Are less intelligent people less interested in learning "intellectual" things because they don't care, or because the system is set up to make it harder for them to learn?
That might sound confusing...so I'll explain what I'm trying to get at using an example. A guy I work with is really interested in history and evolution and religion. He likes asking questions and figuring out why things work the way they do. He's inquisitive and a relatively intelligent person. But he never went to college, has no formal education in these subjects, and knows mostly only what he sees in tv specials. He says he tried reading some scientific magazines(like scientific American) before but couldn't understand what the heck they were saying so gave up. I've also brought in some non-fiction books before and he seems to really enjoy the introductions but gets lost when the meat of the book actually starts. So he has in effect, been turned away from learning more about the things he is interested in, because A) his vocabulary isn't up to par to understand certain words, as well as overall meanings of sentences. B) and his lack of education in the underlying basic theories that are talked about preclude him from understanding the more complex extensions of those theories.
When I say "the system is set up" I'm not trying to imply that there is a group purposefully writing things so less educated people can't understand, but just simply, that that is the way things are. As far as I know there is no "idiots guide to: evolution, quantum physics, relativity, etc..". Though i could be very wrong, and they might all exist after all.
So, back to my initial question, in the particular example i gave, the individual wanted to learn more but was blocked by his lack of education/understanding of the concepts being talked about and vocabulary being used. But is that the norm? In general do you think there are lots of people interested in learning more but being turned away or demoralized for whatever reason? Or...is the man i know a minority representation? Are most people who are ignorant to certain issues that way because they just don't care or have any desire to learn more? Now, that's obviously someone's choice to care or not care about learning more, I'm making no judgment either way. I'm just curious as to what it is that stops people from learning more.
I ask because I don't ever purposefully force myself to learn anything. I enjoy learning new things, it gives me pleasure. So I do it because it makes me feel good. I don't know why I am that way. Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's not. Whatever it is, it's not something i'm aware of on a conscious level. I don't strive to learn. I do it with the same effort that i put into watching tv or movies, or playing games. I do those things because I enjoy them. If I didn't "enjoy" learning would I still force myself to do it because I thought that I "should". Would I "care'? I don't know.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
A lot of the people I grew up with and went to school with were ignorant because they were slow learners early on in school. Whether they learned to read late, or were developmentally disabled, or had undiagnosed dyslexia or whatever, they just had a hard time with school.
Some of them put their noses to the grindstone and caught up, but some of them simply decided that, since it was difficult for them, learning wasn't worth it. They shunned school, and they picked on or scorned those were successful at it. Everyone knew kids like this. The ones I knew were motivated by a crippling fear of failure that they coped with by never trying.
So, personally, I think people like that are victims of self-fulfilling prophecies. They think they'll never be good at school, and they never pick up the tools to educate themselves.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
...and there are more...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'd really like to write a lengthy response to this, but don't have the focus - one of the roubles of 'racking at work.
In short, though:
1) People learn differently - the "system" is set up to cater to very specific kinds of learners, and it takes a specific kind of learner to effectively take information away from a book read in their spare time. Some people thrive like this. Others, like the guy in your example, do not.
2) If he's having trouble comprehending concepts and vocabulary, there was probably a deficiency - his or the school's or his teachers' or even all three - in his learning experience.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, now to my opinion: you don't have to be formally educated to enjoy learning, and even be good at it. However, our formal education system does seem to be set up so that if you don't learn a certain way, or are not naturally driven to learn in your own way and so can ignore the teacher or classroom setup if it's not the way you learn and learn anyway, you don't learn. There are programs being started in some schools to try to adapt to different learning styles, but many programs are designed to change a person's learning style-- and what would make you hate learning more than someone trying to force you to change how you learn? I always thought you ought to be able to choose a "learning track" that your grade and learning assessment would be based on, suited to your learning style, and be judged on that rather than the uniform criteria.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One of the smartest people I know (and I work in a university) doesn't have a lot of formal education. He just reads everything he can get his hands on. I swear he knows stuff about everything!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Themselves, usually.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
My opinion: lack of persistance is the only thing that stops people from learning. I won't denegrate formal education -- ideally, it is the fastest, most efficient way to learn something. (Note the presence of that qualifier: "ideally".)
However, no one learns anything without a certain amount of effort. It is far easier to be spoonfed with a TV than it is to do the hard work of reading, especially when the writing is dense. There is no substitute for persistence.
My mom is dyslexic. When she was in grade school, one of her teachers told her she'd never be good at school because she wasn't a good reader. That scarred her in a lot of ways, I think. But she proved that teacher dead wrong. What she lacks in speed, she makes up in shere determination. I've never seen anyone so determined to learn something. She holds 4 degrees and now works in a technical college. She has zero aptitude with computers, but her persistence allows her to be at least competent at using one.
Learning styles only determine a person's most natural way of learning -- it doesn't mean that they can't learn other ways as well. Ultimately, they just gotta want it enough to persist through the hard parts.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Y'know in your friend's case it sounds like the inability to gain understanding and definitions of words from written context alone. I think its a problem in other people too.
I mean I've virtually never had to "learn" a word. I'll occasionally look a word up in the dictionary to verify that the meaning is what I thought it was, but that's different. While I may be missing a nuance of the word, in general, my personal definition is pretty close to Webster.
AJ
(This lack may be able to be overcome through sheer determination. However, I think those of us who it comes easily for, radically underestimate the difficulties of someone for whom, understanding things in written context is not as natural a learning style. It's the same with understanding math abstractions, and why many people do so much better with geometry than they do with algebra.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Learning styles only determine a person's most natural way of learning -- it doesn't mean that they can't learn other ways as well. Ultimately, they just gotta want it enough to persist through the hard parts.
While I applaud the sentiment and anecdote that leads you to believe this, I don't think you can generalize. It's like saying that anyone can be a rocket scientist, they're just not trying hard enough.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: anyone can be a rocket scientist, they're just not trying hard enough.
Well is this true or false? Many people would say this is true. I personally held it as true for a long time. It's basically the operating premise of the cultural/social philosophy of the conservative movement of the United States.
The instant you say it is false, you are saying not everyone is created equal, and that your opportunity *is* limited by your education and intelligence.
It's a sticky problem...
AJ
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Anyone can be a rocket scientist, they're just not trying hard enough.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:The instant you say it is false, you are saying not everyone is created equal, and that your opportunity *is* limited by your education and intelligence.
That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying - more that you're limited by your intelligence, rather than your education.
I wasn't aware that people actually believed intelligence isn't a limiting factor. Do you believe someone with an IQ of 50 is capable of the same things as a person with an IQ of 150? Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
There's a vast difference between learning for the sake of learning and learning for the sake of having a job. Being a rocket scientist requires ability and persistence. My mom will never be a pro in the tech industry. It's not possible for shere persistence to make up for what she lacks in natural ability.
But she can certainly learn to be competent at using a computer.
The guy in the original anecdote wants to be an armchair historian, not a history professor. IMO, however, he isn't much even of an armchair historian if his main source of education is the TV.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Anyone can be a rocket scientist, just not everyone wants to be. Can you imagine a world where everyone over the age of, say, 25 was a rocket scientist?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"I wasn't aware that people actually believed intelligence isn't a limiting factor. Do you believe someone with an IQ of 50 is capable of the same things as a person with an IQ of 150?"
Actually, there are truck drivers with higher IQ's than Albert Einstein had. Not that I have anything the intelligence of truck drivers, but EINSTEIN!
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I don't know any of you well enough to tell if you're being serious or not. Do you actually think anyone could be a rocket scientist if he or she wanted to?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But there aren't any scientists with an IQ of 50.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Let us start with the limiting cases. That kid with Down's, who couldn't get a McDonald's job because he couldn't learn to give correct change - can he be a rocket scientist?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, I think the vast majority (>90%) of adults could be a rocket scientist if they really wanted to.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
A high IQ does not necessitate a more intellectually strenuous job, but an intellectually strenuous job requires a high IQ. Don't you agree?
edited because I'm slow Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Actually, there are truck drivers with higher IQ's than Albert Einstein had.
That doesn't address the question, at all.
quote:But there aren't any scientists with an IQ of 50.
I'm not sure if this is in response to my question, but this doesn't answer it, either.
Woah, 1000 posts.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Let us start with the limiting cases. That kid with Down's, who couldn't get a McDonald's job because he couldn't learn to give correct change - can he be a rocket scientist?
No one said he'd make a good rocket scientist, only that he could be one if he wanted.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
He could try to be a rocket scientist. He could call himself a rocket scientist. But if he couldn't actually do the science, would he really be a rocket scientist?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Actually, I think the vast majority (>90%) of adults could be a rocket scientist if they really wanted to.
I happen to agree that there are many adults who could, with the right motivation and the right help be rocket scientists. But the statement I was responding to was that ANYONE can be a rocket scientist - and "anyone" includes people with extremely limiting mental handicaps. Does anyone actually believe that ANYONE can be a rocket scientist? Or is this one of those, "oh, no, I meant anyone except THEM obviously" situations?
Edited for grammar.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:The instant you say it is false, you are saying not everyone is created equal, and that your opportunity *is* limited by your education and intelligence.
I say it is false, but only because natural ability with persistence will always trump persistence alone.
People aren't equal, if equal means identical ability. I don't define equality that way, but some people do, I guess.
And I think that to some degree, persistence can only improve a person's lack of natural ability to a certain degree. A person with no singing voice is never going to be able to learn or train their voice into being the next Carrie Underwood. Learning can't make up for what she has in natural ability.
Is that making any sense? Excellence comes from natural ability AND persistence. Competence can be acheived with less natural ability and strong persistence. Talent with no persistence at all equals mediocrity, and one of the true crimes of Life, IMO.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:No one said he'd make a good rocket scientist, only that he could be one if he wanted.
...
Are you serious?
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Although I always did well in most subjects in school, history has always been my downfall. The key reason is that it requires a tremendous amount of effort for me to remember names, particularly when there are many new ones to remember at once. (I also have trouble remembering faces, but that's irrelevent.) For me to get any value at all out of most history books, I have to make a detailed list of every name that comes up, so that when that person is mentioned again ten pages later I know who it is. I want to learn more history, but it's not something I can do at the end of a long day. Memorizing traditional Chinese characters is easier for me than learning history.
--Mel
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I don't get this great emphasis on IQ. It's mostly just a measure of how many redundant facts you know. For a lot of people , encouragement is a big deal too. Most adult savants take well to encouragement, such as the guy (whose name I can't remember, but I saw him on t.v. ) who can work out any basic sum in his mind in a moment, but I doubt anyone would be encouraging him to be a particle physicist or a rocket scientist, or recognise an anility of his that would make such a thing possible. As a result, I'm sure that guy will never make a great contribution to society, sad as that sounds.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Do you actually think anyone could be a rocket scientist if he or she wanted to?
I think it is a concept that is perpetuated as a building block of U.S. society, whether or not it is actually true. It is taken to be part and parcel of "all men are created equal".
We tell our children that they can be anything they want to be. That their potential is unlimited.
Are we lying to the children who haven't had proper early childhood nutrition, cause their brains *won't* develop the same way, even with the school lunch programs?
Are we lying to the kids who do their best in school and dream big dreams and want to be rocket scientists, yet can't ever pull a grade higher than a B, even if they work their butts off?
Are we lying to all of the kids who get decent grades in high school, and yet go to college and find out that there are just some subjects their brains won't comprehend, such as Calculus II? They've been tutored, taken and retaken it to the maximum number of times allowed by the college, and still can't grasp it.
Are we lying to every teenage girl that thinks they can be a supermodel, if they starve themselves enough, even if they just plain don't have the symmetry body type for it?
Or, can you be anything you want to be?
AJ
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Are you serious?
Not when I can help it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Excuse me. How can a guy who cannot reliably add above twenty be any kind of scientist? (Well, ok, maybe a sociologist.) I mean, you need to do experiments, right? And that means counting. One, two, three, many, lots. If you cannot do this, then you can certainly call yourself a scientist, but that doesn't make you one.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I say we're lying. I say it's the greatest lie of our society. And you know, maybe it's a good lie. Maybe it's even a necessary lie. But that doesn't mean it's not a lie.
Besides, if you tell your kids they can be anything they want to be and they, like in your example, still can't grasp Calculus II, what are you telling them? That they really didn't want it in the first place? That they're not trying hard enough?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I think it is a concept that is perpetuated as a building block of U.S. society, whether or not it is actually true. It is taken to be part and parcel of "all men are created equal".
We tell our children that they can be anything they want to be. That their potential is unlimited.
We also tell them that there's a Santa Claus, and an Easter Bunny.
quote:Are we lying to the children who haven't had proper early childhood nutrition, cause their brains *won't* develop the same way, even with the school lunch programs?
Are we lying to the kids who do their best in school and dream big dreams and want to be rocket scientists, yet can't ever pull a grade higher than a B, even if they work their butts off?
Are we lying to all of the kids who get decent grades in high school, and yet go to college and find out that there are just some subjects their brains won't comprehend, such as Calculus II? They've been tutored, taken and retaken it to the maximum number of times allowed by the college, and still can't grasp it.
Are we lying to every teenage girl that thinks they can be a supermodel, if they starve themselves enough, even if they just plain don't have the symmetry body type for it?
Or, can you be anything you want to be?
Of course we're lying to them.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Actually, I think the vast majority (>90%) of adults could be a rocket scientist if they really wanted to.
I disagree mph. I'm absolutely certain that *you* could be a rocket scientist if you wanted to. I probably could have too. Though I have been to the point where my mind actually cracked and stopped functioning at rocket scientist levels. I might not have been able to as a result.
But I think the people who are capable of being such grossly overestimate the amount of the population who truly are capable of it. Why? Because it would make us arrogant elitist snobs, if we actually believed deep down, that only a small percentage of people can do these things. (And there are many geeks who are arrogant elitist snobs.) So in order to retain our humanity and humility, we lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that everyone can do what our brains can do. But it's a lie. A necessary lie perhaps, but still a lie.
AJ
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:We also tell them that there's a Santa Claus, and an Easter Bunny.
You almost make it sound like you don't believe. I bet you got a lump of coal this past Christmas.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:But I think the people who are capable of being such grossly overestimate the amount of the population who truly are capable of it. Why? Because it would make us arrogant elitist snobs, if we actually believed deep down, that only a small percentage of people can do these things. (And there are many geeks who are arrogant elitist snobs.) So in order to retain our humanity and humility, we lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that everyone can do what our brains can do. But it's a lie.
Where you see "arrogant elitist snob," I see "realist." I think being human is in recognizing where to drawn the line between encouraging hopes and invalidating lives, not deliberately lying to yourself to make yourself seem like a better person.
quote:You almost make it sound like you don't believe. I bet you got a lump of coal this past Christmas.
If by "coal" you mean "two shirts and a jacket," then yes.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Ersomaniac, don't you agree that someone who actually knows about the IQ test months, or even years, before a test has a much better chance of scoring higher than someone who's never heard of it? i.e. IQ tests are not great determinants of intelligence because the questions involved can be anticipated and prepared for.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Ersomaniac, don't you agree that someone who actually knows about the IQ test months, or even years, before a test has a much better chance of scoring higher than someone who's never heard of it. IQ tests are not great determinants of intelligence because the questions involved can be anticipated and prepared for.
I agree that IQ tests can be prepared for, but the ones administered by professionals cannot be, purely because they change in form almost constantly and are largely subjective.
With that said, do you honestly believe someone that would ordinarily test with an IQ of 50 could ever cheat enough to score the equivilant of an IQ of 150?
The situation would never arise and, more importantly, it doesn't matter: you're still ignoring the question.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I'll grant that there's a flaw with IQ tests, but that's beside the point. Are you saying that everyone is of equal intellectual capacity?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"With that said, do you honestly believe someone that would ordinarily test with an IQ of 50 could ever cheat enough to score the equivilant of an IQ of 150?"
That would simply be a matter of scoring 50 one time, and then later scoring 150. What's the big deal about that? Surely it couldn't happen overnight, but does that matter?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:That would simply be a matter of scoring 50 one time, and then later scoring 150. What's the big deal about that? Surely it couldn't happen overnight, but does that matter?
Cheiros, have you ever taken an IQ test? They aren't difficult: most of them include questions that would be easy regardless of whether you're 14 or 40. The only major variance is between countries and cultures: they exclude questions about things like "which way does Lincoln's head face on the penny?" if you don't live in the U.S. They aren't designed to be a test of knowledge: it's a test for how fast and how thoroughly you think. IQ scores almost never change beyond 4-5 points in any given individual's lifetime.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
No, I don't think everyone is of equal intellectual capacity, but I don't think IQ has anything to do with that.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Where you see "arrogant elitist snob," I see "realist." I think being human is in recognizing where to drawn the line between encouraging hopes and invalidating lives, not deliberately lying to yourself to make yourself seem like a better person.
I freely admit I struggle with that line myself. I think sometimes lies to yourself may be neccesary in order to make you actually *be* a better person.
AJ
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I agree with jeniwren for the most part.
Edit: Taking the case of the guy Strider mentioned in the first post who is obviously over 18 and didn't go to the best prep school in the nation or anything.
It's about conditioning. We often like to do what is easiest to do and what makes us feel good. When something is hard to do, it often makes us feel frustrated and less inclined to do it, especially if we see others who are really good at it zoom by us on the learning curve. IMO, we assume it's because they're naturally better than us at it, whether that's true or not. So we look for what we're "naturally" best at.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that it is harder to learn as you get older. One reason for this is memory. The older you are, in general, the longer it takes for you to remember something. We rely on memory a lot to learn new things. Another reason might be that a lot of neural pathways have already been formed and it is harder for an older person to form new ones than for a younger person. There's also the problem that you have to unlearn some bad habits and misinformation in order to learn new things as well. People who have better learning habits, have a more accepted base* of information to start with, and have been trained to think in a certain way will find it easier to learn.
*Notice I didn't say the "right" information. We don't know that what science has discovered so far is right, just that science seems to be able to predict a lot of things fairly often using the scientific method.
[ February 02, 2006, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:No, I don't think everyone is of equal intellectual capacity, but I don't think IQ has anything to do with that.
Cheiros, seriously, the original question: "Does anyone actually believe that ANYONE can be a rocket scientist?"
It's a yes or no question.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
Okay. Let's look at it this way.
Premise 1. Not everyone is of equal intellectual capacity. Premise 2. Some jobs are more intellectually strenuous than others.
Can we all agree so far?
Conclusion. THEREFORE, unless all jobs are only as intellectually strenous as the person with the least intellectual capacity can handle, then not anyone can be a rocket scientist.
Hey, we're all on the same side.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"They aren't designed to be a test of knowledge: it's a test for how fast and how thoroughly you think. IQ scores almost never change beyond 4-5 points in any given individual's lifetime."
Actually, mine has gone up about 10 points each year for three years straight. Not to say that this will continue, it's simply that three years ago I was one of those people who couldn't learn like everyone else because of my lack of the basic knowledge, logic and interest that most people who grow up with high IQ's had. But even then I was always the best in my class at maths.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I freely admit I struggle with that line myself. I think sometimes lies to yourself may be neccesary in order to make you actually *be* a better person.
I suppose that's something that varies on an individual basis, but I can't imagine maintaining the intricate web of lies and truth that I'd need to in order to deceive myself to that extent. Because, if I'm understanding you correctly, you lie to yourself and say that you can do anything so that you are not limited by an artificial cap you've created for yourself. You need to lie to yourself well enough that it's convincing, or there's no point. At the same time, though, you need to be aware of the lie, or you'll end up living a life of continual disappointment as you fail to achieve things that are, in fact, beyond your potential as an individual.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
...and now that we all agree, I'm going home.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Actually, mine has gone up about 10 points each year for three years straight. Not to say that this will continue, it's simply that three years ago I was one of those people who couldn't learn like everyone else because of my lack of the basic knowledge, logic and interest that most people who grow up with high IQ's had. But even then I was always the best in my class at maths.
Congratulations.
The question still stands.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
JNSB, interestingly enough, you can find data that shows that older non-traditional students 35+ in age *consistently* get higher grades than their younger compatriots in college classes. It may be a greater level of discipline, and desire to learn partially, but my friend Fireman Bob graduated from med school at the age of 50+, after retiring from a municipal fire department. He certianly had to memorize a heck of a lot of info he didn't know before.
Many, many professional disciplines, begin with people well beyond the natural age one's mind is most flexible, medicine and law are probably the biggest examples.
AJ
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Yes, I think anyone can be a rocket scientist. It's first a matter of interest. After that, there is more than one path to doing anything, often discovered for the first time ever by the person who does it. It's the taking an interest part that not just anyone can achieve. So yes, most people will get stopped before they even start. But that's got nothing to do with intellectual capacity (read: learning ability).
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:JNSB, interestingly enough, you can find data that shows that older non-traditional students 35+ in age *consistently* get higher grades than their younger compatriots in college classes. It may be a greater level of discipline, and desire to learn partially,
I'd argue that this is largely due to biology and a change in life focus, rather than a change in learning potential - but I have absolutely nothing to back that up. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Yes, I think anyone can be a rocket scientist. It's first a matter of interest. After that, there is more than one path to doing anything, often discovered for the first time ever by the person who does it.
So, essentially, anyone that doesn't achieve their idealized, unrealistic goals is either weak, or a failure?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: but I can't imagine maintaining the intricate web of lies and truth that I'd need to in order to deceive myself to that extent.
Oh, it wasn't entirely done by me. But, if you are raised with your parents lying to you like that, and isolating you enough that you believe it, it's an entirely different ball of wax.
AJ
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"So, essentially, anyone that doesn't achieve their idealized, unrealistic goals is either weak, or a failure?"
You could say that, except that peoples interests hardly ever stay exactly the same. It's a waver of interest that causes someone, not to fail, but to use their strengths somewhere else.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Cheerios, are you honestly saying that someone with Downs syndrome could be a rocket scientist? (I hate using this extreme...but I can't think of a better one)
Downs syndrome is not autism. And if you are so autistic that you can not communicate effectively with at least a few people the outside world well enough for them to realize you are brilliant, you aren't going to be a rocket scientist either, no matter how much you want to.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Yes, I think anyone can be a rocket scientist. It's first a matter of interest. After that, there is more than one path to doing anything, often discovered for the first time ever by the person who does it. It's the taking an interest part that not just anyone can achieve. So yes, most people will get stopped before they even start. But that's got nothing to do with intellectual capacity (read: learning ability).
That is really fascinating. Again I would refer you to my example of the guy with Down's, who cannot do simple arithmetic. Just what is he going to contribute to any branch of science, even sociology? Much less an engineering discipline. Washing the beakers?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Man, and people say *I'M* cynical.
Edit: In response to cheiros.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
KoM, the thing with that guy would be that he wouldn't have the interest to be a rocket scientist. He might have fantasies, but not the overwhelming intent it would take. Here's a question for you, ersonmaniac: Do you agree that a persons truest interests are always consistent with their abilities, or ability to learn the neccessary abilities?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why should a man with Down's not dream of a Nobel Prize? But in any case, that's not what you said. You said "Anyone can, if only they work hard enough." But now it is "Except for the ones who can't work hard enough?" Well, duh, that's what we've all been saying.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I thought of a better example. My boyfriend's brother. (And they'd both be ok with me using this example.) He works on an auto production line. He is a wonderful father.
However he misses obvious logical inferences, and gazes at me in something akin to awe when I point them out. (Steve my bf, sees them but has never bothered to point them out to his older brother for obvious familial reasons... you make your big brother feel dumb and you get beat up.)
He just doesn't think that way. And all the logic classes in the world wouldn't do his brain any good at actually applying the logic in real world situations. While I do it instinctively, never had a logic class in my life.
AJ
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Do you agree that a persons truest interests are always consistent with their abilities, or ability to learn the neccessary abilities?
No, I don't agree. According to you, everyone has the ability to be anything. Therefore, according to you, a person's truest interests are always consistent with their abilities, since any given interest is a subset of anything.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Do you agree that a persons truest interests are always consistent with their abilities, or ability to learn the neccessary abilities?
NO. That's why we have so many "fans" of this and that in the world. Why there are so many armchair quarter backs. Why we idolize the actors and olympians that have achieved what we cannot.
AJ
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Yes, but they're not going to work hard enough if they don't first have the intent to do so. They're not going to force themselves to do something they don't want to do just because they think it would be a good social experiment. Alternatively, they can be forced by someone else to do something they want to do, but only if they consider the sacrifice worth it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So anyone can be Lance Armstrong?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Or again, a five-foot man is going to become heavyweight boxing champion of the world?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:So anyone can be Lance Armstrong?
Okay, now you're just being silly.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Cheiros - you're missing your OWN point.
quote:Yes, but they're not going to work hard enough if they don't first have the intent to do so.
You are the one that said that everyone's intents/desires and abilities always line up.
quote:They're not going to force themselves to do something they don't want to do just because they think it would be a good social experiment.
Of course they're not going to. Good thing that, according to you, they don't have to.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I don't see a contradiction in those two points?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Okay, now you're just being silly.
When you speak in absolutes and refuse to admit that you were in error to do so, you invite silliness.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't think you realize the heartbreak of those people who *have* worked hard enough, and dedicate their lives to being elite athletes. And then realize they will never be the one to break the record. Their bodies have betrayed them, and they are getting old and will never reach the pinnacle that they dreamed of. They dedicated their lives to chasing a dream that they will never catch and it has betrayed them.
AJ
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't see a contradiction in those two points?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Except that wanting to be Lance Armstrong would include wanting exactly everything Lance Armstrong wants. I'm sure in some crazy way it could happen, but it never has and probably never will. The rest of you all seem to be talking as if this idea can be measured and summed up, even though they've never happened before. So, really, this discussion is about the idea that anything is possible. It might surprise you that a large number of rocket scientists believe in that idea.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So anyone can be Lance Armstrong? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, now you're just being silly.
Why? What is silly about the question? Tell me why I'm being silly on this point. I asked it in all seriousness.
You are the one that is maintaining that anyone can be anything that they want to be and their truest desires and interests will be satisfied by doing so.
If that was true, then George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton, Laurent Jalabert and Jan Ullrich would all have the Tour de France records, not Lance Armstrong.
AJ
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:"I don't think you realize the heartbreak of those people who *have* worked hard enough, and dedicate their lives to being elite athletes. And then realize they will never be the one to break the record. Their bodies have betrayed them, and they are getting old and will never reach the pinnacle that they dreamed of. They dedicated their lives to chasing a dream that they will never catch and it has betrayed them.
okay so we can either excuse the second placer as
i. Not having worked hard enough to beat the winner, which I believe was possible they just didn't achieve it because they didn't care enough. We all know out sports heroes have spent almost their entire lives towards "being the best" and as such were.
ii. We can think like you, that they were born to fail, because what, it was their fate?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Except that wanting to be Lance Armstrong would include wanting exactly everything Lance Armstrong wants. I'm sure in some crazy way it could happen, but it never has and probably never will. The rest of you all seem to be talking as if this idea can be measured and summed up, even though they've never happened before. So, really, this discussion is about the idea that anything is possible. It might surprise you that a large number of rocket scientists believe in that idea.
I'm ignoring cheiros' subsequent posts in this thread. Anyone have something interesting and/or useful to say?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: So, really, this discussion is about the idea that anything is possible. It might surprise you that a large number of rocket scientists believe in that idea.
Anything is possible.
All things are not probable. And taking the limit of a probability equation can yield zero. In fact those sorts of probablilty assumptions are exactly what got us on the moon in the first place.
Everything is not possible to everyone.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:I'm ignoring cheiros' subsequent posts in this thread. Anyone have something interesting and/or useful to say?
This is why I usually try to avoid discussing anything with cynics.
Posted by Rabid Newz (Member # 7704) on :
This is similar to asking:
What keeps more educated people from deciding to learn less?
I don't think it really has anything to do with being less educated. I think its the motivation to do something with one's life.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: JNSB, interestingly enough, you can find data that shows that older non-traditional students 35+ in age *consistently* get higher grades than their younger compatriots in college classes. It may be a greater level of discipline, and desire to learn partially, but my friend Fireman Bob graduated from med school at the age of 50+, after retiring from a municipal fire department. He certianly had to memorize a heck of a lot of info he didn't know before.
Many, many professional disciplines, begin with people well beyond the natural age one's mind is most flexible, medicine and law are probably the biggest examples.
AJ
I would agree that older people can learn things and in some cases perform just as well or better than their younger counterparts. But I would say that it is tougher for them, and that they have to put in more hours of work, on average. I have no doubt that there is anecdotal evidence to counter this, because those are the ones outside the average range. Someone who is very smart at a young age can still perform well at an older age, espcially if they keep their mind active. (e.g. Look at Supreme Court justices and the sheer amount of paperwork and memorization they must do).
But the average person doesn't keep their mind intellectually active, and isn't smarter than average to begin with. And the older they get, the harder it is to learn.
I'll try to find a link regarding how long it takes to memorize things and how that changes as you get older...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
B---S---
quote: i. Not having worked hard enough to beat the winner, which I believe was possible they just didn't achieve it because they didn't care enough. We all know out sports heroes have spent almost their entire lives towards "being the best" and as such were.
You don't know the men of whom I speak. Laurent Jalabert, won the green points jersey, several years of Le Tour. He *also* won the King of the Mountains several years of Le Tour. An extraordinary feat. The heart of a champion. But he couldn't do well enough at both to win Le Tour. Ulrich *won* Le Tour. He was capable of it. But he couldn't beat Lance, even if he can say he was responsible for testing Lance to his utmost.
Tyler maintained the identical training regimen to Lance. Never beat him at Le Tour.
Are you honestly telling me that this man, did not have the heart and desire to win Le Tour de France if he physically could have? He won most of the other Grand Tours.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
JNSB, I'm not disagreeing with you, just more pointing out, that learning, does not actually happen, in many cases, at the optimum point of brain development.
AJ
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
You seem to hold that because they havn't ever beat Armstrong at Le Tour that they inherently can't. That kind of thinking is just not good enough, nor should it be for any human being alive. What part of my thinking says that training harder and caring more than the winner is not important. What makes you think Tyler maintaining only an identical training regime to Armstrong shows that he cared enough!?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"Are you honestly telling me that this man, did not have the heart and desire to win Le Tour de France if he physically could have?"
If he was physically more able, of course he'd have had more chance of beating Armstrong, but he wasn't, and that's his own problem, not a deciding factor that says it's realistically impossible for him to do have done so.
Edit: Added "have done" since you're gonna be so nitpicky.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yup, they never will. Armstrong is retired, or hadn't you heard? And trust me, they never had *not good enough* anywhere in their brains. They wouldn't have been an elite athlete if they'd entertained the thought for an instant. You don't understand the mind of an elite athlete, any more than you understand the mental limitations of an average person's brain.
You also don't understand the physical limitations of the aging athlete. Or the fact that Lance Armstrong metabolizes oxygen more efficiently than any other elite cyclist on the planet.
AJ
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"Or the fact that Lance Armstrong metabolizes oxygen more efficiently than any other elite cyclist on the planet."
Nice conclusion you jump to there. Great to see you'd rather just assume I'm to stupid to know that because I disagree with you.
Posted by Rabid Newz (Member # 7704) on :
I don't think you are helping your situation any.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: "Or the fact that Lance Armstrong metabolizes oxygen more efficiently than any other elite cyclist on the planet
quote: Armstrong was an outstanding young swimmer, and as an adolescent he began to enter triathlons. By 1987, when he was sixteen, he was also winning bicycle races. That year, he was invited to the Cooper Institute, in Dallas, which was one of the first centers to recognize the relationship between fitness and aerobic conditioning. Everyone uses oxygen to break down food into the components that provide energy; the more oxygen you are able to use, the more energy you will produce, and the faster you can run, ride, or swim. Armstrong was given a test called the VO2 Max, which is commonly used to assess an athlete's aerobic ability: it measures the maximum amount of oxygen the lungs can consume during exercise. His levels were the highest ever recorded at the clinic. (Currently, they are about eighty-five millilitres per kilogram of body weight; a healthy man might have a VO2 Max of forty.)
Chris Carmichael, who became his coach when Armstrong was still a teen-ager, told me that even then Armstrong was among the most remarkable athletes he had ever seen. Not only has his cardiovascular strength always been exceptional; his body seems specially constructed for cycling. His thigh bones are unusually long, for example, which permits him to apply just the right amount of torque to the pedals.
(incidentally that was *before* he actually dedicated himself to training. His VO2 levels improved even more when he got serious)
Posted by Rabid Newz (Member # 7704) on :
That is really cool. I didn't even know they could test that sort of thing. I knew Lance Armstrong was something special, athletically. But this whole test thing is news to me.
cheiros de ender- I think you just got served.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
They had huge specials on all of it with the charts and everything on the Discovery Channel during the last Tour de France.
AJ
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
No, I know Armstrong does. My point was that you'd rather just jump tp the conclusion that I didn't know that.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well if you knew that, how could you say some one else should have been able to beat him?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: If he was physically more able, of course he'd have had more chance of beating Armstrong, but he wasn't, and that's his own problem, not a deciding factor that says it's realistically impossible for him to do have done so.
In JaJa's case, also, yes it was. JaJa was old. Much older than Lance when he retired. Lance was young. The bodies can't take the same amount of punishment, no matter how much heart.
AJ
Posted by Rabid Newz (Member # 7704) on :
Ok, now listen. It is cool that Armstrong has this cool breathing thing going. But just because he can breathe better than everyone else does not necessarily guarntee him victory in anything.
Its still possible for him to be beat.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"Well if you knew that, how could you say some one else should have been able to beat him?"
Should have been able to, not should have beated him. Why should the underdog even try to compete if it's not possible for them to win?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No, it isn't possible for him to be beaten. He retired on a win.
Cherios contention is that anyone can do anything if they 'want' it bad enough because they will have the motivation and drive to achieve it.
I disagree. I am using extreme examples such as Lance Armstrong to illustrate this point. If he could have been beaten, they would have found a way. He was pressed to his utmost in his last Tour. They thought he was vulnerable, believed he was vulnerable, could taste the vicory for themselves, but he still won. The hearts, pain tolerance levels, and conditioning are now on a pretty level playing field. Oxygen metabolism isn't.
AJ
Posted by Rabid Newz (Member # 7704) on :
I think you underestimate the desperation of a competitive human being. If there was someone who wanted to win bad enough, desperately wanted to beat him. They COULD have pushed themselves to it.
You're saying that this can't and doesn't happen. And, I'm afraid, that isn't correct. This sort of thing is going on around us all the time.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Y'know, it's clearly obvious at this point in the thread, that anyone can not learn or comprehend anything. Though maybe they don't want to do so enough.
Good night.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: They COULD have pushed themselves to it.
Did you not see their faces crack? They pushed themselves to their own physical breaking point and beyond. They couldn't. Will can only hold so long, beyond the body giving out.
AJ
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"Y'know, it's clearly obvious at this point in the thread, that anyone can not learn or comprehend anything. Though maybe they don't want to do so enough."
That might have actually made sense had Rabid said it, but you're being a bit hypocritical don't you think? Because people aren't "learning" anything from YOU, we're unable to learn or comprehend anything?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If you life weights you will get stronger. If you run miles you will get faster. If you go to school you will become more intelligent, and will have a higher IQ. It is not hard at all to change any of these things.
However, no matter how much you lift weights, you probably will never be able to bend steel. And no matter how much you study, you probably won't be able to memorize all the known digits of pi. There are limits that people have.
Those limits are not very relevant to the question at hand, though. You don't need to be a super-genius to be a rocket scientist - I know a rocket scientist, a young one albeit, who is very much not a genius. And you certainly don't need to be a genius to learn more than you currently know. Those things are well within the capacities of almost all people. But you might need to be patient - you can't go straight from Algebra class to Astrophysics. There are steps that need to be taken along the way. Similarly, you might not be able to read advanced science texts unless you first study the vocabulary first.
Having said that, I agree that a lot of the vocabulary in academic texts is put there for no good reason. You shouldn't need to know special words except insofar as a lack of more well-known words makes it necessary.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*resists urge to make rocket scientist comment*
Nevertheless, I do think there are certain limits that the brain has, and I think that these differ from person to person. Some people "get" things instinctively, while others have to work hard to understand them. But the thing is, the people who work hard to understand them would probably be better at explaining them to another person than those who learn instinctively. So I guess there's a sort of trade-off.
-pH
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I was referring to basic logic, actually. As I said before, some people are incapable of making logical inferences or following logical trains of thought.
You still haven't answered the question about how someone with Down Syndrome could become a rocket scientist.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tresopax, what about the person who never is able to "get" algebra, even after much pain and suffering and agonizing. Do you want that person designing your space travel?
AJ
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:This is why I usually try to avoid discussing anything with cynics.
I know I said I wouldn't, but I have to comment on this.
Who's more cynical?
Your viewpoint: everyone has infinite potential, they're just satisfied with not living up to it and being mediocre.
My viewpoint: people have varying limits to their potential, and most of them try pretty damn hard to make something of themselves.
Honestly, I fail to see how that makes me the cynic.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
While it's clear that everyone has limits to what they can do, no one can accurately predict what those limits are until that person themselves tests their limits. This is why the myth of 'everyone can do X' is useful, not because it is necessarily literally true, but because it is a useful tool that often allows people to function more betterer and be happier.
Thus, because it's not literally true, we don't let just anyone design planes or rockets or submarines, but because in many cases it's not known to be false, it's useful to treat everyone as if they have that ability and encourage them to push themselves to their fullest and see if they can get to that point where they can design rockets, etc.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:While it's clear that everyone has limits to what they can do, no one can accurately predict what those limits are until that person themselves tests their limits. This is why the myth of 'everyone can do X' is useful, not because it is necessarily literally true, but because it is a useful tool that often allows people to function more betterer and be happier.
It's also a useful tool for creating unrealistic/unrealized hopes and crushed dreams.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Stormy, yes, exactly... and the line between the Good Story we tell ourselves and the Bad Lie is a fine one.
AJ
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Possibly, Eros. Little in this world doesn't have a price. I think it's pretty clear, though, that the idea that people should try to be as excellent they can be is more frequently beneficial for the individual and society than the alternative.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree, Banna.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Possibly, Eros. Little in this world doesn't have a price. I think it's pretty clear, though, that the idea that people should try to be as excellent they can be is more frequently beneficial for the individual and society than the alternative.
I disagree, but that's probably because I happen to belong to the group that got screwed by this idea.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Strider- Your friend my just have trouble reading the drier academic books. A lot of nonfiction I've attempted to read seems to be written with the express purpose of putting the reader to sleep.
There is some nonfiction out there that's written to be very enjoyable to read. Maybe if he started out reading some of the more enjoyable books he could innoculate himself and be able to read the more boring books later?
Maybe he would enjoy "A Brief History of Time"? All of the other nonfiction I enjoy focuses on women in history, but if you think he'd be interested I can recomend some titles.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Good point blacwolve,
What about Scientific American? Would that be over his head? It's written at a more "layman's" level.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ersomniac,
How'd you get screwed? Generalities are fine, I'm just curious to hear the counter example.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj:
quote: Actually, I think the vast majority (>90%) of adults could be a rocket scientist if they really wanted to.
I disagree mph. I'm absolutely certain that *you* could be a rocket scientist if you wanted to. I probably could have too. Though I have been to the point where my mind actually cracked and stopped functioning at rocket scientist levels. I might not have been able to as a result.
But I think the people who are capable of being such grossly overestimate the amount of the population who truly are capable of it. Why? Because it would make us arrogant elitist snobs, if we actually believed deep down, that only a small percentage of people can do these things. (And there are many geeks who are arrogant elitist snobs.) So in order to retain our humanity and humility, we lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that everyone can do what our brains can do. But it's a lie. A necessary lie perhaps, but still a lie.
AJ
If that's a lie that I tell myself, then it serves a dual purpose. Not only does it help me not be an arrogant elitist snob about some things, but it helps me feel better about things that I can't do. For example, I also believe that over 95% of people could learn to draw well enough to make a piece of art worth of being framed and hung on the wall.
But I don't think it's a lie. I don't have any artistic skills, but if I wanted to develop it, I believe I could.
Maybe it would take five years. Maybe ten. Heck -- maybe fifty, if it's something that I am particularly ill-suited to. But if I really wanted to, I think I'd get there. I likewise think that if people really wanted to, they could become rocket scientists.
It's just that most people don't really want to do things that they are ill-suited for, because it's too hard and frustrating.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote:Possibly, Eros. Little in this world doesn't have a price. I think it's pretty clear, though, that the idea that people should try to be as excellent they can be is more frequently beneficial for the individual and society than the alternative.
I disagree, but that's probably because I happen to belong to the group that got screwed by this idea.
You disagree that people should try to do the best they can? I don't know what to say to that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
One more time : Down's. Science. Chief bottle washer?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
No, I don't disagree that people should try the best they can. I disagree that this system of lying to yourself and your children about their potential is worth the number of people it hurts. I also don't think most people need the lie to do the best they can.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not saying that anybody can be the best or among the best in the world. No matter how good you are, there's always going to be some Mozart that comes along and blows you to pieces.
But I do believe that most people are capable of basic competence in most things.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:But I do believe that most people are capable of basic competence in most things.
Now, THAT I can get behind.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:It's just that most people don't really want to do things that they are ill-suited for, because it's too hard and frustrating.
American Idol anyone??? I think that show alone demonstrates a universal human phenomenon.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Tresopax, what about the person who never is able to "get" algebra, even after much pain and suffering and agonizing. Do you want that person designing your space travel?
How "never" is "never"? After struggling for just a few semesters? A few years? A few decades?
I am willing to concede that there are some things that some people just cannot "get", no matter how hard they try. I do believe these situations are pretty rare, though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've never seen American Idol.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Now, THAT I can get behind.
Get behind me, eros!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: But I do believe that most people are capable of basic competence in most things.
"basic competence" does not equal "rocket scientist"
I think it really comes down to your definition of "basic competence". I want to agree with you, but I'm not sure I can.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
You will never seen more people sincerely self-deluded about their singing ability, than you will see on American Idol. I think someone posted a clip here on hatrack of the infamous tone deaf asian guy who is now a celebrity just because it was so astonishing that anyone could be that downright awful at it.
AJ
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
To give a different example, one that isn't dependant on intellegence or training. . . lots of little girls want to grow up to be ballerinas. Many of them wish it with their hearts and souls, and want nothing more in the world.
Ballerinas have to be small enough to be lifted easily on stage. Practically, that means an average of 5'4" tall and weighing about 105 pounds.
If a girl, genetically, is going to grow up to be 5'10" tall, she cannot be a ballerina. Unless you think that by wanting to hard enough you can somehow shrink.
Not everybody can do everything they want to do. If you want to do something badly enough, there is a lot you can do to make it happen. But some things are beyond your control.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
The details of the discussion escape me, but the repeated theme seems to be rather competitive (rocket scientist = pinacle of achievement).
If I could add a couple thoughts, they would be:
1. One of the best strategies for success in life is to play only those games where one has some skill. Learn what your talents are and apply them to the endeavors that are likely to generate a good payoff for you (sort of a "love what you do" philosophy).
2. Ignore the previous strategy. If you like to learn for the sake of learning (rather than career-enhancement, ego-fulfillment, whathaveyou), I reckon it's plenty fine to indulge in pursuits that you have no native talent for. On the surface, this might seem pretty inefficient, and it is in light of #1, but I personally think that "dabbling" is an underappreciated activity.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:"basic competence" does not equal "rocket scientist"
Why not? Most engineers are not geniuses.
edit:
quote:rocket scientist = pinacle of achievement
I think that I must have a different definition of "rocket scientist" than most people. I pretty much just think of it as an aeronautical engineer who happens to work with rockets instead of airplanes.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
See, when I think "rocket scientist," I think of one particular individual. And thus, to me, "rocket scientist" indicates a high level of intelligence, among other things.
Honestly though, I think there really are some things that are beyond certain people's grasp. I think that people generally display an interest in subjects that are easier for them to grasp on some level. That is, maybe someone really likes calculus despite the fact that it requires a lot of work for him, but really, he finds the solving easier to understand than, say, creative writing.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yeah, think a lot of misunderstanding is happening because of the term "rocket scientist" which I guess many other people associate with genius, hence phrases like "you don't have to be a rocket scientist".
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
"I think that I must have a different definition of 'rocket scientist' that most people. I pretty much just think of it as an aeronautical engineer who happens to work with rockets instead of airplanes."
:0
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My rocket scientist can beat up your rocket scientist.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What if we used...I don't know....research geneticist instead of rocket scientist?
I guess it depends on what YOU mean by rocket scientist, though.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't see how it makes a difference. Sure, you have to be exceptional to be in the top of your field, but basic competence would allow you to make a contribution, probably working on other people's projects.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
To me Rocket Scientist = 1)scientist directly employed by NASA or JPL Someone who is *in* Mission control when they hear "Houston We Have a Problem" and Directly Involved with solving that problem. There was a fantastic thing on one of the educational channels recently on the history of NASA. Those men and women were Rocket Scientists. Everyone else is deluding themselves. THey do demonstrate the *same* level of fantatical dedication to their chosen avocation that elite athletes do.
2)(lesser definition but I'll take this broader view if forced) someone actually working directly on the design and engineering of space propulsion vehicles (and the people *in charge* of their design, not their research peons which are students on internships, "making a contribution on someone else's project" doesn't count), a very dedicated tiny and elite group, even at the contractor level.
The best of the best of engineers and programmers and scientists. Somewhere where there are always a gazillion of qualified people who *will* be left out since not everyone that wants to can actually work in the space program, there simply aren't enough slots available for everyone who wants to or is even qualified to be. It's as much up to luck as it is excellence whether you get there. Everyone can't be an astronaut, either, but that's what all rocket scientists really want to be a part of even if they are on the ground.
It's actually much easier for someone to become a molecular geneticist, than a "rocket scientist" the demand is higher and you can get employed in the field with much less demonstration of excellence.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:and the people *in charge* of their design, not their research peons
Using your definition, I agree with you.
But like you said, being able to do the job isn't enough to win this particular competition.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I know lots of rocket scientists. And rocket engineers. Most of them are about the same level of intelligence as most of the other people I hang out with. The difference? They've all had a chance to get the education they needed to learn the science and be hired, had the right experience and/or contacts to be hired at JPL, and have an interest in and desire to work in that field. Most of the other people I know, you could say the same about their jobs.
It's just another type of job. I don't know why people get all worked up about rocket scientists.
(Okay, it is kind of cool that one of my friends, the banjo player in our band, has his name in books on the history of space exploration and stuff. But still. )
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Most of them are about the same level of intelligence as most of the other people I hang out with. The difference? They've all had a chance to get the education they needed to learn the science and be hired, had the right experience and/or contacts to be hired at JPL, and have an interest in and desire to work in that field.
Notice all the caviats to becoming a rocket scientist. If you don't know the right people and aren't in the right place at the right time, you aren't gonna make it. It's as much luck as it is desire. (And I know quite a few people myself who would fit the broad definition, and even one who was in Mission Control) I'm not saying it is impossible, I am saying not everyone who wants to will be one.
AJ
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I feel pretty confident that there are some things beyond the pale for any given person. That is, at some point and in some area, each of us would fall short. (There's the old cliche that we all think we have the Great American Novel tucked away in some corner of our brains, if we'd only sit down to write it. And physicians are famous for assuming that just because they are good at medicine, they are experts n everything. 'Taint so. )
On the other hand, we may never know what those limtations are unless we try. The problem is that -- I think -- sometimes "tryng" is at great expense, be it financially, physically, or emotionally. It does seem unkind when that expense is taken on with a blind unawareness of potential or likely limitations.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yup. Same with most other jobs, though-- I know lots of people who aren't doing the work they want to because of lack of a chance at education, or lack of contacts, or lack of job availability.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah. There is much to be sorry for in all directions.
Opportunity is, indeed, a trump card. The lack of it can negate all skill and perseverance.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's like being a rock star. Just becuase you have the skills doesn't mean you get to be a star.
So while I believe that most people could eventually become very good at the guitar, that doesn't mean that they could then become a rock star.
But those are somewhat "artificial" limitations, like the ballet one, and don't really speak to a person's abilities.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: And don't forget Eddie's latest life advice: Aim low and stay under the radar. This was to Lily, in the kitchen, when she was miserable because she thought she'd been booed off the stage during her act. My favorite part of the exchange came next:
Lily: "But I thought I could be anything I dreamed." Eddie: "No, that's crap. If people could be anything they dreamed the world would be full of movie stars and astronauts, and then who would make the sandwiches?"
A Confucian axiom for the Now generation.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
if you don't have the proper center of gravity, ballet is nearly impossible. Same with gymnastics, same with ice skating.
Some people never do get to the level of math where they can balance their checkbook, no matter how hard they try.
Either way merely wanting to be something so bad you dedicate your life to it, could be a horrible waste of a life, if you are attempting something outside your actual abilities.
On another TV show (Daddy's Spoiled Little Girl) was this obscenely rich family who were convinced their daughter was going to be the next Thing vocally. She was taking voice lessions with a coach that cost thousands. She was signed up for a talent show at a two bit fairground. She did a horrible job. Yet they are all utterly convinced she is going to end up on a recording label. Daddy simply isn't going to be able to pay his way there on this one. Cause recording labels aren't stupid. They aren't going to take someone who doesn't have a chance in hell of actually selling a CD no matter how rich Daddy is.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*blows Morbo a kiss*
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
In my experience (25 years teaching high school), virtually everybody can learn, and enjoy learning, but they have to be interested in what they're learning, either by being captured early in its presentation to them, or by already having an interest in the subject to begin with. Many students have switched off completely from learning by the time I see them because they've never (or haven't for a while) found anything presented to them in school that they are interested in. But, these same students can give you intricate detail of the type of guitars and amp systems their favourite metal guitar gods favour and why, for example, or how many dunks some NBA player made last season. I heard a student who, to put it bluntly, is widely regarded as in last place in the 'Spot the Brain Cell' awards, give a really interesting and knowledgeable speech in his English class on Johnny Unitas (this in rugby-mad New Zealand) which went completely over the head of most of his class mates. He was interested, he learned (in fact he taught himself), and could converse knowledgeably and reasonably in-depth on the subject. But his school grades, his academic performance? Pathetic. I've seen plenty of former students who really struggled in school come back for a visit and describe with enthusiasm their job in which they are excelling, or at least succeeding, when in school they were hopeless. You get someone in a context that is favourable to them and they can and will learn, once they get past the obstacles of negative attitude (about school, themselves), lack of interest, absenteeism, and so on.
Posted by Kitsune (Member # 8290) on :
I failed my Physics AP class.
I spent 5 months in that stupid class, and I was the only one getting an F.
Going into the final, for me, felt exactly like going to class for the first time. I did not understand aaaaaanything.
I never really tried, though, 'cause I realized the first couple of days that Physics and I were on different wavelengths. I think we will never understand each other
Does that mean I'm less educated? I got the lowest grade in all 6 periods.. Blah. I hate physics.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I never passed Geometry. Tried three times.
Of course, I was pretty screwed up at the time, emotionally, and my HS's math department was notoriously bad.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Aww, thanks AJ! *catches kiss* Banana breath?
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I feel pretty confident that there are some things beyond the pale for any given person. That is, at some point and in some area, each of us would fall short. (There's the old cliche that we all think we have the Great American Novel tucked away in some corner of our brains, if we'd only sit down to write it. And physicians are famous for assuming that just because they are good at medicine, they are experts n everything. 'Taint so. )
On the other hand, we may never know what those limtations are unless we try. The problem is that -- I think -- sometimes "tryng" is at great expense, be it financially, physically, or emotionally. It does seem unkind when that expense is taken on with a blind unawareness of potential or likely limitations.
How true, and a good summation of the thread. Just because someone has a remote possibility of achieving something doesn't mean they should attempt it. Knowing the odds against them at least allows them to make a rational decision. If their passion is such that they want to try to beat the odds, then at the end, win or lose, they will probably call their sacrifices justified.
The guy was almost as good as Lance Armstrong? I hope he doesn't regret the sacrifices he made to become a world-class athelete, just because he couldn't overcome Armstrong.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Of course, where would we be humor-wise without the really bad people on American Idol? Posted by Kitsune (Member # 8290) on :
I'm gonna try out whenever they go to Los Angeles Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Some people never do get to the level of math where they can balance their checkbook, no matter how hard they try.
I find this almost impossible to believe.
Well, I believe that they never get there, but I don't believe that they can't.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Have you *ever* done any non-religious volunteer work for underpriveledged people here in the US?
I tutored for 5 years at a community college. People came to me that *wanted* to learn, that had motivation, and tried their darndest. Some of them literally lost the concepts in between one multiplication problem and the next.
Do you really want to force that person, to struggle with a slippery concept that has eluded them for the past 25 years, for the next 25 years of their life? No matter how much they want to learn and try to learn, and keep trying to learn it, at a certian point, it's better just to get them who can help them with their finances in 15 minutes a week than for them to spend days trying to agonize over their checkbook.
Give me a break.
AJ
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I do. I tutored a girl who was very smart-- but had a learning disability that made it almost impossible for her to process numbers. (She was brain damaged shortly after birth-- born at 26 weeks gestation, almost 20 years ago.) We worked and worked and she finally started to almost get it-- and then she would lose everything and have to start all over again.
That's not most people, though.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
To Blacwolve and BannaOJ, i know scientific american would be over his head because that the one he said he used to try to read but it was over his head...
I feel that a lot of the more complicated stuff in Brief History of Time would be over his head, but he would probably enjoy the earlier chapters. I remember I had to read it twice before I really took everything all in. And I still don't know that I fully understand every concept in there.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Would it be too condescending to do more of a children's magazine?
quote:Would it be too condescending to do more of a children's magazine?
Hah...YES. He's a very stubborn 40 something year old man. Who only started reading/becomming interested in learning when he was in jail for a few years and had nothing to do but read and play chess all day.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Wow, this thread was quite a little achiever: four pages in under 9 hours. Is that a record or what?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Maybe it's also the thread with the most "n"s. Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Doubt it: from the last two posts that's only 2 in 121 characters (no spaces). Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
We probably cound top it off as the thread with the most " "s, if we tried.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I find it hard to believe that the average person, who doesn't have some sort of disability, can't learn how to balance a checkbook.
It's the equivalent of elementary school math, from the earlier grades. It's just addition and subtraction, and they can use a calculator.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:I find it hard to believe that the average person, who doesn't have some sort of disability, can't learn how to balance a checkbook.
Since a disability is often defined (or thought of) as an inability to accomplish what an average person can, your statement is somewhat circular.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Woah, 1000 posts.
See now, that's scary. Because it's been about 12 hours since you posted this, and you're at 1034 posts as I post this.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: No, I don't think everyone is of equal intellectual capacity, but I don't think IQ has anything to do with that.
You're 100% right. IQ is the most nonsensical measurement of... whatever it's pretending to measure. My IQ dropped 15 points between kindergarten and 5th grade. It's dropped another 2-4 points since then (depending on who's doing the testing). I took the SATs twice, a little under a year apart. Didn't study either time. I didn't even think about it much. But the second time, I scored an even 100 points higher. Why? Because all standardized tests, IQ, SAT, ACT, etc, are lame.
I scored about 350 points higher than my brother on the SATs. I became an engineering dropout. He transferred into engineering, and graduated magna cum laude as an electrical engineer, and then got a law degree and is a partner in an intellectual property firm. I was a bank teller, a secretary, and now I'm a programmer. These tests are looking at dumb things.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax, what about the person who never is able to "get" algebra, even after much pain and suffering and agonizing. Do you want that person designing your space travel?
I suspect there are very very few people who can't "get" Algebra - and that would be limited to people who have serious disabilities.
Normally when someone says they "can't get" something, the real truth is that they just haven't gotten it yet, and haven't been taught it or studied it in a way that would allow them to "get" it. People quickly mistake "haven't gotten yet" for "can't get". (I wouldn't be surprised to find rocket scientists at NASA who thought, at one point in their life, that they couldn't ever get algebra - only to at some point figure it out and never look back.)
quote:I tutored for 5 years at a community college. People came to me that *wanted* to learn, that had motivation, and tried their darndest. Some of them literally lost the concepts in between one multiplication problem and the next.
How much you learn is not a function of how hard you try, though. If you are not learning in the correct way for you, then you will learn very little, no matter how hard you work at it. You need to learn how to learn, sometimes. I know, for one, that if I simply attempted to sit and memorize math formulas all day, I would never understand them, no matter how hard I tried. It would be like trying to shove a round peg into a square hole. But if I found the round hole, a more effective way for me to learn, the peg would go in rather easily. That's the experience of having that "aha!" moment when an effective teacher explains something in just the right way, after you may have tried and tried to understand it on your own for hours with no success.
[ February 03, 2006, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Isn't there another science magazine that's written more for the layman? I don't understand scientific american either, but I remember reading this one and understanding it perfectly.
I'll try to google for it when I get back, I'm late for class.
Edit: I just remembered. How about Popular Science?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Oh believe me, we taught to a variety of learning styles. I had one kinesthetic learner, where we'd go walking around the building, so that she could be moving about as she learned.
AJ
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I'm not sure if the Lance Armstrong example is a good one since being the top cyclist in the world is much different than becoming a rocket scientist, or learning in general. A large majority of people can become a cyclist and do well in many competitions, but being a world class athlete is totally different. The average person can be a competitive cyclist and with lots of hard work and determination they can consistently do much better than average, but not at world class levels. So they are a competitive cyclist just like Lance, only not at his level. There is only one Lance, but hundreds of world class cyclists and thousands of competitive cyclists. Just like someone could be become a rocket scientist but that doesn't mean they will be Wernher von Braun.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTE]How much you learn is not a function of how hard you try, though. If you are not learning in the correct way for you, then you will learn very little, no matter how hard you work at it. You need to learn how to learn, sometimes.
Exactly. If more people made an effort to learn the easiest way for them to learn, they would be much better off.
For me, it's far easier to learn from written material or computers than from someone trying to explain stuff. Which is why I always try to get written training materials on jobs, and I'm frustrated when there are none, or they're inadaquate.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tristan:
quote:I find it hard to believe that the average person, who doesn't have some sort of disability, can't learn how to balance a checkbook.
Since a disability is often defined (or thought of) as an inability to accomplish what an average person can, your statement is somewhat circular.
I think we are somewhat conflating two different issues regarding intelligence on this thread. On the one hand, there are people with real, well-defined mental disabilities, developmental problems, Down Syndrome, etc., and then even people beyond that level who are severely brain-damaged, vegetative, born anencephalic, and so on. I don't think there are many people who'd claim that these people are all capable of learning to calculate rocket trajectories.
But then there is the spectrum of intelligence among what I'll call 'normal' people, (i.e., those with no such identifiable disabilities), who clearly differ widely in their level of intellect. One question is whether this designation of 'normal' is arbitrary and misleading -- in other words, does the low end of the 'normal' spectrum of intelligence smoothly incorporate the above folks with mental retardation, or is that a fundamentally different limitation? Does *everyone* have some measure of learning disorders that vary from undetectable (compared to other low-impairment people) to severe/total? Or is there a clearly definable line between impaired and normal?
My own impression is that while there are certainly people who are ill-suited or 'not cut out' for certain areas of learning, that is different from saying that they CAN'T learn those things. I'm leaning toward the position that either John-90%-of-the-population-Doe *can* learn rocket science, or he has some specific mental defect (not necessarily dioagnosed) that prevents it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Do you really want to force that person, to struggle with a slippery concept that has eluded them for the past 25 years, for the next 25 years of their life?
That's a lot of words you are putting in my mouth. I never said anything about force. Nobody can do everything, and you have to choose what's most important to you.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Dark Knight, I agree with you. The reason why the extreme examples were brought up, is because cheerios is contending that anyone can do anything.
We still have the unfortunate Downs Syndrome case at hand. Can someone with Downs Syndrome be an actual rocket scientist? Can an autistic genius, unable to communicate with the outside world, be a rocket scientist?
Disablities are an extreme case. However we are *all* flawed. We all have strengths and weaknesses, and I think that individual weakneess belie the notion of achieving basic competency in anything.
We have a Hatrack member, who loves acting, in local theatre troupes. However strobe lights give him seizures. If the director feels that removing the light effect destroys the artistic effect, and won't do so, then he can't parcticipate in that play, no matter how much he might want to.
For that matter, I'm horrible, gawd-awful horrible, at putting multiple screenames, regular names and faces together. I botched Strider's again last night on IM. I know that I know I should remember his IM screen name, but I can never remember exactly who it is to connect with the Hatrack name even though I know I *should* be remembering. I had him in Australia this time, and started discussing rugby, last time he was in Indiana, as the significant other of another hatracker.
I *try* I really do. I've tried the memonic tricks etc., in order to associate the names with the people. However, it only seems to be getting worse. Not better.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Nobody can do everything
Clarification -- I mean that an individual cannot do everything, because nobody has enough time to develop skills in every endeavor, not because of an innate inability to develop particular skills.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I *lack* the innate ablity to remember names and faces. No matter how hard I try. Are you saying that if I just tried harder I'd get it? I've tried my entire life...
AJ
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: No, I don't think everyone is of equal intellectual capacity, but I don't think IQ has anything to do with that.
You're 100% right. IQ is the most nonsensical measurement of... whatever it's pretending to measure. My IQ dropped 15 points between kindergarten and 5th grade. It's dropped another 2-4 points since then (depending on who's doing the testing). I took the SATs twice, a little under a year apart. Didn't study either time. I didn't even think about it much. But the second time, I scored an even 100 points higher. Why? Because all standardized tests, IQ, SAT, ACT, etc, are lame.
Actually, I think this story proves that those tests are doing pretty well.
But seriously, there does exist a correlation between IQ tests and getting high-paying jobs. (I have to go, so no real source, but Wiki says "IQ is strongly correlated with academic success, but can also predict important life outcomes such as job performance, socioeconomic advancement, and "social pathologies". Recent work has demonstrated links between IQ and health, longevity, and functional literacy.") So it's measuring something relevant, even if we don't exactly understand what it is.
As for IQ dropping, it's only supposed to be constant during adulthood. During childhood it is a measure of mental age, and that doesn't have to advance evenly. If your mental age (ok, it's a bit nebulously defined, I admit) spurted before kindergarten and then coasted before 5th grade, you would see exactly the effect you describe.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I *lack* the innate ablity to remember names and faces. No matter how hard I try. Are you saying that if I just tried harder I'd get it? I've tried my entire life...
AJ
Exactly. It also depends on if different subjects require a different style of learning than that to which you've become accustomed. I suck at accounting. Absolutely suck. It's not that I don't like numbers. I've taken three higher-level statistics courses and calculus and done very well. And I liked them.
But for some reason, I don't "get" accounting the way that I "get" everything else. Most of my learning comes very naturally to me. Yes, I might need to work to memorize the names of the reproductive stages of a fern or something, but I understand the concept entirely, and any studying is just to clarify small details. For some reason, accounting eludes me. If it weren't so frustrating, I probably wouldn't hate it so much.
-pH
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I believe that there are certain things that are mentally beyond an individual's grasp. I believe that with a great deal of time and effort, a person can make improvement to some extent or another, but it may never become *easy* for that person. I am that way with conversions and certain kinds of comparisons.
You see, practice can get you so you are able to handle a specific predictable situation. But when that situation is always changing and new, you will always have the same difficulty with the new situations.
quote:
quote:Some people never do get to the level of math where they can balance their checkbook, no matter how hard they try.
I find this almost impossible to believe.
It is offensive to take something that comes easily to you and proclaim that anyone can do it if they just try hard enough. Just because something is easy for you is no reason to assume that anyone can do it. After all, I can run with relative ease. Should I assume that someone with no legs can run as well?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I *lack* the innate ablity to remember names and faces. No matter how hard I try. Are you saying that if I just tried harder I'd get it? I've tried my entire life...
Again, there is a difference between "tried and failed" and being unable to do something. I suspect you could learn to be good at remembering names and faces, but not just by trying harder. You'd have to try a more effective approach. I couldn't tell you what that approach is, in part because I'm horrible at remembering names and faces too. But I don't see any reason why I couldn't get good at it if I were taught a more effective method of how to become better at it.
quote:It is offensive to take something that comes easily to you and proclaim that anyone can do it if they just try hard enough.
Is it less offensive to assume someone can't ever do something, no matter how hard they try?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It might be offensive to assume that a particular person is one of the people who can't ever learn to do a particular thing - just as it is offensive to assume someone is a child-abuser.
It doesn't mean there aren't child abusers, though, nor would it be offensive to assume that some unspecified people are child abusers.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
(to Tres) I'd say it's best not to assume either way.
I have trouble recognizing faces. I suspect this has to do with the fact that all growing up I needed glasses but wouldn't wear them. I think that my brain never developed the ability to perceive detail "normally". There is probably nothing known at this current time that can be done to undo that, even if there *might* be some unknown method out there that could improve it.
My inability to perceive detail correctly is problematic for me as an artist. I may find ways to compensate for my weakness, but it is highly unlikely that I will "fix" that weakness. To bring up the rocket scientist example and the artist example from earlier, just because someone could practice all their lives and make ONE piece of artwork worthy to be framed does not make them an artist. That is why I side with the people who believe that not everyone can become a rocket scientists even if most people could *eventually* be made to understand a specific rocket science equation.
There are certain things that if your brain does not develop the ability to do them at a young age, you simply lose the ability. One simple example: an infant who cannot hear in the upper ranges. The nerves that would normally specialize to hear the highest pitches atrophy or get co-opted to cover the lower pitches. Current medical science cannot change or fix this. To make matters worse, if this leads to the child not learning language during the proper window, other parts of the brain will not properly develop with respect to language. This is why it is crucial to catch hearing loss at a young age. If treated early, these windows are not missed.
It would be silly for me to tell someone who never developed the ability to hear high pitches that if they "tried hard enough" or "found a more effective approach" they would be able to hear those high pitches.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know, this question is an interesting one for parents to consider.
If you have a child who wants to be a doctor and yet they struggle so much with their regular schoolwork you know the chances of them making it into medical school are small, do you still encourage the doctor dream? Or do you try to steer them toward something else?
If you have an athletic child who says she wants to compete in the Olympics and that is her life's goal, do you encourage it even if you know that to make it to the Olympics would take a commitment of time and money and sacrifices you cannot make on her behalf?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I think that we all have limits to what we can do. There are limits to our potential in anything. I think that's pretty self evident... the Down's kid has greater limitations in cognitave ability than the average non-Down's kid.
The important thing is, though, that there aren't any charts that display the limits of our unique potentials. We don't know what those limits are until we try to reach them. We can make decent guesses where those limits lie, but until they are tested, we don't know for sure. We LOVE stories of people whose potential was guessed wrong, who pushed and persevered and persisted their way their fullest potential. The movie Rudy comes to mind.
The point, I think, is that most of us don't even get close to our limits in most things, because that much perseverence isn't necessary to acheive what we want to acheive. We don't generally have the singlemindedness to put to being truly excellent at that one thing. And personally, I think that's a good thing. There are downsides to focus that narrow. I'd much rather be a generalist, decent at many things, good at others, very good at a few, and perhaps going my whole life without being truly excellent at anything. I choose Good over Great.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*nods* That's true, too. I know a (admittedly very "high-functioning") guy with Down Syndrome who has an AA in math. Why math? Because it was his most difficult subject and he was determined to learn as much of it as he could. (Now he mostly takes art and writing classes when he's not working or volunteering at the library tutoring kids in math. He wants to write and illustrate pre-teen sci-fi books.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am thinking about two fictional examples: Dori from "Finding Nemo" with her short-term memory loss, and Drew Barrymore's morning-amnesea character from "50 First Dates".
In both movies the character finds a way to improve on or deal with their limitation. But neither one overcomes it. I find this to be very realistic.
Also, thinking about my son's piano playing. I tell him he does well, and he asks, "Was it perfect?"
It is too much to expect perfection from humans. But you can always expect improvement, even if that improvement is very small and takes a lot of time and effort.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It is too much to expect perfection from humans. But you can always expect improvement, even if that improvement is very small and takes a lot of time and effort.
I can get behind this, too.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There are certain things that if your brain does not develop the ability to do them at a young age, you simply lose the ability.
Yes, but I'm not sure the sort of learning we are talking about is among those things. I don't think the average person's ability to do algebra or understand rocket science is decided by whether or not they practice those skills as infants. I think these things can be learned over time, at any age, provided certain fundamental skills that almost everyone has (except for the uniquely disabled.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It will be a lot harder if basic math concepts and ways of thinking aren't introduced at a relatively young age, though.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:If you have an athletic child who says she wants to compete in the Olympics and that is her life's goal, do you encourage it even if you know that to make it to the Olympics would take a commitment of time and money and sacrifices you cannot make on her behalf?
Well, if they were really that good, they'd be eligible for support from other sources, but I understand that wasn't the point of the question. So, assuming that the parents are the only possible source of the money, time and other investments required to make a child an olympian, I would never encourage it. It's like telling a kid that if he gets straight A's on his report card, you'll take him to Disneyland, when you have absolutely no intention of doing so.
Some might argue that the lie was beneficial, in that the child has improved regardless of the lie and is a better person for it. I argue that this is one reason why kids end up hating their parents.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tres, if preschoolers aren't taught shapes and counting, it's much, much harder for them to develop correct math skilz later on.
AJ
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Well, if they were really that good, they'd be eligible for support from other sources, but I understand that wasn't the point of the question. So, assuming that the parents are the only possible source of the money, time and other investments required to make a child an olympian, I would never encourage it. It's like telling a kid that if he gets straight A's on his report card, you'll take him to Disneyland, when you have absolutely no intention of doing so.
I actually agree with you on part of this. I actually have an extremely talented young gymnast. The coaches have all told me she has lots of natural ability and the work ethic to be a good competitive gymnast. But, the coach flat out told me if I wanted to try and make her into an athlete that could win a college scholarship with a top program (a goal not even on the same caliber as an Olympic goal) that I would need to move to a different gym. One where they would practice more hours per night and on Saturdays as well, because a program like say, Alabama, won't even show an interest unless a girl finishes in the top five or so at Regionals and Regionals is seven states.
I'm not going to put my eight year old in gymnastics classes five hours per night and every Saturday. She has a family, and church, and school commitments too - all of which are more important than gymnastics.
But she says she wants to go to the Olympics.
So, what I've done is tell her how difficult it is to get to the Olympics, and let her know how many other accomplishments can be made in gymnastics and encouraged her to focus on shorter range goals, like mastering a specific skill to move up a competitive level, or setting a goal of trying to be on the medal stand in at least one event next year, that kind of thing.
I never want to discourage my child from reaching for her goals and dreams, but I also don't want her to be crushed when she doesn't achieve something, especially if the only thing she's focused on is the ultimate goal, the highest attainable level. I want her to experience success at other levels as well, and appreciate them.
I saw a special on figure skaters and one girl had just won regionals - an astonishing feat - and she just shrugged it off and said it was just a step on her way to her goal of the Olympics and tomorrow she'd be back at practice as if she'd never won it.
I think that's incredibly sad. She couldn't appreciate what an amazing thing she'd just done, because she was too foscused on the other goal ahead. Right now my daughter's eyes light up when she lands a perfect cartwheel on the beam, or does a vault so well the instructor gives her a high five. I don't want to see her lose that joy of the sport, because she's too focused on one thing, so that's why I always encourage and try to shift her focus to small, more immediately attainable goals. Not that long range goals aren't important also - they are. But right now her main long range goal is to become a nurse.
Wow - I hit preview and this post is long, I hope I haven't wandered too much off topic.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, if preschoolers aren't taught shapes and counting, it's much, much harder for them to develop correct math skilz later on.
Harder yes. Impossible no. It will always be harder to learn something now if you haven't prepared for it earlier, but that's quite different from saying you can't learn that thing - in the way that someone who can't hear certain ranges presumably can't ever learn to do so.
Posted by signal (Member # 6828) on :
"Honestly though, I think there really are some things that are beyond certain people's grasp. I think that people generally display an interest in subjects that are easier for them to grasp on some level. That is, maybe someone really likes calculus despite the fact that it requires a lot of work for him, but really, he finds the solving easier to understand than, say, creative writing."
I think that there are definite learning types and that not everyone is capable of using all types with equal efficiency. Also there are different intelligence types. I think it was some Harvard Professor who had intelligence broken down into eight different types. Not everyone is equally capable in all types. I think the average person is probably only going to excel in one or two of these, given motivation, money, opportunity, natural ability... are there. Its the whole of all the factors that determines ones "limit". Sheer determination without any other factors to back it up will not make you a genius in any right.
You could probably teach most people engineering and mathematical concepts, and they may understand the general concepts, or specific parts, but not all of them will be able to apply it on a problem and come up with a workable solution. The same is with art. Anyone can learn how to draw or paint. They even have little paint-by-numbers kits. But not everyone can sit in front of a blank canvas or lump of clay and create something that follows the "rules" of art and design and could be even remotely considered artistic by professional/critical standards.
I, for example, will never be a fictional writer or a chemist or a professional athelete. I simply do not have the particular types of thinking processes or interest for them. I graduated college with a BA in Digital Media. The course load was a lot of art and a good share of more technical stuff. Some of the art stuff, mainly the three dimensional hands on stuff I found easy to grasp while the technical figure drawing stuff I couldn't grasp as easily. I don't see or think in the correct manner for that. The same thing goes for the technical stuff. I can find the frame overage a virtual camera needs to compensate for in order to allow the compositor to output correctly using trig and other fun stuff, but throw any code beyond a "hello world" at me and it all looks like a Jackson Pollock to me. I can pull apart a car and put it back together with parts remaining and have it run better, but ask me to write directions on changing oil and I probably couldn't do it successfully.
I find this topic so facinating because I'm in the middle of a decision on going back to school. I have it narrowed down between either a second bachelors, this time in Mechanical Engineering, or an MBA. Both require sufficient understanding of calculus. I took calculus back in high school and understood very little of it. Honestly, if I hadn't worked so hard and took notes, I would have failed the first semester. Well fast forward to now. One of my main interests is automotive race suspension. I bought a 900 page book on dynamics for light reading. I didn't get too far into it to realize that without a solid grasp of calc, I wouldn't get much of the information. I went out and bought a calc book and have been going through that every day which has helped tremendously. I'm a visual learner, so it takes me a lot longer to learn things that typically aren't visual. I have to draw pictures and be able to see it in my mind in order for things to click. I will never be an Einstein, but I bet when I'm done with school, I'll be pretty good at whatever I do.
My point, aside from being a perfect example of what ph said, is that while its possible for everyone to be good at something, its not probable that everyone will be great. It does not mean that they can't be successful.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
As an aside, you are going to need a LOT let calculus proficiency with your MBA than with Mechanical Engineering. I'm an Electrical Engineer and the very first math class you take freshman year is calculus 1. Every semester required a math class, the last one ending at a 5000 level class. Mechanical engineering is almost the same (lacking 1 or 2 math classes is all)
I'm looking into getting my MBA and it looks like they only need a business calculus class. So if you feel really limited by math, perhaps getting your MBA is the way to go. On the other hand, a good friend that I graduated with struggled with math his whole life. He started with Math 1010 in college and graduated. It took him 6 years for his bachelors, and he's still not very good at math, but he became competent enough to finish a degree. So it is possible, and if becoming an ME is your dream you can probably do it. Just be aware that your probably have a long road ahead of you.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
So, if you never wanted to be a rocket scientist, yet you have the ability and talents to be one (if you so choose) do you not care enough to be one? Is it your education that is lacking? Or is it just that you would much rather become the new master of the panflute and challenge Zamfir, devoting your energies and talents to that end? Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Or is it just that you would much rather become the new master of the panflute and challenge Zamfir, devoting your energies and talents to that end?
I could be wrong, but I think that becoming the next Zamfir is one of the signs of the Anti-Christ.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
Regarding the not being able to "get" a concept, that I can understand. I have taken all the algebra courses that were required in high school, then I took integrated Calculus/Physics and was totally lost. It's not that I didn't study. It's not that I didn't have different people try to explain to me in different ways. I would start to think one way about something, then I would get myself so confused that I would wonder what I was trying to do in the first place. It is something like Belle's "Magical Devices" where I understand that the picture on my television comes from information sent via satelite or whatever...but how the heck do you get a picture to pop out of thin air and onto a screen? For that matter, how do you get all these neat things to do with a computer? Where is it coming from? Who is putting all this information onto my screen? Is it like the underwear gnomes that steal your underwear(Southpark)? Intellectually I can understand that it is "beamed" into our homes, I just can't comprehend how. I have no learning disabilities and every time I have taken an IQ test, I have had very high scores. I have never been able to "study" like "normal" people, yet I have always done well on tests in school. In high school I missed several weeks because of severe illness, but the first day I returned to school I read the notes of the girl in front of me, took the US History test with everyone else, and scored a 107 (with the bonus points the teacher gave). I put no effort into it at all. I had not been taught by the school. I just have the ability to test well. Some people don't. It doesn't mean that the school system failed them, or that they don't care enough to learn, it just makes them different. Anyway, I would much rather be a musician than a rocket scientist anyday!
[ February 04, 2006, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: JenniK ]
Posted by signal (Member # 6828) on :
BaoQingTian, I'm well aware of the difference in amounts between the two studies. I have done my research and have many friends who are in or have completed various engineering or math degree programs. Calculus is just an example of one skill set that would be needed to succeed in either path (albeit to different degrees of understanding). Obviously it isn't the only skill needed. I was trying to show that I learn in a different way than other people who are typically in that type of study. It may take me longer to learn it my way, but I'm capable of learning it.
Trust me, I wouldn't waste time and money on something that I wasn't capable of or didn't have potential for. Actually, I'm decent when it comes to mathematical thinking. I suppose part of the equation I left out was that it was my senior year, and honestly, "worked hard" was probably a more relative descriptor. Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Ahh, the wisdom of clod. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And if he were washed into the sea, Europe would be the less.
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
*scrubs vigorously*
*tries to scrub the massive expanse of ass that is Europe... and fails.*
*prays for a bigger sponge*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jeniwren said this on the first page and I think it's worth repeating:
quote:There's a vast difference between learning for the sake of learning and learning for the sake of having a job.
And until we explore that difference, public education in America is going to be a muddle. I'll go one step further and say since public education is the cornerstone of this nation, then until we explore the difference between learning for the sake of learning and learnign for the sake of having a job, life in a free democracy is going to be a muddle.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)