk" is correlated with "grabbing a girl's ass".
traveller_76 said:
Careful about measuring intelligence in terms of university diplomas... That would make me a lot smarter than you
t76
Which is exactly why I suggested that we take an IQ test together.
1. We are from roughly the same background (no one's richer or poorer than the other).
2. YOU have the better education (or at least more).
If innate "IQ" does not exist, then why I do have the suspicion that I would do a lot better on the "IQ" test?
Again, I am merely using it as a point. In no way am I insulting anyone's intelligence. That's not the point of a discussion. I am certain that you do have a decent IQ.