My Attitude About The Math /Science/ Logic Illiterate

[David Sklansky]

It doesn't bother me when people disagree with me. It does bother me when people disagree because they think I am saying something I am not. Granted that might be my fault for writing imprecisely.

Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying. So I want to spell out clearly my attitude about the msl illiterate since it relates to many of my posts.

1. I believe that in the US only about two to four percent are msl literate.

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.

3. I fully recognize that those who are msl illiterate have a lot to contribute to the world. And often do contribute more than most msl literates.

4. I believe that there are many subjects where msl illiterates have opinions that should be taken seriously. Either because their illiteracy doesn't come into play, as in deciding the best color scheme for the house, or because the main component by far is pure value judgement, as in debating partial birth abortions.

5. On the other hand I believe that in order for a subject to qualify as one where msl illiterates should be largely ignored, it is not necessary that there be a highly correlated math model. It is only necessary that logical deduction, probability, algebra or whatever play a bit of a roll in the decision. It doen't matter that msl illiterates who are very familiar with the subject might get it right more than msl literates who are less familiar. Because there will be some who have both attributes. And even if they are slightly less familiar than the msl illiterates they are still the big favorite to be right. Because of the fact that one logical error in the analysis totally taints any conclusion from that point.

6. I believe that if the above conclusions were generally accepted it would not hurt a lot of feelings in the 70% who have no physical chance to become msl literate. Because I believe that the great majority already know or sense that their opinions on anything vaguely technical are very iffy. Most of these people aren't very opinionated about much of anything. Certainly not about whether tax rates should be increased, more soldiers should be sent somewhere, or classroom sizes should be changed. They pretty much realize they are unqualified.

7. My gripe is with the 27% who have the brainpower to learn the logic, probability, and science to become msl literates but stobbornly refuse to. If they did they would to be able to offer opinions without the constant danger that they will say something that asserts the consequent, denies the antecedent, or misinterprets conditional probability. Instead they think that because they have above average IQs they shouldn't be considered morons when they offer their opinions about stuff that isn't obviously highly mathematical. When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really have any problems with what you wrote except the above. Where do you get this number from? Why do you believe it to be so? Are you talking about from birth or after a certain age?

I would actually vehemently disagree that "brain structure" has much to do with it relative to quality education from early childhood on.

[Taraz]

David,

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really have any problems with what you wrote except the above. Where do you get this number from? Why do you believe it to be so? Are you talking about from birth or after a certain age?

I would actually vehemently disagree that "brain structure" has much to do with it relative to quality education from early childhood on.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Quote:

Quote:

2. I believe that about 30% have the brain structure to become literate.




I don't really have any problems with what you wrote except the above. Where do you get this number from? Why do you believe it to be so? Are you talking about from birth or after a certain age?

I would actually vehemently disagree that "brain structure" has much to do with it relative to quality education from early childhood on.


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you think about the very limited studies on nutrition and education, basically they all say that elementary schoolers learn much better and behave much better just from something as simple as eating a semi-nutritious breakfast regularly. (which isn't much when you think about it)

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

what do you think about the very limited studies on nutrition and education, basically they all say that elementary schoolers learn much better and behave much better just from something as simple as eating a semi-nutritious breakfast regularly. (which isn't much when you think about it)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it sounds very interesting and I would like to read the study [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. But I think that supports my claim that it isn't just natural brain structure.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it sounds very interesting and I would like to read the study . But I think that supports my claim that it isn't just natural brain structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that during the brain's developemental period, poor nutrition can stunt its potential, and once the period is over, nothing can be done to reverse the lowered potential.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that over half of adults are one SD below their IQ because of poor childhood nutrition.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't bother me when people disagree with me. It does bother me when people disagree because they think I am saying something I am not. Granted that might be my fault for writing imprecisely.


[/ QUOTE ]

What puzzles me David is how a person as smart as you so consistently writes so imprecisely. Watching you ammend yourself over and over again reminds me of the objections people make about the various religious sects. If you are actually saying something that is correct, how come you never seem to get it right? I suspect it is not just your writing that's imprecise but your thinking as well.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand I believe that in order for a subject to qualify as one where msl illiterates should be largely ignored, it is not necessary that there be a highly correlated math model. It is only necessary that logical deduction, probability, algebra or whatever play a bit of a roll in the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the problem David. What is a "bit of a roll" precisely? How do you determine that?

[ QUOTE ]
When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a "bit of a roll" equates to 20%? Do you think that is meaningful? What does 20% mean in this context? Do you have some examples we can look at to see if what you consider 20% is the same as what we might think is 20%? And can you give an example of an MSL mistake that might be made in the 20% area that would foul the total judgement? We need what kinds of mistakes these are and in what context. Looking at that group of people in the top 30% of intelligence but below the top 3% in MSL, you claim they will make such a mistake in such a context. How are we to judge if you are not just talking hot air unless you give us some examples?

Looking more closely at the people in the top 30% of intellegence but below the top 3% in MSL. How well can they reason? Do they normally make logical blunders? They likely have significant education in the developed world. So they certainly know some MSL. Just how illiterate are they really? Maybe you could give us the kinds of problems they are likely to blunder on. And show us the 20% MSL situations where these problems exist that can foul the total judgement.

You also have to compare the Blunders due to MSL in these situations to the possible Blunders that might come from inexperience in the 80% area of the subject that does not involve MSL. You contend the MSL blunders are of a more severely fouling nature. Are they? Can you show that to us with examples? Can you prove it in general?

[ QUOTE ]
When they enounter a subject that is 20% mathematical they either deny that it percentage, or claim that they can overcome the 20%. Thus they are in fact morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus? In fact? Is this a figure of speech? Are you being precise here? Do you even know that the term "Moron" was dropped from technical use years ago? In what technical precise way do you mean to use the term here? Do you know why the term was dropped from technical use? Because it has now become nothing more than an Insult. Is that your "precise" intention for use of the word here? Or do you want to go back to your drawing board yet again?


[ QUOTE ]
Moron -
Adopted by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded with a technical definition "adult with a mental age between 8 and 12;" used as an insult since 1922 and subsequently dropped from technical use. Linnæus had introduced morisis "idiocy."


[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

I think you/we need to cut David a little slack in this regard. He's not writing books here. He's simply providing informal observations on a forum. I wouldn't even label his posts here as essays. When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise.

I'm not suggesting that care shouldn't be taken to not be incorrect about things. But these forums provide most of us with a chance to offer our impromptu opinions and insights on a variety of subject matter without expending too much time. Some of us are naturally more precise and thorough than others.

Maybe I'm defending this because I often shoot from the hip on here. But if I didn't, I wouldn't have the time to post much. And if David had to check and re-check his every typed word to make sure it couldn't be picked apart, I doubt he would have the time either. So he takes some liberties and doesn't dot every i or cross every t, and hopes most will get the gist.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you/we need to cut David a little slack in this regard. He's not writing books here. He's simply providing informal observations on a forum. I wouldn't even label his posts here as essays. When he does write a book (or an essay), he has shown over and over that he is very capable of being precise.

I'm not suggesting that care shouldn't be taken to not be incorrect about things. But these forums provide most of us with a chance to offer our impromptu opinions and insights on a variety of subject matter without expending too much time. Some of us are naturally more precise and thorough than others.

Maybe I'm defending this because I often shoot from the hip on here. But if I didn't, I wouldn't have the time to post much. And if David had to check and re-check his every typed word to make sure it couldn't be picked apart, I doubt he would have the time either. So he takes some liberties and doesn't dot every i or cross every t, and hopes most will get the gist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Completely agree. We all say things badly from time to time - I dont think anyone should expect rigorously defined posts unless the thread is largely about some semantic point. Who wants to log on and read carefully constructed legalese?

[andyfox]

"We all say things badly from time to time - I dont think anyone should expect rigorously defined posts unless the thread is largely about some semantic point. Who wants to log on and read carefully constructed legalese?"

Mason has said he holds poker authors to higher standards on these forums than others. Well he should, if they're giving poker advice.

David has said that he is a non-fuzzy, rigorous, logical thinker. He says he could write the world's best algebra book because the explains ideas more clearly than anyone else. Yet, by his own admission, he's a poor writer. If he intends to convey his ideas clearly, he should learn to write clearly.