 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It actually
makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used the wrong
tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
(I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she" are
different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who she's
talking about.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>> IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by dividing a person's
>>> mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by chronological age.
>
>> People that believe in IQs are idiots too. lol
>
> Why? What about a basically statistical measure of relative mental age
> is problematic?
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
The fact that it isn't a statistical measure of relative mental ages, so
much as a statistical representation of how much one conforms to a
specific set of social parameters and ideas, which have jack to do with
*actually* being intelligent. I am sure Rosie O'Donald could pass a
Mensa test, but I wouldn't trust her with almost anything that didn't
involve knowing an endless mess of useless trivia. Until/unless someone
finds a valid means to separate measures of mental development from the
social memes and mores of the culture they are being tested in, its not
a valid test of anything, other than general forms of conformity to
arbitrary definitions of "intelligence". Yes, it can be, within a narrow
set of definition. But, ironically, *my* definitions are probably
nothing at all like the definitions used by the sort of people that Bush
surrounded himself with. In fact, I am fairly sure it wouldn't be, since
I have seen the sort he appointed when governor in Texas, the sort
around him during his presidency, and the sort of people that *continue*
to get elected in his home state, and there is nothing about these
people that doesn't smell of ignorance, general disinterest in facts,
mental incapacity to tell the difference between gibberish and facts,
*or* a real lack of capacity to even *understand* most of the stuff that
scientists, educators and even, in some cases, the general public, in
most other parts of the country, recognize is just crazy ass stupid.
There are a small number of states that are *known* for wacky, silly,
absurd, ignorance, and making things up to support ideologies, often in
direct face of facts that contradict *all* of their premises, in the
last 5-10 years, Texas has risen from like 10th on that list to #1, and
its a pretty short list to start with.
Put simply, nothing I saw of Bush, while in office, indicated to me
someone who cared about facts that contradicted him, much cared about
beliefs that differed from his, though he made the common mistake of
equation having such to being "enough like me that it doesn't matter",
while shoving everyone else into the "Well, they don't have any, even if
they do have any.", camp, and he presumed, like all such black and
whitists, that everyone with faith was on *his* side, by definition. And
things just go down hill from there, starting with his conclusion that
he didn't need actual science advice from scientists, but theologians,
or people that where theologians first, and **very poor** scientists
second, would be better, especially if they worked for some company he
trusted. Oh, and of course, if you dared try to point out how dead wrong
he was on *anything*, well.. your website would oddly be found not too
long after, replacing birth control information with abstinence
information, or you would just find yourself handed last pay check, and
someone with more "proper" ideology, i.e., clueless nonsense views,
would get appointed to replace you.
Until IQ tests can test for capacity to handle situations where the
default suppositions of the test are actually invalid, and you are
required to figure out what changed, so you can derive the *correct*
answer, all such tests will ever test is if you meet some 'standard'
which is based on the lowest common knowledge of that level of
development, and that knowledge will be *entirely* arbitrary. Given that
*many* people manage to successfully bluff their ways through degrees at
major colleges, only to then go on an write books filled with logical
fallacies, incorrect facts, unscientific thinking, pure sophistry, and
even completely **wrong** analysis of data from their own field (and
this includes insane things like Behe managing to get his own field of
mathematics so wrong that if he where calculating the direction and
speed of a bus it would be going the opposite direction, at the speed of
light, by the time he got done doing the math wrong), its fairly obvious
that possessing knowledge, an understanding of the social norms of
society, and even enough intelligence to pass college tests, never mind
IQ tests, means ***absolutely nothing***, when talking about whether or
not the person in question can think themselves out of a wet paper bag,
even if you granted them a pair of scissors, a flashlight, and an
instruction book on "how to cut things".
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
>> Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war
>> heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was
>> clueless about.
>
> As for "big business", I heard that he was rather clueless about that as well...
>
Depends. Was it about making profit, or actually running one properly? lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired
>> of people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the
>> post.
>
> You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It
> actually makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used
> the wrong tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
>
> (I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she"
> are different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who
> she's talking about.)
>
Yeah, well. Like I said, I am trying to quit. But, its like my version
of cigerettes. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Until/unless someone
> finds a valid means to separate measures of mental development from the
> social memes and mores of the culture they are being tested in, its not
> a valid test of anything, other than general forms of conformity to
> arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
IQ tests do include sections such as repeating ever-lengthening strings
of numbers which is pretty unrelated to conforming to social norms and
measures nothing but short-term memory capacity, a bit like playing
Simon. And sections with pattern-based problem-solving with no
additional data. At some point, *all* definitions are arbitrary, and if
(assuming that "if", there) the measures of mental development are used
entirely within the culture of which the subject is a member, why does
it need to be separated?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> >> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
> >> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
> >
> > I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
> > seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
> > them.
> >
> Then don't be. I typed the bloody thing five minutes before leaving for
> work, so didn't notice the problem.
I am going to sound like a jerk again, but I have always wondered if
some people just type their message as fast and carelessly as they can,
and only *then* they go through it and correct all the spelling and
grammatical mistakes. That feels a bit counter-productive to me. Why not
write it properly right away? That would save time and effort.
> > In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
> > that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
> > what the word is saying.
> >
> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
But since I'm not whining about the content of your post that means that
I have nothing to object to it. Isn't that a good thing?-)
Besides, this is exactly the second time I object about someone here
misusing quotes in the history of the server. Hardly seems constant whining.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> The fact that it isn't a statistical measure of relative mental ages, so
> much as a statistical representation of how much one conforms to a
> specific set of social parameters and ideas, which have jack to do with
> *actually* being intelligent.
I really think that's more a biased "political correctness" ideology
speaking than anything that has been extensively and scientifically studied.
An IQ test *does* tell something about the mental difference between
people. In some cases it might indicate natural talent, in other cases
it might indicate the result of learning and training, but nevertheless
it does indicate some differences between people.
Many PC advocates don't like the idea that some people might be truely
more intelligent than others, as they have this utopistic view of the world
where everyone is equal and any differences between people are artificial
and only lead to discrimination.
However, just because they *say* that IQ tests are BS and that IQ
differences between people are an artificial construct doesn't make it so.
Some people might not like it that others are more intelligent than them,
but that doesn't change the facts of life.
> Until/unless someone
> finds a valid means to separate measures of mental development from the
> social memes and mores of the culture they are being tested in, its not
> a valid test of anything, other than general forms of conformity to
> arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
*anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
> *anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
> more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
> the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
> tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
EVERY case!".
Yes, an IQ test is not perfect, nor do we fully understand every
intricate detail of how the brain works or all the qualitative factors
of 'intelligence'. This doesn't mean we should look the other way
instead of using the most efficient tool for getting a reasonably
accurate comparison of individuals, so those who genuinely need
assistance due to mental disability can get it.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
> prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
> which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
> in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
> EVERY case!".
I liked the analogy someone used:
In average women have bigger breasts than men. Just because *some* men
have bigger breasts than *some* women doesn't change the fact.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
>>>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
>>> I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
>>> seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
>>> them.
>>>
>> Then don't be. I typed the bloody thing five minutes before leaving for
>> work, so didn't notice the problem.
>
> I am going to sound like a jerk again, but I have always wondered if
> some people just type their message as fast and carelessly as they can,
> and only *then* they go through it and correct all the spelling and
> grammatical mistakes. That feels a bit counter-productive to me. Why not
> write it properly right away? That would save time and effort.
>
Sounds good, but.. Well, frankly, as I said, in this case I was in a
rush to go out the door. If I took that sort of time, I wouldn't have
made it to work on time, or would have had to come back later, and hope
the power didn't go out, etc., losing the message. :p And, just because
I don't stutter any more, doesn't mean I don't think, never mind type,
the same as I used to. lol
>>> In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
>>> that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
>>> what the word is saying.
>>>
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
>> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
>
> But since I'm not whining about the content of your post that means that
> I have nothing to object to it. Isn't that a good thing?-)
>
> Besides, this is exactly the second time I object about someone here
> misusing quotes in the history of the server. Hardly seems constant whining.
>
I am probably the same someone. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
