What do you hate the most?

[joelcairo]

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.

John, the correct verb form in this sentence would be "deems", not "deem". I will not waste time or bandwidth in pointing out the numerous other errors in the post from which this extract is taken, but I will give you one free tip: learn the difference between "deduct" and "deduce".

I will also point out that your message to Ziggy, which ends your long passage, is not exactly a model to be used in textbooks on grammar. Perhaps it's time to find some new editors...or to brush up on your grammar and spelling.

 

[John_Cage]

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.

John, the correct verb form in this sentence would be "deems", not "deem". I will not waste time or bandwidth in pointing out the numerous other errors in the post from which this extract is taken, but I will give you one free tip: learn the difference between "deduct" and "deduce".

I will also point out that your message to Ziggy, which ends your long passage, is not exactly a model to be used in textbooks on grammar. Perhaps it's time to find some new editors...or to brush up on your grammar and spelling.

That's the difference between Writers and Editors... I write, they edit my mistakes. If I don't make any, they would be out of a job. The same structure is employed in research, the head researcher doesn't actually carry out day to day experiments. You do realize that when I am not "creating", I tend to not check my spellings nor reread my posts. Do you believe that writers don't make mistakes? Why do you think publishers hired a full staff of editors to read and edit manuscripts? I am actually tempted to read my posts over and "edit" them myself, then I realized why bother? Your are arguing spelling and grammar in a thread about Logics and Intelligence... Nothing more need to be said about you.

 

[John_Cage]

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.

John, the correct verb form in this sentence would be "deems", not "deem". I will not waste time or bandwidth in pointing out the numerous other errors in the post from which this extract is taken, but I will give you one free tip: learn the difference between "deduct" and "deduce".

I will also point out that your message to Ziggy, which ends your long passage, is not exactly a model to be used in textbooks on grammar. Perhaps it's time to find some new editors...or to brush up on your grammar and spelling.

Look what I found (pasted from aother thread to save time)!

Excellent answer, eastender. We might also note that in the same post you reference by Mr. Cage, there are several other errors. He writes "wether" rather than "whether". He writes "accursed" rather than "accused". He writes a sentence that is not a complete sentence: 'Because his intention is to cause dismay with me (the person)."

Through the simple method of reading his posts, it is very easy to find numerous other examples of poor grammar and incorrect spelling by this "writer". Hey, nobody's perfect, but until a certain level of expertise is achieved, it would perhaps be prudent for certain "writers" to demonstrate a greater degree of humility than has been exhibited in a certain other thread recently initiated by Mr. Cage.

Thank god for editors, yes?

In case you couldn't understand why people make mistakes:

1. They don't care (I am NOT publishing my posts).

2. Spelling mistakes are caused by typing too fast or just plain old carelessness (which in no way reflects "expertise").

If you want to nitpick, then two to can that game.

"Excellant answer, eastender." is not a complete sentence.

"We might also note that in the same post you reference by Mr. Cage." It is "referenceD", dear Joel...

Multiple tense mistakes, such as writing "writes" rather than "wrote", were made following the first two sentence.

Was that enough, dear?

My point was not to insult your poor grammar or bad spelling; my point was that everyone makes mistakes. Picking on them only makes you look stupid - especially if you don't how who you are dealing with.

"Omg, lolz... Joel just got pwned... rocked !!!!111111"

Please pick apart the above sentence.

---------

I apologize to everyone else forced to read through our childish games. "But... But he started it!"

One last thing, I am not trying to "convince" anyone that IQ means anything at all; nor am I trying to force any idea on anyone.

The concept is "To discuss for the sake of the discussion alone". I couldn't care less what anyone believe because it has no effect on me (seeing how I am not Gandhi, I only care about what affects me).

To sum it up, we have reached a conclusion (right? or is there something I missed) that (at least) the ABILITY to perform well on IQ tests is more or less innate; however that ability may or may not be "intelligence" (Is this your view, Traveler?).

 

[joelcairo]

If you want to nitpick, then two to can that game.

John, I am happy to see that you enjoyed my post so much that you quoted it in two different threads. I already responded in the other thread and I really think this exchange is becoming tiresome, but since you posted this here, I can't help but laugh at your beautiful way with words. In a post ostensibly finding fault with my writing skills, you actually saw fit to create the immortal sentence "If you want to nitpick, then two to can that game." That was - and IS - priceless, John, absolutely priceless. I rest my case.

 

[John_Cage]

John, I am happy to see that you enjoyed my post so much that you quoted it in two different threads. I already responded in the other thread and I really think this exchange is becoming tiresome, but since you posted this here, I can't help but laugh at your beautiful way with words. In a post ostensibly finding fault with my writing skills, you actually saw fit to create the immortal sentence "If you want to nitpick, then two to can that game." That was - and IS - priceless, John, absolutely priceless. I rest my case.

Allow me to present to you what actually happened:

I was debating to someone else about IQ test, you joined in with some useless crap about spelling.

I don't care about spelling and rereading when I am trying to get complicated points across, but apparantly you don't understand that.

Fine, I decide to play it your way. You cared about your precious spelling and your little mistakes; yet I caught you (badly) and OWNED you at your own little game.

Fact remains that, when I write seriously, I also reread my works and perform spell checks. Anything that gets past that will be the jobs of my editors. When you tried to "correct" a writer's "writing", make sure you know enough about what you are talking about, for I deal with far tougher editors than you (on a monthly basis).

I am not going to start a debate about "spelling", since I just established that you are not someone who's qualified to mutter objections to my writing. If you have something to contribute to the actual discussion, please do so. Otherwise, do something else constructive.

To others:

I cannot believe I am actually arguing like a teenager with these people, I apologize for my lack of tact.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Intelligence and plywood

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?).

My opinion, provided that I have one, is not informed enough to contribute to the advancement of cognitive science, therefore why bother? The question you're raising is far outside the realm of practicality and, therefore, should be left to specialists.

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 entirely agaisnt 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.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: you're confusing intelligence with the measurement of intelligence. Someone who questions the reliability of IQ tests, doesn't necessarly question the ontological value of intelligence. The same way, a carpenter who questions the accuracy of the measurements he took, doesn't necessarly question the ontological value of plywood.

Basically, you're saying that someone claiming that tape measures are imperfect tools is also claiming that wood has a relative status of existence.

A better question: If IQ tests DO NOT in fact measure intelligence, then what is the quality that causes certain people to perform better at it?

Because intelligence is not the only prerequisite to perform well on IQ tests. Pass an IQ test on a day you had ten hours of sleep and pass the same test after a night of insomnia, results might differ. Motivation also comes into play: two candidates with the same maximum score potential, one really wants to do well, the other one doesn't give a damn, who do you think will score higher? Take two kids, they both have the same maximum score potential, one with a balanced diet, the other one not: how will nutritional deficiencies and toxicity identification will affect the score?

Once we took all these parameters into account and answered all the questions, have we said anything about intelligence being either innate or not? - Not a word.

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?

Certainly various forms of intelligence and various combos of parameters affecting performance including, yet not limited to, personal motivation, state of fatigue or health, nutritional factors, cultural background,gender and, yes, language skills.

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

It can also be that she doesn't know, doesn't care, would rather explore the gray zone, is reluctant to use terminologies she's not comfortable with, like self-appointed experts often do, not understanding half of what they're repeating like parrots...

 

[mark_sab]

i didnt read to much of the previous threads..the topic is "things i hate most" i beleive? i am not an intelectual. i hate that i can not figure out if people who use big words and quote things from history are smart and accurate or if they are just pompus and self indulgent.
i also kinda hate when a fat whore calls herself a reubenesque cortisian...hope i spelled those last two big words correctly?

 

[eastender]

Matter at Hand

My opinion, provided that I have one, is not informed enough to contribute to the advancement of cognitive science, therefore why bother? The question you're raising is far outside the realm of practicality and, therefore, should be left to specialists.I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: you're confusing intelligence with the measurement of intelligence. Someone who questions the reliability of IQ tests, doesn't necessarly question the ontological value of intelligence. The same way, a carpenter who questions the accuracy of the measurements he took, doesn't necessarly question the ontological value of plywood.
Basically, you're saying that someone claiming that tape measures are imperfect tools is also claiming that wood has a relative status of existence.Because intelligence is not the only prerequisite to perform well on IQ tests. Pass an IQ test on a day you had ten hours of sleep and pass the same test after a night of insomnia, results might differ. Motivation also comes into play: two candidates with the same maximum score potential, one really wants to do well, the other one doesn't give a damn, who do you think will score higher? Take two kids, they both have the same maximum score potential, one with a balanced diet, the other one not: how will nutritional deficiencies and toxicity identification will affect the score?

Once we took all these parameters into account and answered all the questions, have we said anything about intelligence being either innate or not? - Not a word.

Certainly various forms of intelligence and various combos of parameters affecting performance including, yet not limited to, personal motivation, state of fatigue or health, nutritional factors, cultural background,gender and, yes, language skills.

It can also be that she doesn't know, doesn't care, would rather explore the gray zone, is reluctant to use terminologies she's not comfortable with, like self-appointed experts often do, not understanding half of what they're repeating like parrots...

Let's tighten this up because bandwidth is somewhat precious. Simply ontology is the study of being(from the Greek philosophers, audit a Philosophy 101 class or google and you will get the general drift).

Evaluations in general and in this case IQ have to be viewed from at least three perspectives - validity,reliability and application.PSATs are valid,reliable and applicable as part of the process for determining college or university admissions.Rather useless when choosing Sherpa guides to lead an expedition up Mt Everest.

Variables in evaluating(not parameters), some that were listed above,cannot be avoided unless all environmental factors are controlled.Argued to an extreme unless all subjects being tested were born at exactly the same time and place from the same parents, variables will always exist.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Let's tighten this up because bandwidth is somewhat precious.

Si tel était vraiment le souci, il y aurait alors eu avantage à ne citer que partiellement mon commentaire.

Simply ontology is the study of being(from the Greek philosophers, audit a Philosophy 101 class or google and you will get the general drift).

L'usage, depuis au moins le début du XVIIIe siècle, a fait en sorte qu'il s'est opéré un glissement sémantique. Il est d'usage aujourd'hui, dans la langue spécialisée, d'employer "valeur ontologique" (ontological value) pour désigner le statut existentiel et spécifique d'objets, animaux, concepts ou encore l'être humain. J'aviserais qu'il existe un monde de significations passé les cinq premiers résultats dans Google. Pour ne citer qu'un seul exemple, les spécialistes en évaluation économique de projets urbains emploient souvent des expressions telles que "ontologie d'objets géographiques" dans leurs publications.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

This whole debate with Chomsky and Piaget is very interesting. I have not read either authors and may accept the g-string proposition if you add on two more books to your pile

Marché conclu! Est-ce que je peux prendre livraison du G-string directement?

It reminds me of the story of the birth of 'social sciences', which your debate is a part of. I will not go into it extensively (to make a long story short...) but one of the sides did win. The behavioralists you mentionned. I call them the Empiricists I'm old-school.

Je serais enclin plutôt à les qualifier de "théoriciens des têtes vides".

The 'study' of politics was out. Not that long a history One of the first major studies to come out of this new science was on the 'authoritarian personality type' (early 50s, sociology) to explain, empirically, people like Hitler...

Ma question n'a qu'un rapport indirect avec ce que tu dis mais as-tu lu White Noise de Don Delillo (ok, je l'ajoute dans l'échange contre ton G-string)? Le narrateur - me souviens plus de son nom - enseignait justement Hitler dans un collège (dont j'ai oublié aussi le nom fictif)

The wave hit Canada a little later in the 1960s. A new paradigm was established. Then Charles Taylor was relegated to the Philosophy department because he no longer 'belonged' in political science. I think it was 1967. The Chair at McGill's political science department cried when people in Europe and the States started calling Taylor a genius. Then he won that 1.5 million US dollar Templeton Prize. Oh well. Reminds me a saying about prophets Today, I'd say about 95% of political science departments are made up of the 'winners'. The other 5% is getting really old.

C'est une perception qui vaut ce qu'elle vaut, mais je crois que les cerveaux européens ont trouvé et trouvent encore, en Amérique du Nord, une niche stimulante pour laisser cours à leurs pérégrinations extra-disciplinaires.

Michel Serres l'a dit, je me souviens, lors d'une signature de livres, qu'il avait quitté Paris pour Stanford justement parce qu'il voyait là une ouverture d'esprit que les européens, cantonnés dans leurs frontières disciplinaires, n'avaient pas.

 

[eastender]

IQ Evaluations - The Topic at Hand

Sticking to the subject at hand - IQ evaluations and not Urban Geography, the following has to be appreciated. There are a wide range of IQ evaluations available in the educational marketplace. The difficulty is not with the evaluation but with the post evaluation interpretation and application.

Suppose a standard IQ evaluation is given to a 1000 students and 10 score exactly 160. The temptation is to conclude superficially that all ten are equally intelligent.This is pointless and defeats the purpose of the evaluation. Likewise it would be pointless to debate that a certain candidate may have done better if they had more sleep, a better meal,etc. The results are what they are.

What is important is interpreting each result and applying the interpretation
to get the best possible outcome for all concerned.If all ten that scored 160 are interested in medicine then it becomes incumbent on the people in the interpretation process to determine what medical fields each is best suited for. Choosing the appropriate schools,programs, teachers,etc.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Sticking to the subject at hand - IQ evaluations and not Urban Geography the following has to be appreciated.

Le sujet original n'avait rien à voir aver les tests de QI et, pourtant, c'est là qu'on a abouti. Un autre sujet qui a été abordé est celui de la valeur innée de l'intelligence. Dans ce cadre d'idées, il était pertinent de parler d'ontologie et d'en définir correctement la signification.

 

[eastender]

At Hand..........

Le sujet original n'avait rien à voir aver les tests de QI et, pourtant, c'est là qu'on a abouti. Un autre sujet qui a été abordé est celui de la valeur innée de l'intelligence. Dans ce cadre d'idées, il était pertinent de parler d'ontologie et d'en définir correctement la signification.

Never said it was the original subject nor was I trying to trace the path of the thread.

Just want to clarify certain perceptions about IQ evaluations that are independent of topics that you hold dear. Specifically the proper interpretation and application of IQ evaluations does not depend on the topics in your quote.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

If all ten that scored 160 are interested in medicine then it becomes incumbent on the people in the interpretation process to determine what medical fields each is best suited for. Choosing the appropriate schools,programs, teachers,etc.

J'imagine seulement un régime ultra communiste ou' le choix des programmes d'études, d'écoles, etc. incomberait aux évaluateurs. Aucun rapport avec la réalité nord-américaine.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Never said it was the original subject nor was I trying to trace the path of the thread.

Just want to clarify certain perceptions about IQ evaluations that are independent of topics that you hold dear. Specifically the proper interpretation and application of IQ evaluations does not depend on the topics in your quote.

C'est ce que je me tuais à répéter à John Cage. Un suivi plus attentif du fil de discussion aurait fait valoir que c'est précisément le point que j'ai défendu. L'intervention, ici, est redondante.

 

[eastender]

Ultimate Democracy

J'imagine seulement un régime ultra communiste ou' le choix des programmes d'études, d'écoles, etc. incomberait aux évaluateurs. Aucun rapport avec la réalité nord-américaine.

Ultimate democracy. Never advocated that the students have an obligation to follow the recommendations.

Notice I distinctly stated for ALL concerned which would include the student. Unfortunately the student is often neglected in this process as schools tend to recruit the best possible students just like they recruit athletes. Interests of the students are often secondary to their ability to fit into research programs,etc.The prevailing approach is that if they don't make it in one program they will slip into another.

Knowledge is the ultimate test of democracy and the more the student knows about their capabilities and how these capabilities fit into various university programs the more democratic the system becomes.

 

[eastender]

And so it goes.......

C'est ce que je me tuais à répéter à John Cage. Un suivi plus attentif du fil de discussion aurait fait valoir que c'est précisément le point que j'ai défendu. L'intervention, ici, est redondante.

I do not have any problem getting my points across to John Cage.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Monkey off his back

I do not have any problem getting my points across to John Cage.

C'est une perception dont la contrepartie propose que l'auditeur acquiesse à tout même s'il n'y comprend que dalle, le but étant soit de ménager les susceptibilités du locuteur, soit, comme on le fait avec les singes accrochés à notre cou, de s'en débarrasser.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

À qui appartient le choix?

Ultimate democracy. Never advocated that the students have an obligation to follow the recommendations.

Notice I distinctly stated for ALL concerned which would include the student. Unfortunately the student is often neglected in this process as schools tend to recruit the best possible students just like they recruit athletes. Interests of the students are often secondary to their ability to fit into research programs,etc.The prevailing approach is that if they don't make it in one program they will slip into another.

If all ten that scored 160 are interested in medicine then it becomes incumbent on the people in the interpretation process to determine what medical fields each is best suited for. Choosing the appropriate schools,programs, teachers,etc.

La proximité syntaxique de "choosing" et des sujets qui s'y rapportent suggère que tous les participants sont parties prenantes du choix. Or, en démocratie, celui-ci appartient ultimement à l'étudiant, les autres participants - évaluateurs, professeurs, orientateurs, etc. - remplissant chacun des rôles visant à créer un environnement qui permet à l'étudiant de faire des "choix éclairés".

En Russie communiste, très différemment, évaluateurs, professeurs, orientateurs, etc., prenaient sur eux le choix qui, en démocratie, reviendrait à l'étudiant, ce dernier y ayant peu ou pas à dire.

Très différent.

 

[eastender]

Please Clarify

En Russie communiste, très différemment, évaluateurs, professeurs, orientateurs, etc., prenaient sur eux le choix qui, en démocratie, reviendrait à l'étudiant, ce dernier y ayant peu ou pas à dire.

Très différent.

Please clarify. There is a clear distinction between communist Russia and the communist regime in the former Soviet Union including the remaining republics.