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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
When you speak in absolutes and refuse to admit that you were in error to do so, you invite silliness.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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!?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I know Armstrong does. My point was that you'd rather just jump tp the conclusion that I didn't know that.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
