.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to Conservationist.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="Conservationist:896749"][QUOTE="orgymaggotfeast:896688"]i realise this, but it still annoys the fuck out of me sometimes. [/QUOTE] I was talking with this dude on the Ultimate Guitar forums, and he spit out this pithy wisdom: "90% of the people that I meet are impatient and too self-concerned to learn anything that is even just a step outside whatever the mainstream opinion about that subject is." http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/82ovm/90_of_the_people_that_i_meet_are_impatient_and/ Here's the most glaring example: The debate over intelligence and intelligence testing focuses on the question of whether it is useful or meaningful to evaluate people according to a single major dimension of cognitive competence. Is there indeed a general mental ability we commonly call "intelligence," and is it important in the practical affairs of life? The answer, based on decades of intelligence research, is an unequivocal yes. No matter their form or content, tests of mental skills invariably point to the existence of a global factor that permeates all aspects of cognition. And this factor seems to have considerable influence on a person's practical quality of life. Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the job. It also predicts many other aspects of well-being, including a person's chances of divorcing, dropping out of high school, being unemployed or having illegitimate children [see illustration]. By now the vast majority of intelligence researchers take these findings for granted. Yet in the press and in public debate, the facts are typically dismissed, downplayed or ignored. This misrepresentation reflects a clash between a deeply felt ideal and a stubborn reality. The ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, is that all people are born equally able and that social inequality results only from the exercise of unjust privilege. The reality is that Mother Nature is no egalitarian. People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential--and they are born that way, just as they are born with different potentials for height, physical attractiveness, artistic flair, athletic prowess and other traits. Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent mental aptitudes into intellectual equals. http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/intelligence/cache/1198gottfred.html What I like about traditional wisdom is that it does not get all neurotic trying to deny this, and finds really optimal ways of adapting humans to reality, so that there's a chance of something greater than menial function/consumerism to life. Consumerism, after all, isn't really new... it's just commerce plus self-obsession. It's what all societies default to when they're both wealthy and directionless.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][