What's new
By:

Am I racist?

dalamon said:
you're rate at picking up musical instruments and learning them > mine


my rate at picking up, and understanding math most likely > yours (never got below 90% in any math mark since the 5th grade-- i've gotten only A+s in my college math courses).

Who's smarter?
Click to expand...

I have studied music extensively and it seems you have studied math plenty so those really aren't good examples. I'm not sure if there is really an accurate way to determine who is more intelligent by my definition. It would need to be measured via something that is an entirely blank slate to each of us, which is theoretically impossible. Some of the existing knowledge we have would play a part in everything whatever we did, no matter how obscure.

And I'm smarter
 
dalamon said:
but mathematically, there will be an inherent point (if we assume that possession of knowledge accounts for SOME measure of intelligence-- just not as much, proportionately speaking, as rate) where a person who knows more is smarter than a person who can learn quick-- but has spent an entire life in solitude, and hasn't used his gifts. Who is smarter?
Click to expand...

The smarter guy - the one who knows more stuff.

I don't view the words smart and intelligent as having the same meaning. That's really all it comes down to. I just have a uncommon definition for the word intelligence.
 
LazyD said:
I have studied music extensively and it seems you have studied math plenty so those really aren't good examples. I'm not sure if there is really an accurate way to determine who is more intelligent by my definition. It would need to be measured via something that is an entirely blank slate to each of us, which is theoretically impossible. Some of the existing knowledge we have would play a part in everything whatever we did, no matter how obscure.

And I'm smarter
Click to expand...

I just think the rate at which we learned something from a blank slate would depend on the thing we were learning. Maybe you'd be better at painting, while I'd be better at debating. Maybe you'd be better at learning how to be a pass-first PG, while I'd be better at coaching. Y'know, it all depends I think.
 
dalamon said:
I just think the rate at which we learned something from a blank slate would depend on the thing we were learning. Maybe you'd be better at painting, while I'd be better at debating. Maybe you'd be better at learning how to be a pass-first PG, while I'd be better at coaching. Y'know, it all depends I think.
Click to expand...

That's why it'd be impossible for us to test such a thing. Our previous knowledge doesn't allow for that.
 
LazyD said:
That's why it'd be impossible for us to test such a thing. Our previous knowledge doesn't allow for that.
Click to expand...

even it it were possible. I'm suggesting that the rates would differ based on the thing we were doing-- and I don't think it's because of previous knowledge. It could well be biological.
 
A great example is the kid with autism who can recite an entire documentary word-for-word.

Yes, he/she realllyyyy suffers with social communication. But the dude can ****ing recite an entire documentary after watching it once-- are we really to consider him dumber than us? Well in one way, yes. In another way, no.
 
dalamon said:
even it it were possible. I'm suggesting that the rates would differ based on the thing we were doing-- and I don't think it's because of previous knowledge. It could well be biological.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think any differences that were present - biological or otherwise - would be part of the measure of said intelligence.

That could be, though. Do you have some examples?
 
dalamon said:
A great example is the kid with autism who can recite an entire documentary word-for-word.

Yes, he/she realllyyyy suffers with social communication. But the dude can ****ing recite an entire documentary after watching it once-- are we really to consider him dumber than us? Well in one way, yes. In another way, no.
Click to expand...

I'd probably consider the kid as dumber (dumber = less knowledgable) than me in most areas, just like you said. I'd also consider him more intelligent.
 
dalamon said:
A great example is the kid with autism who can recite an entire documentary word-for-word.

Yes, he/she realllyyyy suffers with social communication. But the dude can ****ing recite an entire documentary after watching it once-- are we really to consider him dumber than us? Well in one way, yes. In another way, no.
Click to expand...

is dis just a hypothetical example or does such a kid really exist? not sure if im buyin it, tbh. maybe u just got fooled bro.
 
Jazz Insider said:
is dis just a hypothetical example or does such a kid really exist? not sure if im buyin it, tbh. maybe u just got fooled bro.
Click to expand...

I knew a kid first-hand who did this. I'd get in trouble at achool and the punishment was to help the assistants in the Special Ed. Classrooms.

One of the boys was autistic. He'd recite the entire dialogue from TV shows he saw the night before. It was insane, and awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
LazyD said:
I'd probably consider the kid as dumber (dumber = less knowledgable) than me in most areas, just like you said. I'd also consider him more intelligent.
Click to expand...

Whatever floats your boat-- I personally find it way easier to just consider intelligent as non-monolithic than to have separate terms that try to quantify and assess something that really is non-quantitative by nature


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All this smarter than whoever talk really got me thinking about its implications within the broader racism discussion. For example, some races of people are genetically predisposed to being more suited to run long distances, or jump higher due to their being chased or hunted by large carnivores for hundreds of thousands of years. Sherpas (literally an ethnic group, not just an occupation) are super short with ridiculously strong legs genetically so they can basically copy mountain goats in their everyday life.


But are there certain races who are genetically predisposed to have greater brain power? I have always subscribed to the idea that our brains are the same no matter what racial characteristics we have. Scientifically speaking though, it would make sense if there was a race that had a leg up on the rest of the races in the brain capacity area due to evolutionary causes. I don't think that this has particularly manifest itself in any meaningful way, but it is a loaded concept.
 
dalamon said:
Whatever floats your boat-- I personally find it way easier to just consider intelligent as non-monolithic than to have separate terms that try to quantify and assess something that really is non-quantitative by nature


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In theory, it should be something that is quantifiable. There is just no method to make it so.

Do you have siblings or friends? You seem pretty intelligent so I'd gather you can grasp foreign concepts better than many of them. If this happens most of the time, you may be able to assume that you are more intelligent than they are.
 
b_line said:
All this smarter than whoever talk really got me thinking about its implications within the broader racism discussion. For example, some races of people are genetically predisposed to being more suited to run long distances, or jump higher due to their being chased or hunted by large carnivores for hundreds of thousands of years. Sherpas (literally an ethnic group, not just an occupation) are super short with ridiculously strong legs genetically so they can basically copy mountain goats in their everyday life.


But are there certain races who are genetically predisposed to have greater brain power? I have always subscribed to the idea that our brains are the same no matter what racial characteristics we have. Scientifically speaking though, it would make sense if there was a race that had a leg up on the rest of the races in the brain capacity area due to evolutionary causes. I don't think that this has particularly manifest itself in any meaningful way, but it is a loaded concept.
Click to expand...

No, because the genes for intelligence are present in all segments of society-- and intelligence is multi factorial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dalamon said:
Race is a social construct. Race is not biological in any sense whatsoever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

interestin. i agree.
but what bout racialists.
is that tendency due to social reasons or learned in some otherway.
or is it biologically in some1s dna.

if a member of the KKK had a kid, and then they was seperated at da birthin, is it possible the kid would have racialist tendencies (genetically speakin, not accountin for he himself learnin to be a racialist somehow)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top