Are some people born smarter?
- Thread starter J77
- Start date
Idaho said:
I looked briefly at both.
The first refers to a "racial" linked intelligence, which I find a dubious starting point at best, the more since done in the USA, focussing on US situations.
It should be obvious to a blind that when a child of disadvantaged background - a factor many "black" children in the USA share - gets adopted by people with normal or advanced background - undeniable a factor shared by more "white" then "black" people in the USA - such a child has more chances to receive a better overall intellectual development then those who "stay behind".
All that has nothing to see with inborn intellectual ability.
The second paper I find more interesting.
salaam.
Spion said:
Not in my case. Although I'm sure my mother was in the focus of attention while pregnant, I'm also sure she didn't folllow any "special diet" to get me a "super brain". Probably she took some extra vitamines and fluor tablets, but my wife did the same when she was pregnant and our two children are absolutely normal (be it that they are "clever", many children are). There was also nothing "special" in my food when I was a baby or later on, I'm sure of that. I just got "food" and I'm not particularly interested in "food", it takes too much time to eat it (let alone prepare it. I can't even boil an egg). I would be a good specimen to test all sorts of food-replacing pills and tablets.
So on the nutrition argument: You can scrap that one for me, I suppose. There I manage to be absolutely normal.
salaam.
So you have a "super brain" and chronic dyslexia...?Aldebaran said:Not in my case. Although I'm sure my mother was in the focus of attention while pregnant, I'm also sure she didn't folllow any "special diet" to get me a "super brain". Probably she took some extra vitamines and fluor tablets, but my wife did the same when she was pregnant and our two children are absolutely normal (be it that they are "clever", many children are). There was also nothing "special" in my food when I was a baby or later on, I'm sure of that. I just got "food" and I'm not particularly interested in "food", it takes too much time to eat it (let alone prepare it. I can't even boil an egg). I would be a good specimen to test all sorts of food-replacing pills and tablets.
So on the nutrition argument: You can scrap that one for me, I suppose. There I manage to be absolutely normal.
salaam.
Sorry, I'm confused.
What deifnes a "super brain"?
J77 said:
You *could* of course try to read my posts in context of their intend and by the way, how can dyslexia, mostly described as a neurological disfunctionality be "chronical"? Do you think it is a disease one can cure (please tell me all abuot it) or shall I ask for an exorcist.
salaam.
I put "super brain" between "..." for a reason but you should know that anyone in my situation can only go on what others - who declare themselves to be normal - declared and declare about it. By their declaration I can't have an idea about what it is to be normal and my own experiences continue to confirm that.
Now can you answer my qestion on dyslexia? Do you have The Cure?
salaam.
Now can you answer my qestion on dyslexia? Do you have The Cure?
salaam.
J77 said:
Actually, I have one as a pet.
You asked if I have two heads. I virtually do. One with Dyslex in a coma, one with Dyslex opn alert. You also said it is "chronical". No it isn't. I had it since birht (probably better described as pre-birth condition)
e2a: aldebaran - are you the guy inside the emacs doctor program?
Have no idea about what you refer to, but "I am an alien" as performed in The Fast Show isn't really applyable.
Which is nice.
salaam.
J77 said:
You would if you were me.
When I say Dyslex is knocked in a coma, it means that I feel to have an acceptable control on the effects of the handicap. If that is not the case, it means I have to stop reading/writing because I get dizzy up to nausea up to throwing up if I don't.
"super brain" is in my experience a colloquial reference to abnormality (mostly in a mocking/hostile context.)
I feel free to use that reference whenever I see fit especially when talking about myself.
It's the AI-type thing of gnu emacs. Usually answers a question you ask it with another question...
For a second I htought you referred to marketing or related (shiver) but now you seem to refer to PC related skills (shiver again). I'm - willingly - close to illiterate in both fields.
salaam.
Spion said:Can't we just start a thread about you, Aldebaran? it'd save clogging up this rather interesting one with stuff about you.
Ask the thread starter to split it up. He's the one pursuing me (with remarks that abviously make sense to him).
I'm a compassionate being. I can't let thread starters who want to keep their thread alive at my expense in the cold, can I?
It is however a bit odd that you ask me to leave while I am example of what the thread is about. A bit like asking to leave students on their own during self-inflicted examination on an issue on which they lack personal experience.
salaam.
If it can help you to close the issue:
I am declared to have an IQ "beyond genius" which means it can't be measured. I was born like that. Can't help it.
Where you went was - in my view - trying to give it the usual mockery slant. If provoked to play that game I usually can't resist.
It keeps amazing me though why on earth people get on the defensive but that is another issue.
I don't believe a word of what you say now about a sudden desire to get "insight" into the topic.
salaam.
I am declared to have an IQ "beyond genius" which means it can't be measured. I was born like that. Can't help it.
Where you went was - in my view - trying to give it the usual mockery slant. If provoked to play that game I usually can't resist.
It keeps amazing me though why on earth people get on the defensive but that is another issue.
I don't believe a word of what you say now about a sudden desire to get "insight" into the topic.
salaam.
Spion said:
I can hardly talk about someone else if I present myself as case and example, can I? Would it be more clear would I adopt an other virtual personality and refer to that one?
What do you mean with "direction" and how did I saw confusion on anything?
salaam.
weltweit said:
True, but fact is that many people
a) think if you mention it you automatically declare yourself to be "better"
b) assume you can leanr "everything" without any effort
c) expect you are "a genius" always and everywhere (I always wonder what people imagine that to be, but I suppose that is food for an other thread too, which honestly I don't dare to start).
to name just a few such strange reactions and/or expectations.
salaam.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Some people can:
Run faster
Swim further
Learn maths easier
play chess like a master
Absorb facts better
grow taller
do better in IQ tests
stay out in the sun longer
compose music (good music) at age 6
My view is that we are all different both from the point of view of nature (born with it) and nurture (learn or are taught it).
When I did my degree, there were some quite smart people there who seemed not to have to do so much work and still got good grades then there were a couple of people who seemed not so bright and yet they worked very very hard and still got good grades. I was somewhere in between these two groups perhaps of only average smartness which meant I had to work quite hard to get the degree.
However all of them brighter and less bright and average did get a degree only two people got firsts and I was lead to believe after the fact that they were in fact quite bright AND worked quite hard for the full 3 years.
Run faster
Swim further
Learn maths easier
play chess like a master
Absorb facts better
grow taller
do better in IQ tests
stay out in the sun longer
compose music (good music) at age 6
My view is that we are all different both from the point of view of nature (born with it) and nurture (learn or are taught it).
When I did my degree, there were some quite smart people there who seemed not to have to do so much work and still got good grades then there were a couple of people who seemed not so bright and yet they worked very very hard and still got good grades. I was somewhere in between these two groups perhaps of only average smartness which meant I had to work quite hard to get the degree.
However all of them brighter and less bright and average did get a degree only two people got firsts and I was lead to believe after the fact that they were in fact quite bright AND worked quite hard for the full 3 years.
ska invita
back on the other side
Anyone read Pinker's The Blank Slate?
According to him (and its a convincing argument) the Nature Nurture debate ended up, at the last count, to be about a draw. We all recieve all kinds of genetic predisposition and then our experiences do the rest. Neither factor has any kind of monopoly.
THis angers a whole school of people (often socialists) who say it is ALL down to experience, and say that to say otherwise is racist.
Pinker points out that this is not racist - within any geographical pool of people (pick 2 medium sized countries at random) the difference in genes is best compared within the groups rather than between the two groups.
To put it another way, within any group there will be a whole range of people predisposed to do better at some things than others , and this range is simliar within any group.
So to put it yet another way any "race" (scientificaly meaningless word anyway) has just as many people with a genetic disposition to specific natural abilities as any other race. Comapring two groups just brings up two populations with a similiar range of predispositions.
IN the book he uses the now illegal research of the 70's that tracked identical twins that were split up at birth. By following them over their lifetimes researchers were able to record an amazing amount of similarities, despite different "nurture" situations, proving that genetic makeup was having a big influence on their lives.
According to him (and its a convincing argument) the Nature Nurture debate ended up, at the last count, to be about a draw. We all recieve all kinds of genetic predisposition and then our experiences do the rest. Neither factor has any kind of monopoly.
THis angers a whole school of people (often socialists) who say it is ALL down to experience, and say that to say otherwise is racist.
Pinker points out that this is not racist - within any geographical pool of people (pick 2 medium sized countries at random) the difference in genes is best compared within the groups rather than between the two groups.
To put it another way, within any group there will be a whole range of people predisposed to do better at some things than others , and this range is simliar within any group.
So to put it yet another way any "race" (scientificaly meaningless word anyway) has just as many people with a genetic disposition to specific natural abilities as any other race. Comapring two groups just brings up two populations with a similiar range of predispositions.
IN the book he uses the now illegal research of the 70's that tracked identical twins that were split up at birth. By following them over their lifetimes researchers were able to record an amazing amount of similarities, despite different "nurture" situations, proving that genetic makeup was having a big influence on their lives.
Spion
I hear ya
Surely that would vary according to circumstance? If we 'all recieve all kinds of genetic predisposition' then only the ones who benefit from particular beneficial circumstances will fulfil those predispositions. Which means experience does seem to have the whip hand. And how do we know people had particular predispositions if they are not fulfilled?niksativa said:
niksativa said:Anyone read Pinker's The Blank Slate?
According to him (and its a convincing argument) the Nature Nurture debate ended up, at the last count, to be about a draw. We all recieve all kinds of genetic predisposition and then our experiences do the rest. Neither factor has any kind of monopoly.
THis angers a whole school of people (often socialists) who say it is ALL down to experience, and say that to say otherwise is racist.
Pinker points out that this is not racist - within any geographical pool of people (pick 2 medium sized countries at random) the difference in genes is best compared within the groups rather than between the two groups.
To put it another way, within any group there will be a whole range of people predisposed to do better at some things than others , and this range is simliar within any group.
So to put it yet another way any "race" (scientificaly meaningless word anyway) has just as many people with a genetic disposition to specific natural abilities as any other race. Comapring two groups just brings up two populations with a similiar range of predispositions.
IN the book he uses the now illegal research of the 70's that tracked identical twins that were split up at birth. By following them over their lifetimes researchers were able to record an amazing amount of similarities, despite different "nurture" situations, proving that genetic makeup was having a big influence on their lives.
Why is this research on twins "now illegal"? Under what law?
Giles..
Similar threads
- Poll
