|
Home > Archive > Architecture > May 2007 > Inversity
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Seņor Popcorn-Coconut 2007-05-27, 9:25 pm |
| Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 27, 4:11 am, "Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote:
>
> Half the people have an IQ below average,
(A)/An (high) IQ of what?
Recently they did a piece on the news I think about someone the movie
'Rain Man' was apparently inspired by, and some of his capacities were
astounding, for lack of a better word.
We all possess our own unique topography of intelligence, where we peak
in some areas and marine-trench in others. 
> it's fair to insure they have their 3R's. With those,
> they are able to be fully functional and earn a
> good wage.
> Those are the only subjects where a "mark" is
> necessary. Subjects like Science, Gym, Art,
> History, Literature etc shouldn't be marked
> unless the kid wants it, otherwise only comments
> are good. See that way we can encourage, but
> marks can be discouraging. As an X teacher I
> prefer that system over strict grade assignment.
> But leave available the option of grading too, up
> to kid and it's parents.
Sure... And how about some kind of "class" that's project-based, that
has something practical that might even benefit others, like a "green"
house or something like that? You could even revolve a whole year's
curriculum around that, alone. Make the university students part of the
same projecct, too. Who says students/schools/grades have to be
completely segregated? Humans evolved in communities of people of
diverse ages and skills. university students could learn how to interact
with kids and become better parents, etc....
Call the whole thing 'Inversity'.
| |
|
| "Seņor Popcorn-Coconut"> wrote
> (A)/An (high) IQ of what?
> Recently they did a piece on the news I think about someone the movie
> 'Rain Man' was apparently inspired by, and some of his capacities were
> astounding, for lack of a better word.
> We all possess our own unique topography of intelligence, where we peak in
> some areas and marine-trench in others.
Whats the diff between intelligence and talent?
| |
| Seņor Popcorn-Coconut 2007-05-27, 9:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> "Seņor Popcorn-Coconut"> wrote
>
> Whats the diff between intelligence and talent?
Off the top, I'd say both are probably co-related.
....Looks like we're live this evening. I'm at an internet cafe eating
chocolate-covered expresso beans.
| |
|
| "Seņor Popcorn-Coconut"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> Off the top, I'd say both are probably co-related.
>
> ...Looks like we're live this evening. I'm at an internet cafe eating
> chocolate-covered expresso beans.
Sounds bitter-sweet.
| |
|
| On May 27, 9:57 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Se=F1or Popcorn-Coconut"> wrote
>
in[color=darkred]
>
> Whats the diff between intelligence and talent?
I'm not sure that there is any difference between talent and
intellect. I think they are both two parts of a broad spectrum that
educators have made people think is a much narrower spectrum than
really exists.
see: www.allkindsofminds.org or the counter arguement.
The counter arguement goes something like this: Who is "smarter", a
geeky nerd with perfect SAT scores or a jock, quarterback who fails
every class, or a artistic girl with great social skills and who can
draw beyond compare, but can't do math.
The answer is easy. It is "it depends on what you want them to do".
If you're the football coach and you're in the playoffs, you want a
quarterback who can read a defense, not necessarily one who can do
calc. If you want the stage designed for the play, you want the
artistic kid. "Intelligence" all depends on what you want to do.
ADD isn't a disease. It's a different part of the spectrum. People
with ADD are great at certain things, but not others, just like
everyone. Our problem is that our society restricts people and puts
them into artificial constraints. Generattions ago, people with ADD
probably were the hunters and trackers because their brains are well
equipped to handle numerous stimuli at the same time.
I'd say "everyone with ADD raise you hand" but I can't type well, one-
handed.
| |
|
| > The counter arguement goes something like this: Who is "smarter", a
> The answer is easy. It is "it depends on what you want them to do".
Pah.
Consider the difference between interests and talents and the ability
to solve problems. Consider that the artsy kid is stupid shite and
will pretty much just copy the latest broadway play and hope the
director figures out how to get the actors to deal with the
incompetence while on the other hand, half way through what could be
the winning play, the opponent's defense comes on freakishly competent
and the QB yells across to a teammate, changes the play in mid-stream,
confounds the defense and walks away with the championship ... all in
about a half a second.
The artsy kid is stupid but has some skill. The QB is a foakin'
genius.
Intelligence is about what you can do with what you have and (new
thought) perhaps the ability to make more to have.
"It depends"? Bullshit. One of them may well be smarter than the
others. May not be able to do the others' jobs as well due to lack of
interest/training etc. but the idea that "what you want them to do"
has any bearing on smarter is folly. Perhaps that's why "smarter" was
put in quotes, so that we know you weren't even talking about smarts
or intelligence and could safely ignore the "everybody get happy,
we're all special" "argument."
What if what you want them to do is break rocks all day in the hard
summer sun?
| |
|
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:1180376295.819078.261370@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 27, 9:57 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Seņor Popcorn-Coconut"> wrote
>
>
> Whats the diff between intelligence and talent?
I'm not sure that there is any difference between talent and
intellect. I think they are both two parts of a broad spectrum that
educators have made people think is a much narrower spectrum than
really exists.
see: www.allkindsofminds.org or the counter arguement.
The counter arguement goes something like this: Who is "smarter", a
geeky nerd with perfect SAT scores or a jock, quarterback who fails
every class, or a artistic girl with great social skills and who can
draw beyond compare, but can't do math.
The answer is easy. It is "it depends on what you want them to do".
If you're the football coach and you're in the playoffs, you want a
quarterback who can read a defense, not necessarily one who can do
calc. If you want the stage designed for the play, you want the
artistic kid. "Intelligence" all depends on what you want to do.
ADD isn't a disease. It's a different part of the spectrum. People
with ADD are great at certain things, but not others, just like
everyone. Our problem is that our society restricts people and puts
them into artificial constraints. Generattions ago, people with ADD
probably were the hunters and trackers because their brains are well
equipped to handle numerous stimuli at the same time.
I'd say "everyone with ADD raise you hand" but I can't type well, one-
handed.
********************************
Then you should learn autocad. heh
I can't argue with anything you said above.
Surprise, surprise!
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2007-05-29, 1:25 pm |
| On May 27, 7:16 pm, Se=F1or Popcorn-Coconut <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Don wrote:
k in[color=darkred]
>
> Off the top, I'd say both are probably co-related.
I've met people who I found "dull" but have great
artistic talent, a lot of people own their own
genius, I think the system sometimes discourages
it's developement, by making them feel dumb by
flunking them in history, geography, literature,
science, which is unnecessarily harsh.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|