My Attitude About The Math /Science/ Logic Illiterate

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post contains many logic errors, aside from the unnecessary charges of racism. I don't care about blacks specifically. Make it a comparison between White and Asian if you prefer. Or sub-Saharan Africans and Northern Africans (both black!!!). Or Asians and Blacks, if you really want to hit the ball out of the park.


[/ QUOTE ]

Two more things since you've made my point for me: North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans are both black, but they are not the same race. North Africans are Caucasian.

I.Q. correlates well, until you start looking at the Highest I.Q.(s) and the Highest levels of success. That means they don't correlate well. I'm sure that's a logical error on my part.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see a whole lot of Blatent logical errors made by people in these discussions here. When they are they are quickly pointed out. And posters who are just inept with logic are soon shipped to Politics to give out headaches for a week or two until they get banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
"Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying."


This is your mistake. Period. No one else is to blame.

Given how common your inablitity to communicate is it is arguable that your error is thinking ability rather than communication.

In the future you will have clarify that.

DY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Miscommunication is the default.

[augie_]

David, you are as American as apple pie!

[playforGod]

Mr. Sklansky,
I will not insult your intelligence but your general assumption is both ambiguous and unfounded. There are no scientific studies done over enough time with enough subjects to give proof to your statements that such a high percentage of society does not have the capacity for literacy and or deep understanding of math/science/logic...

Furthermore, I specualte that the lack of educational background, environment is more a cause of the widespread ignorance in these areas. Although this philosophical debate is age old I tend to be more in agreement with this belief than your supposition that most humans simply do not have the capacity to learn and understand in these areas.

"I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor."
Henry David Thoreau.

[Divad Yksnal]

Quote:
"Anyway it seems that more than half of the posts disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with something that I actually wasn't saying."


This is your mistake. Period. No one else is to blame.

Given how common your inablitity to communicate is it is arguable that your error is thinking ability rather than communication.

In the future you will have clarify that.

DY.



You are overestimating the problem. Let's rephrase my statement. When I write a post that one thousand people read, and Andy Fox and Pair The Board disagree with it, it is because they misunderstood my point in half those cases.

I never remember YOU misunderstanding."

True, enough. David, remember the average poster, though?


D.Y.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- IQ generally is not very changeable in the teenagers/adults who Sklansky's OP was referring to.

Apparently these points are contentious?

[/ QUOTE ]
I posted a link above which queries this. I have no idea of it's credentials but there were plenty more which seemed to contradict your claim that IQ doesnt improve much with education. Do you know of any studies on the effect of education on IQ scores?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wanted to read the study itself before commenting, but I haven't been able to find it. There are so many ways this could have been done that I can't offer intelligent commentary.

Education obviously has some effect for those held behind, or understimulated. The simple parts of many IQ tests include metrics of acquired knowledge - recognizing squares, being familiar with number sequences, as well as a portion on vocabulary. These can obviously improve with a good education and training. But like the LSAT (a test of acquired verbal reasoning skills), once you have a basic education, you cannot substantially improve your performance no matter how much coaching you get. There seems to be a natural barrier based on how well your brain is structured to absorb and process information, either created at a young age or based on how much of which brain part/wiring genetics gave you. And the reason I think most of the IQ differences are genetic is because other races who have poor nutrition, poverty, and so on, do not suffer these low IQ afflictions. In fact, they still outperform the wealthiest nations on earth. Life tends to thrive, and reach potential through a variety of paths. For example, a kid who misses out on some childhood growth due to illness will usually make it up later. For people who have adequate food and education, I don't see how the difference in tests largely measuring latent ability can be so vast if Ub - Uw = 0.

Anyway, I am clearly ill equipped for this discussion, with RDuke claiming expertise, so I'll return to it later. I've got some interesting stuff to post already [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
you cannot substantially improve your performance no matter how much coaching you get.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this pretty strongly.

[ QUOTE ]
...other races who have poor nutrition, poverty, and so on, do not suffer these low IQ afflictions. In fact, they still outperform the wealthiest nations on earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand here?

[ QUOTE ]
For example, a kid who misses out on some childhood growth due to illness will usually make it up later.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly not true. Missing critical periods can be devastating.

For a simple example in the brain look up monocular deprivation and ocular dominance columns.

[Galwegian]

[ 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.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I'm playing devil's advocate here) How can you post something like this when you have also made your (in)famous admission of (relative) illiteracy at the start of one of your poker strategy books? You know the one that effectively says 'I know my writing is poor, but if you take the time to wade through it, you can go and buy loads of books by Hemeingway' (I'm too lazy to go and get the exact quote.

[CrayZee]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this has been asked in the thread, but.. Where or how do you derive this 30%?

If I pulled a number out of a hat, this would seem potentially reasonable, but in my limited experience most people I bump into can grasp logical fallacies/concepts like, say, "denying the antecedent"..esp. when given a simple example...as well as seeing how people can (even smart ones) easily fall into the tempting/wishful traps when arguing a position.

Maybe most people don't have the brain structure to master advanced calculus or whatever and that it depends on how you define the minimal MSL literacy.