What do you hate the most?
- Thread starter John_Cage
- Start date
Russia 101
Russia was the dominant republic in the communist Soviet Union. Russian was the dominant language. Unlike North America where quality universities and schools are available in every state/province and region - eg SUNY,UQ campuses throughout the province,the elite academic world in the Soviet Union revolved mainly around Russia and Moscow.Effectively various choices that are taken for granted in democratic North America were not offered.
Ziggy Montana said:
Russia was the dominant republic in the communist Soviet Union. Russian was the dominant language. Unlike North America where quality universities and schools are available in every state/province and region - eg SUNY,UQ campuses throughout the province,the elite academic world in the Soviet Union revolved mainly around Russia and Moscow.Effectively various choices that are taken for granted in democratic North America were not offered.
The Goal
No the goal is to provide and promote an accurate understanding of the topics at hand in a concise and precise manner.
Ziggy Montana said:Et en quoi cela contradirait le propos que je tenais? Parce que, si je comprends bien, le but de l'exercice est toujours de me contredire, n'est-ce pas?
No the goal is to provide and promote an accurate understanding of the topics at hand in a concise and precise manner.
Alors, c'est raté. Que le choix se fasse entre cent ou seulement dix options n'aide aucunement à comprendre les mécanismes qui font que, selon le principe de la décrocatie, chacun est libre de chosir pour lui-même, alors que, dans un régime totalitaire, cette liberté n'est pas donnée d'emblée.eastender said:
Hammocks? Hard drives? My turn to ramble:
I thought the brief exchange between Ziggy and Eastender had potential. By coincidence I happened to be watching a report on VOA's Asia service today regarding the annual university entrance exam in China. Nine million middle school graduates will write a series of exams that will determine which university and which program they will study in. Fifty percent of those who write the exams will not be offered a university spot.
What I found interesting and perhaps relevent to the discussion on intelligence in this thread is that when China's national university entrance exam was first established at the end of the Cultural Revolution (universities and schools were closed for much of the cultural revolution), only two percent of the candidates were able to enter a university.
This system was undeniably undemocratic as Ziggy stated, but at the time it was established it was considered the fairest and most efficient method of exploiting the most valuable resource that any country can have, intelligence. In 1976, China's economy was barely functioning and was still largely agrarian. In some ways it is commendable therefore that the limited educational resources were allotted to the population not on the basis of wealth (as might have been the case in pre-industrial Britain or the US) or nobility (as would have been the case in agrarian France or Russia), but on the basis of a test designed to determine who had the highest ability in key disciplines. Candidates were not excluded if they had a peasant or a working-class background (in fact, the peasantry and proletariat were given preferential treatment), and because all educational expenses were paid by the state, a candidate's economic situation was also not a factor. The primary objective was to get the best brains to the place they were most needed so that they could help the country advance. When it was established, the system of national tests served its purpose well, probably because the aims of the state were focused and uncomplicated so it was relatively easy to measure the kind of intelligence that would be needed. Currently, however, Chinese society has become much more diverse and questions are being raised as to whether a series of tests conducted over two or three days is the best way to determine how to distribute intellectual resources.
I think this is really the crux of the matter. Intelligence is such an elusive concept that while in limited contexts it is possible to measure it, once the contexts become more multidimensional, it becomes impossible to design a paper test that can accurately predict how a candidate will perform.
So much of the debate in this thread had that "Holy Trinity" feel about it, I mean, that feeling you get when you hear people argue over whether the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in the same or separate. The Holy Trinity argument is annoying because it is based entirely on superstition. The debate over intelligence in this thread has been annoying because so much of what was being argued about is obvious.
It is as plain as day that intelligence is innate, but that is also affected by environment. Everybody knows this. It is why you don't let your toddler watch TV ten hours a day. It is also plain that there are many kinds of intelligence. Wayne Gretsky was a genius on ice, but who here thinks he would also have been a genius at physics in the mold of Albert Einstein? Anyway, this comment comes late in the thread, so feel free to consider it a rant.
I thought the brief exchange between Ziggy and Eastender had potential. By coincidence I happened to be watching a report on VOA's Asia service today regarding the annual university entrance exam in China. Nine million middle school graduates will write a series of exams that will determine which university and which program they will study in. Fifty percent of those who write the exams will not be offered a university spot.
What I found interesting and perhaps relevent to the discussion on intelligence in this thread is that when China's national university entrance exam was first established at the end of the Cultural Revolution (universities and schools were closed for much of the cultural revolution), only two percent of the candidates were able to enter a university.
This system was undeniably undemocratic as Ziggy stated, but at the time it was established it was considered the fairest and most efficient method of exploiting the most valuable resource that any country can have, intelligence. In 1976, China's economy was barely functioning and was still largely agrarian. In some ways it is commendable therefore that the limited educational resources were allotted to the population not on the basis of wealth (as might have been the case in pre-industrial Britain or the US) or nobility (as would have been the case in agrarian France or Russia), but on the basis of a test designed to determine who had the highest ability in key disciplines. Candidates were not excluded if they had a peasant or a working-class background (in fact, the peasantry and proletariat were given preferential treatment), and because all educational expenses were paid by the state, a candidate's economic situation was also not a factor. The primary objective was to get the best brains to the place they were most needed so that they could help the country advance. When it was established, the system of national tests served its purpose well, probably because the aims of the state were focused and uncomplicated so it was relatively easy to measure the kind of intelligence that would be needed. Currently, however, Chinese society has become much more diverse and questions are being raised as to whether a series of tests conducted over two or three days is the best way to determine how to distribute intellectual resources.
I think this is really the crux of the matter. Intelligence is such an elusive concept that while in limited contexts it is possible to measure it, once the contexts become more multidimensional, it becomes impossible to design a paper test that can accurately predict how a candidate will perform.
So much of the debate in this thread had that "Holy Trinity" feel about it, I mean, that feeling you get when you hear people argue over whether the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in the same or separate. The Holy Trinity argument is annoying because it is based entirely on superstition. The debate over intelligence in this thread has been annoying because so much of what was being argued about is obvious.
It is as plain as day that intelligence is innate, but that is also affected by environment. Everybody knows this. It is why you don't let your toddler watch TV ten hours a day. It is also plain that there are many kinds of intelligence. Wayne Gretsky was a genius on ice, but who here thinks he would also have been a genius at physics in the mold of Albert Einstein? Anyway, this comment comes late in the thread, so feel free to consider it a rant.
Last edited:
Ziggy Montana said:
Not entirely, Ziggy. You missed one of my points.
I made two claims:
1. Intelligence is innate (I believe in this, just like Chomsky)
2. IQ tests measure that intelligence (This is the debate between Traveler and I)
She claims the "tools are imperfect", while I insisted otherwise... Where is the problem? She claims that there are other factors affecting performance (such as social economic background) by showing correlation that SUGGESTED that it's likely that poor kids will perform worse. This point then led to my view on WHY there is a correlation (the correlation is DUE to a difference in IQ; SE background showed correlation with IQ test performance because IQ test performance LED to SE background) to reinforce the creditibility of IQ test. The debate is right on point. I made no "twisting of her words" of any kind.
As to what you said about possible causes to the difference in IQ test... Do any of the possible reasons you raise actually fit the bill? IQ tests give what's generally a Normal Curve (which is true for a lot of statistical data). If it was as you suggested (that another factor, other than Intelligence is affecting the results of an IQ test), wouldn't it stand to reason that the IQ tests would give a different kind of curve (A normal curve is the perfect representation for intelligence distribution; with more people near the norm, and less on the extremes)? Is it plausible (I know it's possible) for all the random factors (that might affect the performance of an IQ test) to fit into a perfect NORMAL curve? If the factors are clearly qualified (who's eaten, who's tired, who's from which background) then the results should be a lot more POLAR (with two peaks to each extreme, representing people who HAS eaten and people who haven't... etc...). However, the results are a NORMAL curve, it showed variation based on how deviated it is from the norm (the more deviated it is, the less people will fall into that catagory).
I am not suggesting that food and culture played NO PART in the tests. I am suggesting that there is CLEARLY a DOMINATING characteristic that affects the results.
Food for thought, do you think the IQ score of a person differs much before/after he ate? Do you think the IQ score of a person differs much before/after he experience a dramatic event (motivation to perform might be affected due to something dramatic)? Do you think the IQ score of a person differs much before/after he slept? Do you think the IQ score of a person differes much before/after he spent a few years in Africa/Asia?
While I agree wholeheartedly that there's quite a few factors affecting the performance of an IQ test, I maintain that "Intelligence" (the ability to reason) remains the dominate one.
Remember, your claim can work for ANY TEST. Thus the SAT should be abolished because it's inaccurate (it suffers the same weakness as an IQ test)?
Ziggy, while I believe you are a very capable thinker, I am kind of surprised at how reserved you are at simply stating an opinion. I mean, surely, no one's 100% sure of the validity of an IQ test; nor is anyone capable of being 100% sure that "Intelligence" is innate (at this point). An opinion merely requires 50%+ certainty.
Last edited:
John_Cage said:
Let me get this staight:
You "made two claims: 1. Intelligence is innate"
Next, when t76 said poor kids will perform worse, you said the correlation was "DUE to a difference in IQ; SE background showed correlation with IQ test performance because IQ test performance LED to SE background."
So am I right in concluding that you are stating that the poor child performs worse because of his lack of innate intelligence? And by innate, do you mean "present from birth: relating to qualities that a person or animal is born with"?
Fat Happy Buddha said:
No. I meant IQ led to poor SE background (in most cases). I meant, in layman's terms, Dumb people are more likely to be poor (note that's different than Poor people are dumb).
PS: Under my view, anyone with a "lack of innate intelligence" (or a low intelligence) would perform badly; Rich/poor will play no part in the performance. However, due to natural selection, the ones WITH a high level of intelligence are more likely to advance (if not already) into a "richer" part of society. While the "dumb" will more likely be poor. Keep in mind that there ARE other factors such as Knowledge, Opptunity and Personality that affects the SE standings as well.
T76 said that there's a correlation (or rather she showed) between Poor kids (poor SE background) and poor performance (IQ and/or school). She used it to "suggest" that prehaps there's a connection (to showed that poor kids are more likely to perform worse). I said (basically), "Yes, there is a correlation, but it doesn't help your case." Because I believed that low IQ test score in effect LED to poor SE standings (most likely).
This point is regarding my second claim: "IQ tests measures Intelligence".
My first point was not well covered in the debate by either sides (intelligence is innate). Yes, I meant innate in the normal sense; it's born with and do not change (with exceptions) due to environment. The exceptions are Physical/Mental Health based... I mean, if you fall off 3 flights of stairs... you won't be winning any science awards anytime soon (even if you managed to shake off the coma).
Last edited:
John_Cage said:
Gotta agree with t76 on this one. It seems pretty self-evident that she is only stating the obvious. To insist otherwise is foolhardy.
John_Cage said:
How can low IQ test scores LEAD to poor socio-economic standings if it is a group of six-year-olds that are being tested?
Clearly, if you talking about a correlation between adult IQ and income, you're not really saying much more than "smart people are more likely to make more money." Big deal. Everybody knows that is true.
But if you test 100 rich kids and 100 poor kids, with the result being that the rich kids do substantially better, there are only two conclusions possible:
1) Rich children are innately smarter than poor children; or
2) Environmental and cultural factors came into play.
No reasonable person with an awareness of the world around him would come to the former conclusion, so the latter conclusion is clearly the case.
Last edited:
Fat Happy Buddha said:
In the letter of her statement, I agree as well. It's obvious that the tool are not "perfect".
In the spirit of her statement, I disagree. The tools are NOT so imperfect that it fails to do its job. We must accept some degrees of uncertainty and doubt. No tests are perfect.
In the labortory, we perform experiments and we often include any possible uncertainty. However, we never include the "basic" uncertainty: the "inaccuracy of tools". All tools are understood to give a certain degree of accuracy. Beyond that, it's meaningless; but within the accepted degrees of certainty (usually 95%), the results are significant (in other words: meaningful).
In court, we never have to prove that someone commit a crime with 100% certainty. It's call proving beyond a "reasonable doubt". I believe that IQ tests, while imperfect, is "perfectly" capable of generating significant data to classify and catagorize people into IQ groups (as seen in many forms, SATs, the Military's IQ tests... etc...).
Fat Happy Buddha said:
Fat Budda... That's a very strong point. You analysed what I said, and used logics to support your view.
Well, there's a reason for that. Note the following statement might offend some...
If one stats that "rich children" are smarter than poor children, it is wrong (by itself). But you must take into consideration that: 1. Intelligence is Innate and 2. Most innate qualities are passed to the next generation through genes.
There is certainly a very strong correlation between the IQ of parents and their children (I posted a link to a study that showed this. The research showed that ADOPTED children do NOT show similiar IQ level as their parents while having similiar SE background; on the other hand biological children DO show very similar IQ level as their parents).
Now, take statement [1. Smart people are more likely to be rich] and statement [2. Smart people are more likely to have smart children] and you will see why it's more likely for RICH kids to be smarter. But of course, there are RICH people who got rich without having high IQs, their children obviously would not have a higher IQ. Note that I said "more likely".
I meant low IQ lead to low SE standing as in that: the low IQ parents will have low SE standings, thus their relatively low IQ child will as well.
My view fits into the pattern of IQ results very well. Why does some poor people perform well on IQ tests? As we all know, lots of poor people (relatively) perform very well on IQ tests. So you might ask "Why? If the smart tend to get rich and the rich tend to be smart? How is this happening?"
The answer is: "These high IQ people ARE rich"... in their own countries. Relatively speaking, North America and Western Europe are the richer part of the globe. So the "smart" people who move into these "richer" countries from Eastern Europe, Asia and everywhere esle in the world, will be "poor", comparitively speaking - even if they are educated and came from a very intelligence familly. These are the people who DIDN'T have a chance to get rich YET. They make up the population of "poor" people who score well on IQ tests. Note that, most likely, they will be "rich" within a few generations.
Other than them, there are also some other "smart" people who could be poor for many other personal reasosn (bad luck, never had a opptunity... etc...)
Like I stated before, factors like motivation, nutrition and so forth, DO affect IQ test performance. BUT they also affect just about anything under the sun. If we are to concern ourselves with these things, then no test will EVER be accurate enough for anything. Forget the 100 meter dash ! That only measure how well fed the person is ! Down with the Basketball games ! That's nothing but a battle to see who's better prepared ! Lots of factors affect the outcome of things. If a test was to be employed to measure a certain quality, it is understood that some other minor factor WILL come into play. The point is, the other factors that might affect how a person perform in an IQ test do not pose enough of a "sway" to alter IQ test results.
Last edited:
Misconception
FHB,
Thank you for a very interesting post.
A fundamental misconception about such evaluations is that they predict how a candidate will perform in the future.
Simply evaluations cannot and do not predict who will succeed at a certain level. Fairly administered evaluations can only provide information as to who has earned an opportunity to participate at a certain level.
An analogy would be obtaining a license to drive a car. You successfully pass all the required tests and you have the right the obtain a provincial driver's license. This process does not predict that the new driver will not have accidents.
Fat Happy Buddha said:
FHB,
Thank you for a very interesting post.
A fundamental misconception about such evaluations is that they predict how a candidate will perform in the future.
Simply evaluations cannot and do not predict who will succeed at a certain level. Fairly administered evaluations can only provide information as to who has earned an opportunity to participate at a certain level.
An analogy would be obtaining a license to drive a car. You successfully pass all the required tests and you have the right the obtain a provincial driver's license. This process does not predict that the new driver will not have accidents.
Fat Happy Buddha said:
If your assertion that
is valid and intelligence, however defined and measured, is even partly inherited, why can't 1) be a contributing factor in the poor testing poorly?
Similar threads
