My Attitude About The Math /Science/ Logic Illiterate

[Taraz]

What qualifies one as Math/Science/Logic literate? I'm curious if I need to start studying or not.

[born2ramble]

[ QUOTE ]
The specific stuff that needs to be learned is logic, (syllogisms, fallacies, truth tables) probability, including permutations and combinations and basic statistics, and some algebra, especially turning word problems into equations. Calculus, physics, and similar things are very good things to learn as well but for most people only because it helps train the brain.


[/ QUOTE ]

link

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
All that said, I still think that claiming that 70% of the population doesn't have the "brain structure" for learning something is more than a little misleading if not completely false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I don't buy that either.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All that said, I still think that claiming that 70% of the population doesn't have the "brain structure" for learning something is more than a little misleading if not completely false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I don't buy that either.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch of things that people with <110 IQs cannot grasp or do. It's actually quite shocking. You don't see it much in everyday life because people have had a lifetime of adjustment and experience. And average social interaction hovers around 90.

Poker is a perfect example of how important intelligence is in dealing with novel MSL related problems. Most people are completely and sadly lost when it comes to the simple task of analyzing a poker hand, even though the concepts are rather simple. However, a reasonable proportion can learn correct plays, because highly intelligent chimp-trainers-for-hire like Dr. Sklansky can ratchet down the concepts into low IQ, bite sized pieces. But put those people onto novel tasks (like poker before books), and they're lost.

And I do think it is raw brain power and architecture. For example, IQ doesn't change a great deal during life except to go down. I don't know of anyone who was 100 at 20 and 120 at 30.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

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

I'd assume the question isn't whether he has the true answer. Rather, i'd question whether your answer is more right than his?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

There are a bunch of things that people with <110 IQs cannot grasp or do. It's actually quite shocking. You don't see it much in everyday life because people have had a lifetime of adjustment and experience. And average social interaction hovers around 90.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you know this doesn't have to do with quality of education, life experiences, and hard work?

[ QUOTE ]

Poker is a perfect example of how important intelligence is in dealing with novel MSL related problems. Most people are completely and sadly lost when it comes to the simple task of analyzing a poker hand, even though the concepts are rather simple. However, a reasonable proportion can learn correct plays, because highly intelligent chimp-trainers-for-hire like Dr. Sklansky can ratchet down the concepts into low IQ, bite sized pieces. But put those people onto novel tasks (like poker before books), and they're lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you know this doesn't have to do with quality of education, life experiences, and hard work?

[ QUOTE ]

And I do think it is raw brain power and architecture.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there are no facts to back up this claim. It's pretty much a statement of opinion with no evidence other than, "some people seem smarter than others".

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
And how do you know this doesn't have to do with quality of education, life experiences, and hard work?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's well known that IQ is substantially inherited.
It's well known that IQ doesn't change much in adulthood.

What kind of proof do you want? Twin studies? Google them. Besides, I think it's extremely obvious that intelligent innately varies, just as height does. With an organ as complex as the brain and as sensitive to the influence of many genes, as well as prenatal development, it would have to.

Here's some reading to get you started:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And how do you know this doesn't have to do with quality of education, life experiences, and hard work?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's well known that IQ is substantially inherited.
It's well known that IQ doesn't change much in adulthood.

What kind of proof do you want? Twin studies? Google them. Besides, I think it's extremely obvious that intelligent innately varies, just as height does. With an organ as complex as the brain and as sensitive to the influence of many genes, as well as prenatal development, it would have to.

Here's some reading to get you started:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1520

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really want to have the debate about whether IQ is an accurate measure of anything right now. I'm pretty sure we've had that debate before. Let's just say it's unclear what IQ is really measuring.

[Taraz]

And even if I grant you that everything is heritable and that it is all brain structure that still doesn't prove that only 30% of the population has sufficient brain power to be MSL literate.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
And even if I grant you that everything is heritable and that it is all brain structure that still doesn't prove that only 30% of the population has sufficient brain power to be MSL literate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the 3% and 30% figures are important, since it's obvious David pulled them out of the ether.

His main point is that a large percetnage of the population, probably a majority, seems to be unable to consitently construct/follow mildly complex logical arguments even with a decent education. Of the remainder, a relatively small fraction cultivates the talent they have for "MSL literacy".

Personally, I think the 3% and 30% figures are too low (especially the 3%). Furthermore, even David's 3% can be extremely dangerous if they think they're actually the top 0.01% (as is distressingly common).