welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Fahrenheit 451, anyone?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Amilam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 922

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Amilam wrote:

Darqcyde:

The study wasn’t asking for people to apply Derrida to Joyce. It was asking for basic reading extrapolation. This lack is disturbing because it demonstrates a lack of reasoning abilities that are required for this task. I may not be a Rhetoric major and have time to work on the subtleties of applied logic, but that doesn’t excuse me from not being able to understand and expand on simple logical problems. As a democracy we lose these abilities at our own peril.


Are you so sure? I was under the impression that "complex" books would require more than just basic reading comprehension. According to Flynn peoples IQ's world wide are increasing yearly, but people are not necessarily getting smarter, so your comment that it demonstrates a loack of reasoning skills is erronious; it's not that people are losing them so much as it would seem they are being applied more elsewhere and/or in non-traditional manners.

*edit I will be very suprised if further study reveals that this study along with the Flynn effect reveals that they are NOT different aspects of the same phenomenon.


A few fundamental flaws in your line of reasoning.

1) A general increase of IQ does not equate to people improving in every critical reasoning ability. You are confusing general intelligence with specific reasoning abilities.

2) If you would scroll down on the link you provided on the Flynn effect you would see that the effect has ended in most “first world” countries at the beginning of the 90s.

3) You are also implying that the Flynn effect is based upon the population applying these reasoning abilities in “non traditional” means, which is not the consensus agreement of scientists who have detailed this effect. There is no evidence linking increased mass media with increased IQ scores. The more accepted view is that it is a result of better educational outreach to traditionally lower class of society. So you’re providing a false dichotomy with the Flynn effect.

4)I emphasized “extrapolation”, not “comprehension”. Big difference.

So for your argument to hold water you would have to provide a study showing that the linguistic reasoning skills this study shows as decreasing over the past years has been compensated through “non-traditional means”. I can assure you that the overwhelming amount of evidence suggests to the contrary.
_________________
"And then the sea was closed again, above us."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think true intelligence exceeds the bounds of reason and relies on instinct...innate or learned.

(mad, i swear i'm going to get back to that)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Some Guy!



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The main thing I have to say about this is that I think it's bullshit that media reporters can talk all about what they perceive in the story they are writing about, but not bother to CITE THE GODDAMN SOURCE.

Does anyone have a clue as to what study this article is referring to?

Literacy rates are going down the tubes? How about some goddamn journalistic responsibility.

Anyway, I made it to grad school, and I don't mind saying that the rhetoric and terminology used in the texts I read is kicking my goddamn ass. I have to do all my readings about 2-5 times before I really begin to grasp what it is they're talking about. I am not sure if that's my root stupidity, or if that the higher academic fields are engaged in such a smart touting contest that they purposefully write obfuscatedly to make it harder for their colleagues to understand, (and as such almost impossible for us lowly grads). I know for a fact that three of my class mates and I do just exactly that (and I am pretty sure most of the others do too), as we are wary of being thought of as stupid by our other classmates. The more complex the thought, the better, as maybe that will throw our peers off the scent or make us look better than we are. (FYI, we are doing class wide peer reviewed reports over our readings every week).

What's more, once I finally DO get what these authors are trying to say, it's (usually) pretty easy for me to rephrase it in a way that makes some goddamn sense. Essentially, if they would just bother to phrase it in two or three sentences instead of one gigantic run on with nine commas, two semi colons and four hyphens, they could more clearly, succinctly, and accurately state their ideas.

Back to the journalistic negligence, some other things that may have bearing on the accuracy of the study, but that they failed to include in this article, are (1) I would like to see if there is some kind of objective comparison to the difficulty of complex texts from the mid century to now (not to mention at least have a definition of what a complex text is considered, and how they determined if students could extrapolate from it, and what students they tested, and...). It may just be that because of this intellectual toutfest taking place within academic literature, it isn't that students are getting worse at extrapolation, so much as the ideas that can be extrapolated are becoming more difficult to exegeticate from the text. And (2) Something else that might influence these results is if the number of people pursuing higher education in the past 50 years has increased due to the opening of financial and cultural avenues, which would simply mean that the average of students capable of this are lower because so many more have access to higher education. (of course, if so, this may not say much for the current status of higher education, but I think all that needed to be said about it happened on the second Tuesday in November, 2000).
_________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(Sorry I can't spell)
-!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo wrote:
“Art is a legal fiction,” says Derrida. Any number of desituationisms concerning subsemioticist discourse exist. It could be said that Lacan uses the term ‘dialectic narrative’ to denote a mythopoetical totality.

“Society is part of the futility of language,” says Sontag; however, according to Cameron[3] , it is not so much society that is part of the futility of language, but rather the failure of society. The main theme of the works of Burroughs is the fatal flaw, and some would say the stasis, of capitalist class. In a sense, Derrida suggests the use of subsemioticist discourse to read sexual identity.


Does it lookie like this, Some Guy? If it does, then you're being fed bullshit, and in giant steaming heaping quantities.
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
rm



Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 4073

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
i think true intelligence exceeds the bounds of reason and relies on instinct...innate or learned.

(mad, i swear i'm going to get back to that)


lies!
_________________
...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

prove it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
prove it


I'm actually keenly interested in seeing your rationalization for your first assertion. Please don't make rm do it Smile
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
rm



Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 4073

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

no, I just meant that you were lying about ever getting back to our old discussion.
_________________
...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2433

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kame wrote:
I'm actually keenly interested in seeing your rationalization for your first assertion.
Major Tom wrote:
i think true intelligence exceeds the bounds of reason
Do you realize what you're asking him to do? Rationalizing the assertion would be crippling his own powers of intelligence!
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

genius is often described as a moment in which a 'leap of logic' occurs.

rather than 'thinking rationally but really, really fast' this actually is meant to suggest leaping over the rational steps...leaving the logical plane, as it were, and landing at a sound conclusion that will, nevertheless, then be tested and proven...eventually. (see ferme)

thus, in extention, "intelligence", of which "genius" is a perceived extreme, exceeds the bounds of reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rm wrote:
no, I just meant that you were lying about ever getting back to our old discussion.


of that i was fully aware.

and the challenge stands.

Sojobo wrote:
kame wrote:
I'm actually keenly interested in seeing your rationalization for your first assertion.
Major Tom wrote:
i think true intelligence exceeds the bounds of reason
Do you realize what you're asking him to do? Rationalizing the assertion would be crippling his own powers of intelligence!


oh, HEY. just cuz you can tapdance on the head of a pin doesn't mean you don't enjoy strolling through the park looking at the sunbathers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2433

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I could tapdance on the head of a pin at will, you can be sure I'd be doing it all the time.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you would miss out on all the sunbathers

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rm



Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 4073

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
...leaping over the rational steps...leaving the logical plane, as it were, and landing at a sound conclusion...


this is a form of instinct? I would argue that leaps of logic, although seemingly just as "blind" (skipping over conscious step-by-step rationalization) as instinctual moves, come from an entirely different impulse.
_________________
...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

'instinct' in the sense of knowledge without understanding, yes.

innate? perhaps it's the skill to see the relationships that are involved on each side of the "leap" for what they are without understanding that's innate, maybe it's the knowledge of the relationships itself that's innate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group