What do you hate the most?

[joelcairo]

"Chronicles of Love", publishing 2008, buy it, read it... Make me some money.

"Phoe", publishing (I don't know when, they did't give me a deadline), buy it, read it... Make me some money.

Are you insulting my language skills? lol. If you want samples of my writing, go to INCALL, search for the threads I made on Leah sexy4u, Jade sexy4u and Adrianna sexy4u. I can't tell you my real name because I don't want people to know who I am. My two novels are published under my writing name.

Keep in mind that "logical" readings are by their nature, harder to understand (because it's more technical). Is that your problem? You can't understand my posts? Ever read Kant (his moral ethics theories)? I assure you, the writings are in english; but his ideas are hard to grasp for some.

Yes, John, I'm insulting your language skills. Sorry, but for a "writer" who seems awfully full of himself, you have not yet mastered the basics of either grammar or spelling. In addition, your writing is long-winded, uninteresting, and without direction.

You're young and you might have a chance at improving if you can get your ego in check and realize how little you currently know. Sorry again, but I won't be buying "your" book (chuckle). I don't believe you are having one published but, then again, I understand that vanity presses do a great business so I guess anything is possible.

 

[Agrippa]

Actually, logic, if you weren't using it in its conventional sense, but defined as multiple sets of logic, or "logical operations collectively", remains singular. Perhaps we have a linguist on Merb or a native English speaker that might confirm that my dictionary isn't in need of an education too.

As a native English speaker, JC's "logics" throws me off as well. It is the first time ever I've heard/read the word in the plural form. Maybe it's some kind of special Scientology term...

I expect chef to have the last word on this one.

 

[Agrippa]

Suis intéressée par ce que tu proposes parce que j'ai jamais entendu ça. Peux-tu élaborer? Ou me diriger vers la bonne piste?

t76

Je me souviens simplement que c'etait une parenthese en passant d'un prof au CEGEP qui collectionait les preuves du theoreme... il en connaissait une centaine!

Mais j'ai trouve ca:

The history of the theorem can be divided into three parts: knowledge of Pythagorean triples, knowledge of the relationship between the sides of a right triangle, and proofs of the theorem.

Megalithic monuments from 4000 BC in Egypt, and in the British Isles from circa 2500 BC, incorporate right triangles with integer sides.[1] Bartel Leendert van der Waerden conjectures that these Pythagorean triples were discovered algebraically.[2]

Written between 2000–1786 BC, the Middle Kingdom Egyptian papyrus Berlin 6619 includes a problem whose solution is a Pythagorean triple.

During the reign of Hammurabi, the Mesopotamian tablet Plimpton 322, written between 1790 and 1750 BC, contains many entries closely related to Pythagorean triples.

The Baudhayana Sulba Sutra, the dates of which are given variously as between the 8th century BCE and the 2nd century BCE, in India, contains a list of Pythagorean triples discovered algebraically, a statement of the Pythagorean theorem, and a geometrical proof of the Pythagorean theorem for an isosceles right triangle.

The Apastamba Sulba Sutra (circa 600 BC) contains a numerical proof of the general Pythagorean theorem, using an area computation. Van der Waerden believes that "it was certainly based on earlier traditions". According to Albert Bŭrk, this is the original proof of the theorem, and Pythagoras copied it on his visit to India. Many scholars find van der Waerden and Bŭrk's claims unsubstantiated[citation needed].

Pythagoras, whose dates are commonly given as 569–475 BC, used algebraic methods to construct Pythagorean triples, according to Proklos's commentary on Euclid. Proklos, however, wrote between 410 and 485 AD. According to Sir Thomas L. Heath, there is no attribution of the theorem to Pythagoras for five centuries after Pythagoras lived. However, when authors such as Plutarch and Cicero attributed the theorem to Pythagoras, they did so in a way which suggests that the attribution was widely known and undoubted.​

ici: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

Aussi... 73 preuves du theoreme... des heures de plaisir.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

D'un autre côté, je ne vois pas d'où vient cette idée que les Chinois sont intelligents et qu'ils vont dominer les mathématiques après les Américains.

J'imagine qu'il doit exister des chinois intelligents et d'autres qui le sont moins, c'est un truisme. Pour ce qui est de dominer les mathématiques, ce n'est aucunement ce que j'ai suggéré.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Je raffine (ou peut-etre embrouille) un peu tes commentaires... en effet les Grecs en on fait beaucoup, mais par exemple, le theoreme de Pythagore etait connu bien avant Pythagore lui-meme, et de plus, dans toutes les parties du monde.

Aussi, les maths n'auraient jamais progresses sans avoir mis de cote les chiffres Romains (Avez-vous deja essaye de faire une multiplication avec des chiffres Romains! ) pour les chiffres arabes. Faut pas oublier la contribution des Perses...

Ca fait pas aussi partie du mythe que les plus grands mathematiciens Grecs ont appris ce qu'ils connaissent des magiciens/pretres Egyptiens?

Mythe? Verite? Qui sait? C'est quoi le titre de l'ouvre de Michel Serres dont tu parles?

Le titre est simplement Les Origines de la géométrie

 

[Agrippa]

Le titre est simplement Les Origines de la géométrie

Je crois que je prefere lire Les Origines de la géométrie selon Serre, plutot que selon Husserl!
Merci.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Yes, John, I'm insulting your language skills. Sorry, but for a "writer" who seems awfully full of himself, you have not yet mastered the basics of either grammar or spelling. In addition, your writing is long-winded, uninteresting, and without direction.

I won't go as far as insulting his language skills but I must say that he's trying to say too many things at once, making it difficult to follow and almost impossible to answer back.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Je crois que je prefere lire Les Origines de la géométrie selon Serre, plutot que selon Husserl!
Merci.

Serres est sûrement moins aride, beaucoup plus stimulant et tellement plus chantant que Husserl.

Et pas mal moins chiant.

 

[Agrippa]

Serres est sûrement moins aride, beaucoup plus stimulant et tellement plus chantant que Husserl.

Et pas mal moins chiant.

Je crois que tout le monde l'est.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

T'échange pour mon CD 'Des visages et des figures', (dès que je l'aurai racheté)

t76

Si tu y ajoutes un G-string rouge de ton appartenance, marché conclu.

 

[incognito_NYC]

Drivers on the highway, in the left lane but only driving at legal speed (100km), as if they owned the road! Tail them, flash them, horn them, wave behind them... They just don't care! "I'm here, my cruise control in on, and you moron behind me, just wait!" LOL

(I'll probably get flamed for that, but have you noticed 80% of the times, the plate is from the states?)

ROFLMAO ... hah, hah! Exactly!

I've seen it happen so many times it's not funny.

Where I live is the suburban capital of the world. Which generally translates into lots of very insecure miscreants driving in absurdly large vehicles. And there way of making their mark on the world is to annoy the general populace since there's basically no other way that they'll be able to get anyone's attention.

Probably the worst case scenario is when someone from the right lane came across three lanes of the interstate to cut me off as I was entering the HOV lane.

And then proceeded to put on cruise control at the speed limit.

I was driving a 10-year old car at the time & believe me, I was tempted to cash it in early

But when dealing with the clueless it's really pointless arguing.

But my all-time favorite was driving home at 2 AM and having someone parked in the left lane refusing to yield to the right.

There's no reason to be in the left lane with cruise control on unless you're too lazy to drive ... the middle lane is too much work for them.

So I finally pulled around in front of the guy & took my foot off the gas to see how long it would take for him to figure it out.

2 AM on an empty highway and it still took till we hit about 40 MPH before he realized something was wrong. Like I said, clueless.

As soon as he tried to pass me on the right I floored it and cruised the rest of the way home in the left lane where real drivers belong.

So if you like to use cruise control, save it for the middle of a desert, or the cornfields, or something. There's no use for it in crowded urban areas. It should be outlawed.

Let's face it ... when your car is on cruise control, so is your mind. The left lane of a highway is not a good place to be taking a nap.

So stay home, or take a taxi if your that effin' lazy!

 

[z/m(Ret)]

et j'ai pas dit que j'acceptais le troc! (m'informe seulement sur la valeur de mon g-string et mon CD 'road movie', contre ton livre et,...?)

décidément 'déconnante' ce soir,

t76

C'est le contenu qui fait le slip...

 

[eastender]

John D. Barrow

Un excellent livre qui traîte de cette question est intitulé "PI in the sky" par John Borrow. L'auteur commence par retracer l'origine des nombres et du comptage en se posant la question si les nombres sont innés ou tout simples une contruction de l'Homme. Il y a aussi une discussion interessante sur le conflit entre l'école formaliste et l'école intuitionniste.

D'un autre côté, je ne vois pas d'où vient cette idée que les Chinois sont intelligents et qu'ils vont dominer les mathématiques après les Américains. J'ai travaillé avec plusieurs étudiants Chinois, ils sont de vrais bucheurs, mais lorsqu'il s'agit de créativité, d'esprit d'analyse et de capacités de déduction, il faudra repasser. Les meilleurs étudiants quand aux qualités précédentes sont à mon avis ceux orginaires de l'Europe de l'est et du moyen orient. Pas toujours très travailleurs malheuresement, mais le potentiel est là.

John D. Barrow, Cambridge University wrote "Pi in the Sky" and "The Book of Nothing". The second touches topics such as the relatively late introduction of zero or nothing etc.

Not sure what you mean by the word "nombres"? Standard translation would be the word "chiffres" as in numerals or "numeros" as in numbers.

You touch on a very interesting and long running debate about the differences between mathematicians under the different communist regimes.
Chinese mathematicians for ages were inclined to the practical/applied side.
Soviet Bloc mathematicians were viewed as being more complete,more rounded with very strong abstract inclinations.

It will be interesting to see how the two schools evolve as they become generations removed from the old communist regimes.

The other issue is the lack of Venture Capital or R & D money available outside the USA and western Europe. Theoretical work requires funding since it is hard to do on an empty stomach.

 

[Dee]

A very interesting read (honestly)is "Fermat's Last Theorm" by Singh.... his book on codes is fascinating as well... while I didn't know Fermat well I'm a little suspicion of his note... I've jotted on the edge of my diary: "I've discovered the cure for cancer as well as a sure fire pleasurable way to lose weight,,, but I don't have enough room to set them out just now"....here is Amazon's summaryof the Fermat book;

The story of the solving of a puzzle that has confounded mathematicians since the 17th century. The solution of Fermat's Last Theorem is the most important mathematical development of the 20th century. In 1963, a schoolboy browsing in his local library stumbled across the world's greatest mathematical problem: Fermat's Last Theorem, a puzzle that every child can understand but which has baffled mathematicians for over 300 years. Aged just ten, Andrew Wiles dreamed that he would crack it. Wiles's lifelong obsession with a seemingly simple challenge set by a long-dead Frenchman is an emotional tale of sacrifice and extraordinary determination. In the end, Wiles was forced to work in secrecy and isolation for seven years, harnessing all the power of modern maths to achieve his childhood dream. Many before him had tried and failed,

 

[John_Cage]

really...with all the discussion here about IQ....Remember me that last summer. I made an activities annoucements, because i don't really want a lover...Just want to make some sports and others activities...So, i put an annonce on Reseau Contact....I start to talk with a man incredibly intelligent, the worlds written by him was just delicious...Very strong sense of humour, "décapant"...That make me want to know more him....Sure, high intelligencia is definetly interesting....but, a moment, he begun to talk of Mensa, he parts of that group...I think, it's really a good group, but him, when he talks about that, begun to be pretentious, and, at last, was to full of himself.....That make me believe that this guy needed groupies, not friends....You know, existing too "emotionnal intelligence"...I don't know who have the idea of this concept..But, just give you an exemple of not having that...You know, sometimes, people who have study really long time are certainly intelligent, (good memory at least...but is a part of intelligence....) but sometimes, don't have devellop to much their social life....like some medecine specialist you see and look at you like as a thing, and not like as a human...They are so cold, sometimes...So, their "emotionnal intelligence" IQ may be very low....like the guy i told you. I think that emotions are the result of humans interactions.....No????? (and hormonals activities too, that's right.....) ( I use to work in hospital, have a lot of that living examples there...i assure you....!!!) When i saw them in a party dinner, they were acting the same way...!!! So....one thing in life that i really, but really don't appreciate, is suffisant people, and even if they have really the qualities, they are people that i stay away....You can really share nothing with them, like, at least, a really good conversation....

Maria Divina xxx

Sadly, I understand that all too well...

I broke up with my long term ex partly because of this (the other part was that she's a high maintance bitch ).

She accused me of being too mean to her at times. I was shocked cause I never even raised my voice with her in all these time that I knew her. Then she told me it's how I made her "FEEL" when I was helping her with some Java Script project (I convinced her to take the class with me, she was one of the 3 girls in the class ).

Apparently, I "yell" when I am talking about things like "logics" or "mathematics". I also use very condesending tones... all unconsciencely. I think it's because I get really excited when the subject interests me so much. I talk faster and type faster when I get to speak or type the word "intelligent" once every 5 words.

I think I over-estimate how much people "care" about the subject. Apparently, not everyone is as passionate about it as I am (found out the hard way).

Additional point to Eliza:

Outside of just "bragging rights", IQ tests serve other purposes as well. For example, the military use IQ tests to find suiting positions for new recruits. Schools (exclusive ones) use it to discriminate between students (intellectual discrimination). The SAT is certainly a modified form of an IQ test. We measure intelligence so we can use those people better (each to their speciality). If someone can't wrap their head around a 5 sentence logic question (note how "logic" is without the "s"; it's used to qualify question... thus the "s" is not needed), chances are... he won't crack the 1024 mb password encryption.

 

[John_Cage]

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.

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).

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".

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.

 

[John_Cage]

Yeah, your 'simple' derivation took thinkers almost 2000 years to figure out... in daily experience, applying a force to an object does set in motion, but as soon as the force is removed, the object stops. For 2000 years, Aristotle's (I paraphrase) "the natural state of an object is to be at rest" held true, since that is what we experienced. It took until Galileo to create a thought experiment (forget the tower of Pisa story, it's a tale, (as is Newton's apple)) to conceive of what is now apparently 'evident.' Is it really? Has anyone pushed a plate on a table and seen it accelerate? No... you need one of those air hockey tables that eliminates friction. Friction is determined empirically, it does not have 'pure' theory...

As true as it is... It only took me the better half of a physics class (1h15 total) to come to my conclusion. I understood that fiction is also a force and it acts on the opposite direction of the applied force. Base on this point, I could deduct that the relation between the Applied Force and the Object's Velocity WILL not be affect by Friction (which is true, because F=ma doesn't not include friction force). Further clarification, since friction is basicly "subtracted" from the applied force, it will not matter the the relationship between the "final force acting on object" and the "resulting motion of the object". Which is why I didn't bother with friction in my deductions.

Yes, I am aware that once I KNOW something is true (F=ma), it becomes easier to deduct it; due to the boost of confidence from knowing that the solution exists. The worst kind of problem is the ones where you are not certain of the existance of a solution.

I am not claiming I can think like one of the great minds of the past, that was not the point. The point is, math and physics can be "figured out" and "understood" by people. Just because some people can't, it doesn't mean math or physics is a set of weird rules that need to be learnt. Most advanced mathematics are so deeply nested within "simpler" math, it becomes very difficult for anyone to see "logical solutions" unless that person has the understanding of "basic math" and "basic logics".

The empirical method of figuring things out is needed in most cases. Because sometimes, there's nothing to understand. The ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle is Pi (3.14159...). That's found, and memorized. Sometimes there's nothing to figure out. Homo Sapians have 2 eyes... can't deduct that (without making CRAZY logical leaps). Friction is one of those things. It's found (different materials) and then simply memorized. I am CERTAIN there's a probably a way to analysis different material and their electro magnetic properties that will let us estimate it's static/kinetic friction index (but that's beyond the scope of this post).

I won't go as far as insulting his language skills but I must say that he's trying to say too many things at once, making it difficult to follow and almost impossible to answer back.

True. Because the matter at hand is VERY complex, it's difficult to express all the ideas raging through my mind (seeing how passionate I am about it). But apparently, Joel deem himself to be better than my editors.

Ziggy, you still haven't given us your view on the matter (you have been sidestepping around, but nothing that tell us what you think of IQ).

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Inneism, Constructivism, Empiricism...

Ziggy, you still haven't given us your view on the matter (you have been sidestepping around, but nothing that tell us what you think of IQ).

I don't think I've been sidestepping: I asked you a few questions and brought up a few historical pointers.

But if you insist...

In the mid 70's early 80's, cognitive science was the "big" thing (even bigger than semiotics, believe it or not). Basically, all the fuss revolved around two schools of thought, two icons and a famous debate that took place in Royaumont in October 1975 which caught everyone's attention, I mean, Fisher/Spassky kind of attention: everyone was watching, little knew what the fark they were talking about.

So Jean Piaget, the psychologist, Noam Chomsky, the linguist and a bunch of psychologists, linguists, philosophers, neurologists, confronted their theories of language acquisition in the child. Chomsky believed strongly that there are innate mental competences and universal linguistic capacities. Piaget, on the other hand, supported that the cognitive capacities of humans are neither completely innate, nor completely acquired but rather result from progressive construction, built by stages.

Chomsky also criticized the empirists theory according to which thoughts function by simply recording data. According to him, recording the data required mental executives. Piaget agreed on the concept of mental executives yet, contrary to Chomsky, did not believe that such structures were innate. Chomsky supported the theory of a genetically given capacity of language.

So the debate went on like that. From the non expert's perspective, it seemed that the schools of thoughts, Chomsky's inneism and Piaget's constructivism, are diametrically opposed. Other participants chimed in, they spoke extensively of "phenotype and genotype", "flame and cristal", "interpretive and generative syntax/semantics", and so on and so forth...

At the end, everyone agreed that language is a product of the intelligence or reason and not of a training to the direction behaviorist of the term. One question remained nonetheless: "can one really prove that a mental structure is innate?". They went on forever debating over that question only to realize, midway through, that the question was perhaps not the one they should have asked themselves.

All this to show how difficult and irresolute the debate you got yourself into with T_76 is. Over 30 years after the October 1975 Royaumont sessions, many questions remain open and, frankly, I don't see anyone here who has the competence to contribute in any fashion to the advancement of cognitive science.

Back to the 70's early 80's, parallel to the Royaumont sessions, debates over the validity of IQ tests were legion. Criticism of IQ tests, as I remember it, included the problem of these being westernocentric. You made mention of that yourself on this thread, I believe you used the expression "culturally biased". I remember that this bias issue was a big problem back then.

In any case, what I'd like to say here is both issues, inneism and IQ tests, were debated separately.

Here on merb, you are mixing up the two, often resorting to arguments pertaining to one debate to prove points that belong to the other debate. Specifically you are saying that intelligence is innate and use this premise to prove the validity of IQ tests. T_76, on the other hand, presented arguments which served to relativize the validity of IQ tests. In response to T_76 you choose to transfer her arguments to the debate on inneism with the result that you are distorting what she says and, worse, depicting her as both a behaviorist and an empiricist, which she's obviously not (note to T_76: do you see yourself, one day, being compared to the great empiricists, Hume, Berkeley and Locke?). The fact that she puts the validity of IQ tests into question doesn't mean, contrary to your suggestion, that she fails to recognize that humans may have innate mental structures: that's your interpretation and that interpretation comes from the way you are recuperating her arguments.

I won't do the exegesis of your performance here on this thread, you can either accept to look into what I'm telling you or reject it, I won't debate.

 

[Love big tits]

Coming back to "what you hate the most"

I hate threads that get so long to read since the last time I looked at it.
Boy!! about 30 minutes worth of reading got added since my last look at this thread. Better get my speed reading book back out to get back into this.

 

[John_Cage]

I don't think I've been sidestepping: I asked you a few questions and brought up a few historical pointers.

But if you insist...

In the mid 70's early 80's, cognitive science was the "big" thing (even bigger than semiotics, believe it or not). Basically, all the fuss revolved around two schools of thought, two icons and a famous debate that took place in Royaumont in October 1975 which caught everyone's attention, I mean, Fisher/Spassky kind of attention: everyone was watching, little knew what the fark they were talking about.

So Jean Piaget, the psychologist, Noam Chomsky, the linguist and a bunch of psychologists, linguists, philosophers, neurologists, confronted their theories of language acquisition in the child. Chomsky believed strongly that there are innate mental competences and universal linguistic capacities. Piaget, on the other hand, supported that the cognitive capacities of humans are neither completely innate, nor completely acquired but rather result from progressive construction, built by stages.

Chomsky also criticized the empirists theory according to which thoughts function by simply recording data. According to him, recording the data required mental executives. Piaget agreed on the concept of mental executives yet, contrary to Chomsky, did not believe that such structures were innate. Chomsky supported the theory of a genetically given capacity of language.

So the debate went on like that. From the non expert's perspective, it seemed that the schools of thoughts, Chomsky's inneism and Piaget's constructivism, are diametrically opposed. Other participants chimed in, they spoke extensively of "phenotype and genotype", "flame and cristal", "interpretive and generative syntax/semantics", and so on and so forth...

At the end, everyone agreed that language is a product of the intelligence or reason and not of a training to the direction behaviorist of the term. One question remained nonetheless: "can one really prove that a mental structure is innate?". They went on forever debating over that question only to realize, midway through, that the question was perhaps not the one they should have asked themselves.

All this to show how difficult and irresolute the debate you got yourself into with T_76 is. Over 30 years after the October 1975 Royaumont sessions, many questions remain open and, frankly, I don't see anyone here who has the competence to contribute in any fashion to the advancement of cognitive science.

Back to the 70's early 80's, parallel to the Royaumont sessions, debates over the validity of IQ tests were legion. Criticism of IQ tests, as I remember it, included the problem of these being westernocentric. You made mention of that yourself on this thread, I believe you used the expression "culturally biased". I remember that this bias issue was a big problem back then.

In any case, what I'd like to say here is both issues, inneism and IQ tests, were debated separately.

Here on merb, you are mixing up the two, often resorting to arguments pertaining to one debate to prove points that belong to the other debate. Specifically you are saying that intelligence is innate and use this premise to prove the validity of IQ tests. T_76, on the other hand, presented arguments which served to relativize the validity of IQ tests. In response to T_76 you choose to transfer her arguments to the debate on inneism with the result that you are distorting what she says and, worse, depicting her as both a behaviorist and an empiricist, which she's obviously not (note to T_76: do you see yourself, one day, being compared to the great empiricists, Hume, Berkeley and Locke?). The fact that she puts the validity of IQ tests into question doesn't mean, contrary to your suggestion, that she fails to recognize that humans may have innate mental structures: that's your interpretation and that interpretation comes from the way you are recuperating her arguments.

I won't do the exegesis of your performance here on this thread, you can either accept to look into what I'm telling you or reject it, I won't debate.

There. Now you not sidestepping... In fact, you are dancing around in the spot light. I guess you do not wish to give an absolute opinion as to what "you" think about Intelligence being an innate quality (maybe you are taking a neutral approach to the matter?). The Chomsky and Piaget debate ended without addressing whether or not "intelligence" itself is innate. I tend to agree with a lot of Chomsky's views (I went and got a manuscript of their debate and a copy of a recorded interview with Chomsky).

What did she actually mean? Doubting IQ tests' validity means that she believe that IQ test does not in fact measure intelligence; so what DO the IQ tests measure (note that since there is a correlation between IQ scores and success, IQ tests MUST measure "something").

Traveler is doing a very good job avoiding saying "I don't believe Intelligence is an innate quality". Personnally, I believe her train of thoughts leads to that conclusion. If Traveler is merely doubting the "validity" of IQ tests, and isn't entirely against the concept of "inneism", then what do she believe is the essense of "intelligence". Intelligence is the ability to reason by its definition. IQ test measures just that, unless Traveler believes differently.

A better question that I asked: If IQ tests DO NOT in fact measure intelligence, then what is the quality that causes certain people to perform better at it? I already showed that language has very little to do with performance on IQ tests (due to the simplicity of the language used). I also showed that social economic background is not a probable cause (due to overwhelming counter examples). So what is the "quality" that dictates how one performs on an IQ test? Furthermore how is this "quality" related to the definition of Intelligence, if at all?

While she might not have openly favored empirism over inneism, I have suspicions that she does.

Obviously, I was way too emotional during the whole thing, thus I failed to notice her subtle "omissions". I didn't even notice she was a woman, til I was corrected.