• Philadelphia law decriminalizes marijuana
    124 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46147105]I could give less fucks if people want to destroy their lives by consuming a gateway drug (and yes it is a gateway drug, there are fucking heroin needles on the streets of Washington since they legalized it.) And sure some people are responsible and have some sense of restraint. However, this isn't doing anything for the average folk, who has very little sense of personal accountability or obligation to further himself. The problem is that we are specifically allowing it now. We've removed the barrier of morality and now we will see it's effects.[/QUOTE] The funny thing about slippery slope arguments is that it goes both ways. If we outlaw weed, how long until we outlaw alcohol? tobacco? How long until we outlaw OTC drugs like Tylenol or Benadryl? Sudafed? NyQuil?
Morality is a fluid concept that changes many times within each generation of people There's damn near no such thing as morality I just latch onto "do unto others" and that's done me pretty well so far
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46150882]You support decadence, moral decay and the undermining of the principals of society that have guided man for the past 2000 years. If you don't think any of this means anything, then there you absolutely a degenerate.[/QUOTE] preach about moral decay all you want while i fuck your dad and drink a caffeinated soda
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46150991]The funny thing about slippery slope arguments is that it goes both ways. If we outlaw weed, how long until we outlaw alcohol? tobacco? How long until we outlaw OTC drugs like Tylenol or Benadryl? Sudafed? NyQuil?[/QUOTE] I support the first two. The other's are not in the same category. [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46150972]How is there any sort of moral decay going on? At least in western society, morality has only been improving over the past 2000 years (hell I don't know why you say 2000 years and not just human history, we've been around longer than Anno Domini). We don't kill people for not being a certain religion, we don't force women in to the horrid subjugation women experienced the past all-of-human-history-prior, we don't lynch or subjugate people because they're not the same race as us, people have a lot more personal freedom, we've developed humane methods of execution and are in larger and larger numbers throwing it out entirely, gay rights are moving forward at an amazing pace (from likely to get you killed to being able to marry in several parts of the world and only increasing), and a million other things, so when you say morality is decaying, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Also what principles of society? Every society is different, every culture is different, governments are different, we all have different ideas on how society should work, so how the fuck can there be 'Principles of society', hell, what would they even be? Do [I]you[/I] even know that, or do you just believe that they exist and things you don't like hurt them somehow in some vague way? And frankly, if you actually study history, one of the first things you realize is that [I]everything sucked and everyone was an asshole.[/i] Whatever principles of society were guiding humans back then can be thrown the fuck out if that's what they produced.[/QUOTE] First, I do study history. That's my biggest hobby. People did have less personal freedoms in the past, but all together society was more united and happy. We have no standards anymore. People don't raise their children to be responsible or honest. People don't value reading or education and blame the state for their own intelligence. I've seen this all over, in real life situations, and from talking to random strangers on the internet. This is why religion has some value to it. I would rather live in a Christian society rather than an atheist one and I'm an atheist. I've developed my own values independently, but none were given to me growing up in a non-religious family.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46150968]NE Philly here. Never met a cop that really gave a shit about small things. We always get off easy. Hell, once I accidentally kept my SAK on my keyring when I went to the courthouse for jury duty (pocket knives of any sort are illegal in Philly,) and the cops there were just like "whatever." Then again a friend of mine got busted a week ago for having half an ounce on him though so I guess it comes down to luck.[/QUOTE] There is a fine line between a weapons offense and a drug charge. Cops anywhere city or not take drug charges alot more seriously. With unnoteworthy exceptions here and there.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151068]I support the first two. The other's are not in the same category. First, I do study history. That's my biggest hobby. People did have less personal freedoms in the past, but all together society was more united and happy. We have no standards anymore. People don't raise their children to be responsible or honest. People don't value reading or education and blame the state for their own intelligence. I've seen this all over, in real life situations, and from talking to random strangers on the internet. This is why religion has some value to it. I would rather live in a Christian society rather than an atheist one and I'm an atheist. I've developed my own values independently, but none were given to me growing up in a non-religious family.[/QUOTE] Oh [I]please,[/I] children are not responsible or honest in any time period, hell, people in general aren't honest in any time period. People have lied for a good god damn long time, and no matter what you teach them people [I]will[/I] generally tell a lie if it helps them and doesn't hurt anyone. As for responsibility, kids have been doing stupid ass shit for forever, that's how kids are. You do have to raise them to y'know, not be a spoiled little shit kid, but [I]we already do that.[/I] We still shit all over parents who don't, and I guarantee you there hasn't been some shit switch flipped where parents just stopped giving a fuck. There have always been neglectful parents. Anyway, if anything we have more standards than ever before. Or at least, we have standards that have reason to them, and are about being a good god damn human being rather than ~appeasing god~ or whatever. Y'know what's a great standard? How we don't allow you to beat your children anymore. That's great. Also, people value education more than ever. You are virtually required in American society to go to college and you will spend the first two decades of your life constantly hearing about how you need to go to college. The education sucks here to be sure, but look at other countries, look at Norway or Finland or wherever, they're doing pretty damn alright. And [I]everyone[/I] has access to an education. I fuckin' guarantee you some random kid from now can trump some random kid from 300 years ago if you gave them both a test. If that latter kid can even [I]read.[/I] Stop being nostalgic for the past. The past sucks balls.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151068]I support the first two. The other's are not in the same category. First, I do study history. That's my biggest hobby. People did have less personal freedoms in the past, but all together society was more united and happy. We have no standards anymore. People don't raise their children to be responsible or honest. People don't value reading or education and blame the state for their own intelligence. I've seen this all over, in real life situations, and from talking to random strangers on the internet. This is why religion has some value to it. I would rather live in a Christian society rather than an atheist one and I'm an atheist. I've developed my own values independently, but none were given to me growing up in a non-religious family.[/QUOTE] I'm starting to think you just hate fun Or, at least it just sounds like it.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46151127]Oh [I]please,[/I] children are not responsible or honest in any time period, hell, people in general aren't honest in any time period. People have lied for a good god damn long time, and no matter what you teach them people [I]will[/I] generally tell a lie if it helps them and doesn't hurt anyone. As for responsibility, kids have been doing stupid ass shit for forever, that's how kids are. You do have to raise them to y'know, not be a spoiled little shit kid, but [I]we already do that.[/I] We still shit all over parents who don't, and I guarantee you there hasn't been some shit switch flipped where parents just stopped giving a fuck. There have always been neglectful parents. Anyway, if anything we have more standards than ever before. Or at least, we have standards that have reason to them, and are about being a good god damn human being rather than ~appeasing god~ or whatever. Y'know what's a great standard? How we don't allow you to beat your children anymore. That's great. Also, people value education more than ever. You are virtually required in American society to go to college and you will spend the first two decades of your life constantly hearing about how you need to go to college. The education sucks here to be sure, but look at other countries, look at Norway or Finland or wherever, they're doing pretty damn alright. And [I]everyone[/I] has access to an education. I fuckin' guarantee you some random kid from now can trump some random kid from 300 years ago if you gave them both a test. If that latter kid can even [I]read.[/I] Stop being nostalgic for the past. The past sucks balls.[/QUOTE] In the past days of history, if a parent did not teach their children genuine qualities, society would do that for them. These days, instead of doing that, we put children on medication or tell them they are perfectly acceptable how they are. The bar has been lowered. As for education, I want you to try completing this test. It's over 100 years old. The standard of children's willingness to learn has influenced our education system. That's why we have common-core standards, and why the SAT get's easier each year. [url]http://www.salina.com/1895test/[/url] People do not value education at all. If they did then we would see an increase in reading. Which we don't. There is a huge decrease. Also the quality of education in Scandinavian countries, with the exception of Denmark, is going to decrease as their government falls apart from their leftist policies. Also Sweden/Norway get below average scores on the PISA rankings. [url]http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/dec/03/pisa-results-country-best-reading-maths-science[/url]
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151068]I support the first two. The other's are not in the same category.[/QUOTE] Why? Be specific. Cite your sources.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151254]Also the quality of education in Scandinavian countries, with the exception of Denmark, is going to decrease as their government falls apart from their leftist policies.[/QUOTE] And there it is, he has shown his true colours. Yep, we're done here.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46151259]Why? Be specific. Cite your sources.[/QUOTE]The others have common application. Marijauna is typically used recreationally. People usually take OTC because they have real problems. [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;46151288]And there it is, he has shown his true colours. Yep, we're done here.[/QUOTE] Prove me wrong. Sweden replaces school-books with picture books so as not offend people who can't speak the language. Tell me that's not a leftist policy that's hurting their education.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151254]In the past days of history, if a parent did not teach their children genuine qualities, society would do that for them. These days, instead of doing that, we put children on medication or tell them they are perfectly acceptable how they are. The bar has been lowered. As for education, I want you to try completing this test. It's over 100 years old. The standard of children's willingness to learn has influenced our education system. That's why we have common-core standards, and why the SAT get's easier each year. [url]http://www.salina.com/1895test/[/url] People do not value education at all. If they did then we would see an increase in reading. Which we don't. There is a huge decrease. [b]Also the quality of education in Scandinavian countries, with the exception of Denmark, is going to decrease as their government falls apart from their leftist policies.[/b][/QUOTE] Mmm, there it is. See, I've been wondering exactly what backwards thinking group you would belong to, and it looks like it just might be boring, no-fun conservatives. Anyway, I decided to look in to your little test and aside from the website you linked I couldn't actually find solid proof that this test is even real. I did, however, find this [url=http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/1895exam.htm]page describing why it's not true, or shaky/unproven at best[/url], and several of the results in google talked about how it was a hoax. Sooo, guess not.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151308]The others have common application. Marijauna is typically used recreationally. People usually take OTC because they have real problems.[/QUOTE] So a drug is only more moral than another drug when the percentage of people who take them for non-recreational applications is larger than those who take them for recreational purposes?
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;46151327]Mmm, there it is. See, I've been wondering exactly what backwards thinking group you would belong to, and it looks like it just might be boring, no-fun conservatives. Anyway, I decided to look in to your little test and aside from the website you linked I couldn't actually find solid proof that this test is even real. I did, however, find this [url=http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/1895exam.htm]page describing why it's not true, or shaky/unproven at best[/url], and several of the results in google talked about how it was a hoax. Sooo, guess not.[/QUOTE] Hell, is anyone who doesn't believe in your thinking group backwards? IS that you how justify your position? By name calling, really? I never said anything about who this test was for. Even your website say's it's an authentic document, meaning someone who had been educated should know how to answer it. Could you solve that after your college education?
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151457]Hell, is anyone who doesn't believe in your thinking group backwards? IS that you how justify your position? By name calling, really? I never said anything about who this test was for. Even your website say's it's an authentic document, meaning someone who had been educated should know how to answer it. Could you solve that after your college education?[/QUOTE] You need to chill the fuck out. Go smoke a joint or something.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151457]Hell, is anyone who doesn't believe in your thinking group backwards? IS that you how justify your position? By name calling, really? I never said anything about who this test was for. Even your website say's it's an authentic document, meaning someone who had been educated should know how to answer it. Could you solve that after your college education?[/QUOTE] What parts aren't outdated, yeah, I think someone with a college education could do it. Hell, if you actually put anyone on a course that expects them to know that information they could do it. And no, groups who think differently aren't backwards. Groups who think backwards are.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151308]The others have common application. Marijauna is typically used recreationally. People usually take OTC because they have real problems. [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] The only reason marijuana is typically used recreation ally is because it's illegal. If it was legal, who knows what multitude of medications could be derived from it? Prove me wrong. Sweden replaces school-books with picture books so as not offend people who can't speak the language. Tell me that's not a leftist policy that's hurting their education.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151457]Hell, is anyone who doesn't believe in your thinking group backwards? IS that you how justify your position? By name calling, really? I never said anything about who this test was for. Even your website say's it's an authentic document, meaning someone who had been educated should know how to answer it. Could you solve that after your college education?[/QUOTE] Could Soctrates complete that test? Could Newton or Harrison? Nash or Wright or Einstein? Apart from the arithmetic section, I doubt it. Rote memorization is not to be conflated with intelligence. A child could memorize the answers to that test and spit them back out on paper, like a computer. So what? This test does not test somebody's ability to experiment and innovate, to reason and solve problems. A lot of brilliant thinkers would fail your little litmus test. Likewise, many others could pass it spectacularly and fail to understand anything more complicated. If intelligence was only measured by the ability to answer a series of trivial facts on paper, then we wouldn't have gone from the first manned flight to space travel within 50 years. We would not have had invented computers. Instead of medicating children with disabilities, we would be killing them for being unholy spawns of the devil. We would not have achieved more scientific discovery in the past half decade than in the entire history of civilization. We would be afraid of the unknown, not embrace it. An idiot savant could have an IQ of 300 and fail to tie their shoes.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46151662]Could Soctrates complete that test? Could Newton or Harrison? Nash or Wright or Einstein? Apart from the arithmetic section, I doubt it. Rote memorization is not to be conflated with intelligence. A child could memorize the answers to that test and spit them back out on paper, like a computer. So what? This test does not test somebody's ability to experiment and innovate, to reason and solve problems. A lot of brilliant thinkers would fail your little litmus test. Likewise, many others could pass it spectacularly and fail to understand anything more complicated. If intelligence was only measured by the ability to answer a series of trivial facts on paper, then we wouldn't have gone from the first manned flight to space travel within 50 years. We would not have had invented computers. Instead of medicating children with disabilities, we would be killing them for being unholy spawns of the devil. We would not have achieved more scientific discovery in the past half decade than in the entire history of civilization. We would be afraid of the unknown, not embrace it.[/QUOTE] Clearly someone could have passed this test. If a teacher or a student could do it, then Einstein could do it. Deal with it, IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence for general purposes. The point is to show how rigorous the education system was. That it has higher standards. I'm not saying that anyone who passes this test is necessarily more intelligent than someone who doesn't, but wouldn't you think someone was smart if they could? This is the kind of material people would have had to know to invent computers or airplanes. Your argument goes both ways, you see. We wouldn't have gone anywhere without this information either. Natural talent and information are what got us to space. It wasn't just purely regular ability.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151706]The point is to show how rigorous the education system was. That it has higher standards. I'm not saying that anyone who passes this test is necessarily more intelligent than someone who doesn't, but wouldn't you think someone was smart if they could? This is the kind of material people would have had to know to invent computers or airplanes. Sure these facts are meaningless on their own, but human would have never advanced with just people who had natural talent.[/QUOTE] In fact, I would not believe someone to be more intelligent simply because they passed that test. I have a friend in medical school, and the stuff they could teach me about the human body astounds me. I went to school for Business Administration and Computer Sciences. I could tell them equally fascinating things about computers that they could have never imagined. My other friend is an auto mechanic who barely earned the distinction of his GED. When our car broke down in the desert, all of our college degrees meant nothing compared to his ability to repair the car. Not one of us is necessarily any smarter than the others. I can't fix a car as well as my friend, does that mean I'm less intelligent than him? My medical friend can't tell the difference between a SCSI and a firewall, does that mean he is less intelligent than me? My mechanic friend doesn't know what rhinorrhea is, does that make in less smart? None of us could past that test. Are we idiots? In addition, more and more of the most wealthy and intelligent men in the country are beginning to rethink their stance on what education and the ability to pass a test means. [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-people-2013-6[/url] Examine this article. [quote]Google doesn't even ask for GPA or test scores from candidates anymore, unless someone's a year or two out of school, because they don't correlate at all with success at the company. Even for new grads, the correlation is slight, the company has found. ... "Academic environments are artificial environments. People who succeed there are sort of finely trained, they’re conditioned to succeed in that environment,"... ... Google also used to be famous for posing impossibly difficult and punishing brain teasers during interviews. Things like "If the probability of observing a car in 30 minutes on a highway is 0.95, what is the probability of observing a car in 10 minutes (assuming constant default probability)?" Turns out those questions are"a complete waste of time," according to Bock. "They don’t predict anything. They serve primarily to make the interviewer feel smart." [/quote] We are talking people who have not only passed the tests, but exceeded in them. People with 4.0 averages with masters degrees. And yet the people at Google, one of the most powerful companies in the world, finds that it means almost nothing. They find that true intelligence is not a quality that can simply be tested for. So in the late 1800s, students had what appear to be higher standards. Eventually, however, these tests went away. Why would that be? It's in America's best interest to ensure its population is intelligent to compete on the global stage. These tests got easier, the standards relaxed. Naturally that means that America's intelligence should have fallen. We shouldn't have been able to beat the Soviets to the moon, we shouldn't have been able to help bring technology so far ahead along with the rest of the world. Google probably shouldn't exist. It's almost contradictory: How can our population be getting dumber while technology continues to advance in accordance with predictions of Moore's law? How does the Flynn effect exist? How could so many great thinkers fail that test yet still bring amazing advancements to out lives? Is it because technology is bound to progress? Or is it because tests like that are simply meaningless? [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] It's true that all knowledge is built on that which came before. It's also true that the more tools that are in your toolbox, the more equipped you are to deal with life. But knowing everything is worthless if you can't think for yourself, if you can't solve puzzles for yourself, if you can't use logic and reason. And that's why these tests are worthless. This is why so man brilliant inventors and mathematicians did so poorly in school. They understood that not being able to answer which epochs the history of the US is divided into meant jack shit, so long as they could create knowledge.
Why are people arguing with Milly? It's not like the fucker's gonna be in charge of anything important. We should rejoice in that fact.
[QUOTE=xalener;46151901]Why are people arguing with Milly? It's not like the fucker's gonna be in charge of anything important. We should rejoice in that fact.[/QUOTE] Arguing is fun.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46151845]In fact, I would not believe someone to be more intelligent simply because they passed that test. I have a friend in medical school, and the stuff they could teach me about the human body astounds me. I went to school for Business Administration and Computer Sciences. I could tell them equally fascinating things about computers that they could have never imagined. My other friend is an auto mechanic who barely earned the distinction of his GED. When our car broke down in the desert, all of our college degrees meant nothing compared to his ability to repair the car. Not one of us is necessarily any smarter than the others. I can't fix a car as well as my friend, does that mean I'm less intelligent than him? My medical friend can't tell the difference between a SCSI and a firewall, does that mean he is less intelligent than me? My mechanic friend doesn't know what rhinorrhea is, does that make in less smart? None of us could past that test. Are we idiots? In addition, more and more of the most wealthy and intelligent men in the country are beginning to rethink their stance on what education and the ability to pass a test means. [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-people-2013-6[/url] Examine this article. We are talking people who have not only passed the tests, but exceeded in them. People with 4.0 averages with masters degrees. And yet the people at Google, one of the most powerful companies in the world, finds that it means almost nothing. They find that true intelligence is not a quality that can simply be tested for. So in the late 1800s, students had what appear to be higher standards. Eventually, however, these tests went away. Why would that be? It's in America's best interest to ensure its population is intelligent to compete on the global stage. These tests got easier, the standards relaxed. Naturally that means that America's intelligence should have fallen. We shouldn't have been able to beat the Soviets to the moon, we shouldn't have been able to help bring technology so far ahead along with the rest of the world. Google probably shouldn't exist. It's almost contradictory: How can our population be getting dumber while technology continues to advance in accordance with predictions of Moore's law? How does the Flynn effect exist? How could so many great thinkers fail that test yet still bring amazing advancements to out lives? Is it because technology is bound to progress? Or is it because tests like that are simply meaningless? [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] It's true that all knowledge is built on that which came before. It's also true that the more tools that are in your toolbox, the more equipped you are to deal with life. But knowing everything is worthless if you can't think for yourself, if you can't solve puzzles for yourself, if you can't use logic and reason. And that's why these tests are worthless. This is why so man brilliant inventors and mathematicians did so poorly in school. They understood that not being able to answer which epochs the history of the US is divided into meant jack shit, so long as they could create knowledge.[/QUOTE] Let's just do away with tests. After all they aren't a measure of anything meaningful right. No, they represent a standard of knowledge, one that is not just "trivial facts." Understanding concepts in tests is correlated to your natural ability. IQ tests pamper to this. This is why you don't need to study before taking an IQ test to understand the material. An IQ test is universal and doesn't represent your knowledge of what you learned. It is the most fair measurement of intelligence there is.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151945]Let's just do away with tests. After all they aren't a measure of anything meaningful right. No, they represent a standard of knowledge, one that is not just "trivial facts." Understanding concepts in tests is correlated to your natural ability. IQ tests pamper to this. This is why you don't need to study before taking an IQ test to understand the material. An IQ test is universal and doesn't represent your knowledge of what you learned. It is the most fair measurement of intelligence there is.[/QUOTE] Then the Flynn effect is false. Standards are relaxing, intelligence is declining, yet we find that without readjusting the scores so that the average is 100, the scores would climb higher and higher and higher each year. You claim that these tests are important, and that their absence is both a symptom and a cause of your perceived decline in the population's intelligence and moral fiber. The tests are indeed gone, but intelligence has climbed. The reality directly contradicts your claim.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46151068]I support the first two. The other's are not in the same category. First, I do study history. That's my biggest hobby. People did have less personal freedoms in the past, but all together society was more united and happy. We have no standards anymore. People don't raise their children to be responsible or honest. People don't value reading or education and blame the state for their own intelligence. I've seen this all over, in real life situations, and from talking to random strangers on the internet. This is why religion has some value to it. I would rather live in a Christian society rather than an atheist one and I'm an atheist. I've developed my own values independently, but none were given to me growing up in a non-religious family.[/QUOTE] i was raised without any religion in my life that I didn't ask for, and only when I asked for it. I was raised with values of honesty, responsibility, and humility by my parents in a mostly a-religious home. You're clearly wrong if there's even one outlier. [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=MillySoose;46151945]Let's just do away with tests. After all they aren't a measure of anything meaningful right. No, they represent a standard of knowledge, one that is not just "trivial facts." Understanding concepts in tests is correlated to your natural ability. IQ tests pamper to this. This is why you don't need to study before taking an IQ test to understand the material. An IQ test is universal and doesn't represent your knowledge of what you learned. It is the most fair measurement of intelligence there is.[/QUOTE] No. No it is not and it has been acknowledged to not be by the academic community. There is not as of yet, a stronger replacement, but that doesn't relieve the issues at hand.
[t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10009848_519058241537413_8153407197312775840_n.png?oh=7effd617226408839f7e7231de77fe67&oe=54BB62CC&__gda__=1421246630_822a374595fbba2c168bc2e6f876119d[/t] if weed is a gateway drug why dont they prescribe it to ugly girls?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46151985]Then the Flynn effect is false. Standards are relaxing, intelligence is declining, yet we find that without readjusting the scores so that the average is 100, the scores would climb higher and higher and higher each year. You claim that these tests are important, and that their absence is a cause of your perceived decline in the population's intelligence and moral fiber. The tests are indeed gone, but intelligence has climbed. The reality directly contradicts your claim.[/QUOTE] I don't understand your bit about the scores increasing. Could you rephrase it? So you're measuring general intelligence by the advancements made by humanity in general. These...advancements, are a result of the contributions of those extraordinary talented or lucky. They don't reflect how smart the average middle schooler is. For example, if you look at computer science, you'll find that most people, even those who have taken courses in it, have very little knowledge in it's fundamental workings or practical use. So to say that the advancement of computers equates to an increase in general intelligence is just wrong.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46152076]I don't understand your bit about the scores increasing. Could you rephrase it? So you're measuring general intelligence by the advancements made by humanity in general. These...advancements, are a result of the contributions of those extraordinary talented or lucky. They don't reflect how smart the average middle schooler is. For example, if you look at computer science, you'll find that most people, even those who have taken courses in it, have very little knowledge in it's fundamental workings or practical use. So to say that because computers have advanced in the last 50 years reflects the general intelligence of humans is just wrong.[/QUOTE] no. history may be dotted with exceptional people who discover exceptional things. They are however, not the only people who are important or contribute in a major way to the advancement of humanity. It's a shallow, and ignorant view of history to say such a thing. Education about computers did not rise as fast as computers did. That can be remedied. You're arguing that the general knowledge amongst the general populace before the internet was higher. This is demonstrably false in every way. Every form of communication that spread information made people smarter in general and people like you have always claimed that they are now worse off than before.
[QUOTE=MillySoose;46152076]I don't understand your bit about the scores increasing. Could you rephrase it? So you're measuring general intelligence by the advancements made by humanity in general. These...advancements, are a result of the contributions of those extraordinary talented or lucky. They don't reflect how smart the average middle schooler is. For example, if you look at computer science, you'll find that most people, even those who have taken courses in it, have very little knowledge in it's fundamental workings or practical use. So to say that because computers have advanced in the last 50 years reflects the general intelligence of humans is just wrong.[/QUOTE] [quote]The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect[/url] I'm talking about the intelligence of the population. The population on average has an IQ of 100. If a test from 1930 was taken today by an average person, that person would score well above 100. The average person from 2014 would score way higher on the IQ test than the average person from 1930. The inverse is also true. If what you are arguing is correct, we would find that the average person from 2014 would score lower than the average person from 1930.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46152127][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect[/url] I'm talking about the intelligence of the population. The population on average has an IQ of 100. If a test from 1930 was taken today by an average person, that person would score well above 100. The average person from 2014 would score way higher on the IQ test than the average person from 1930. The inverse is also true. If what you are arguing is correct, we would find that the average person from 2014 would score lower than the average person from 1930.[/QUOTE] IQ tests are not standardized. A linear increase of IQ does necessarily indicate an increase in intelligence, because the people have been essentially taking different tests. You're saying that both intelligence and the difficulty of the tests have increased. If true then intelligence would have to greatly outpaced the increase in difficulty of these tests... If someone today took an IQ test from the 1930s I'd expect them to get a lower score than the average at the time. Also, evidence points to Flynns effect reversing, that is in modern countries, the IQ score is diminishing. [quote] Recent research suggests that the Flynn effect may have ended in at least a few developed nations, possibly allowing national differences in IQ scores[4] to diminish if the Flynn effect continues in nations with lower average national IQs.[5][/quote] [editline]4th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46152101]no. history may be dotted with exceptional people who discover exceptional things. They are however, not the only people who are important or contribute in a major way to the advancement of humanity. It's a shallow, and ignorant view of history to say such a thing. Education about computers did not rise as fast as computers did. That can be remedied. You're arguing that the general knowledge amongst the general populace before the internet was higher. This is demonstrably false in every way. Every form of communication that spread information made people smarter in general and people like you have always claimed that they are now worse off than before.[/QUOTE] No they've been teaching computers since computer's existed. As they've become more popular they've started teaching them in public schools. Also I'm not saying that computer's don't make people smarter. I am arguing that their existence does not mean anything on the intelligence of the general population, because they were invented by only a handful of people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.