crumpets
Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
You keep stating grammar as your determinant for iq but they have nothing to do with each other.
I understand what you're saying, which is, essentially, that shortcomings in grammar have "nothing", per se, to do with innate IQ.
Your point, if I may expound upon it, is that grammar is a function of "exposure" to grammar, and only subsequently can there be any "uptake" of grammar based on that prior (perhaps formal?) exposure.
Hence, you argue, if someone has never been "taught" proper grammar, they wouldn't be able to synthesize it on their own.
That makes sense, a priori; however, in the United States, I would question the veracity of the statement from anyone who attempts to lay claim to having never been properly EXPOSED to proper grammar, considering that formal English instruction is required in virtually every year of education, from Kindergarten to Freshman year in college.
In fact, in the US, exposure to correct grammar can be considered a fait accompli, simply because every child is who was not brought up hidden in a crate behind car parts in Missouri is exposed to proper grammar in school, by listening to the news, by reading books, and from their friends.
My argument is that part of the observed IQ entails the ability to handle esoteric detail, which, in a very simple sense, proper grammar aptly exemplifies.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
Someone who has had no formal education can place really high, iq is a measure, mostly, of critical thinking skills...
While a good IQ test should not be possible to "game", I do agree that "practical" tests often test prior exposure (and uptake ability, given that exposure).
However, your reliance on formal education has its limits. I taught high-school math for a few years, and I can tell you that plenty of kids exist in the formal education system where no amount of scaffolding will allow these kids to understand something as trivially simple as a quadratic equation, let alone trig or calculus. They just don't have it. They're average, at best, for the most part. And average isn't good enough to cut the mustard when the going gets tough.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
puzzle solving ability. Anything that requires "being taught" is not tested.
Puzzle solving, while it can be "taught", is also innate. How many people do you know who have never fixed an electric motor, or who have never built an RLC tuned circuit or who have never debugged a dead Internet connection, or who have never repaired their automobile, or who have never debugged noisy bearings in their bicycle or who can't figure out why the glyphosate herbicide doesn't work as well in the early summer as it does in late summer due to changes in translocation direction (which is a current endeavor of mine at the moment - so it was on my mind)?
My point is that we are faced with the need to solve myriad natural "puzzles" every day, where those who have immense innate problem-solving skills rely upon an absolutely astoundingly huge set of "intelligence tools" endowed in the complex wiring of their brain.
In contrast, proper grammar is only one of the simpler "puzzles" we humans face daily; and we're all exposed to formal education, by law, on the subject. My point is that, if we can't even handle the minor complexities of learning the life-long skills of grammatical usage, we're not ever going to understand anything even slightly more complex.
Basically, if someone can't "understand" grammar, they're never going to understand anything even remotely complex.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
I taught myself to read and write... grammar, or familiarity with language doesn't affect score.
I, like you, read voraciously all my life. My father installed a light over my bed, so that I could fall asleep each and every night, with a book in my face (I still do - only now it's a computer screen illuminating me as I drift off to count sheep). In general, I leave a documentary running, so that I can keep my mind moving in the period between closing my eyes and finally falling asleep, and so that I wake up listening to whatever documentary is in the queue at the time I emerge into consciousness.
I'm constantly exposed to grammar.
I remember reading "Treasure Island", unabridged, in first grade for example. Now, the word usage and grammar there was, to a first grader anyway, a bit on the heavy side, so, it wasn't until my third or fourth reading of the book that I started understanding the story.
But, grammar is a funny thing that way. It's repeated daily in hundreds of ways. In a week of reading and listening to the news and talking to people, we have been exposed to tens of thousands of individual "instances" of grammar.
Assuming only a thousand instances a week (which is a conservative number for the sake of this discussion), that's roughly fifty-thousand "instances" of grammar a year, which, over the average lifetime of a human, is something on the order of at least 10^6 instances of grammar.
If someone is incapable of learning grammar, after millions of instances of its proper use, then, well, what does that say about their ability to handle even the simplest of tasks?
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
That's like saying that because doctors have bad handwriting they cant hold a scalpel.
No. It's like saying that any doctor who can't handle the complexity of identifying every bone and muscle in the body (something which all medical doctors must do as part of their formal education), then they certainly shouldn't be allowed to hold a scalpel to an anesthetized and otherwise helpless patient.
I believe the ability to assimilate complexity is the fundamental measure of intelligence.
You may believe differently; but we should at least both be able to understand each other.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
Things like grammar and mathmatical understanding can show education, they don't show intelligence.
Everyone in the USA (who didn't grow up in a cave) has been formally educated on basic mathematical and grammatical reasoning.
Not one person has escaped the boredom of being exposed to a geometric proof, for example.
Yet, only some show the ability to comprehend that which they are exposed to.
Such, is intelligence.
(Although I do admit, one has to "care to learn" in order to learn anything.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
Rote memorization is different from innate understanding.
Heh heh... Being extremely service minded, I help people for fun. I help all my neighbors, for example. As one example, I fix the nearby divorcee's car when it breaks. Let me tell you, no amount of "rote memorization" is going to help me diagnose what's wrong with her car (it's an older bimmer, so it breaks all the time in the strangest of ways). When the DISA flap valve starts rattling, no amount of "rote memorization" is going to help me troubleshoot what's wrong.
If I get a P0143 diagnostic trouble code on my scanner, it doesn't mean "replace me", which many shadetree mechanics think it means; no, it means "something is not right with my measurements". I am on many car forums. Do you know how many low-level idiots are out there who just "throw parts" at a problem, instead of diagnosing it down to the exact part that has failed? Do you know how few actually autopsy the part, to find exactly where it failed, and why, so that they can learn how to prevent that failure in the future?
I wholeheartedly agree with you that "rote memorization" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with understanding.
I never said (nor even implied) that proper grammar is akin to "rote memorization".
What I am saying is that I believe the ability to handle complexity is a measure of intelligence - and - if someone can't even handle something as fundamental as proper grammar - then - well - um - is there a nice way to say this? I guess not. So, I won't say it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
People with lower iqs can progress farther, learn more through dedication etc. People with high iqs can drink and sit in front of the tv all day.
I agree with you, and I don't doubt that supposition one bit.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
Her biggest issue, incredible gullibility.
I understand. I also suffered from extreme innocence most of my life.
Being Aspergers, I used to believe EVERYTHING I was told.
I was soon disabused of that flaw, but not after suffering abuse at the hands of adults which I won't delve into here.
I do agree with you that the ability to "function" in our society, takes MORE than just intelligence, and, I will agree that nothing is simple when it comes to the type of discussion we are enjoying.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit
My point being that how someone turns out, how they use it, has little to do with base intellect.
I won't disagree with you on this.
There is always the "inspiration" versus "perspiration" argument, along with a healthy does of luck and circumstance.
< Message edited by crumpets -- 9/15/2015 5:49:47 AM >
|
RE: Are The Messages Really True? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread