CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

I know its random (yes, Im the O.P. round earther for this thread, and I still know that F.E., especially Waste, who himself is a waste), but what is the highest I.Q. you have ever seen?

What was that person like?

Well, let me preface this with a disclaimer: In a real psychoeducational evaluation (which is what I do) you cannot use a single test score such as an IQ to make inferences about a person. IQ tests can be inaccurate for a number of reasons. Some of those reasons include the fact that IQ tests are given in an artificial environment. It's just you, the person you are testing, and the test. So, you don't get a real-life perspective on things like how the person interacts with others and their environment. Also, it's one test at one time. You could get a person taking the test on a bad day. They could be tired, sick, hungry, frustrated about other things, distracted...any of those things can affect performance on an IQ test. Age can also play a factor. IQ for younger children tend to fluxuate more than for older children.

You also have to look at the psychometric properties of the test. Basically, most people want to look at a single score when talking about IQ. But, because of various sources of error inherent in the test, it's more appropriate to report "confidence intervals." So, for example, you get someone who scores 115 on an IQ test. It would be more accurate to report that there is a 68% chance that the true IQ score falls between 110 and 120. (These are completely made up by the way). If you want to be more certain--say 95% certain, you would have to widen that range. Do you see how the more you would widen the range, the less meaningful the score becomes?

So, what we usually do is take the performance on an IQ test, consider that with direct observations of the person in their natural environment, use interviews with people who know and work with the person, use other forms of testing (achievement testing, curriculum based assessment, report card grades, examples of work) and try to develop a complete picture of the individual.

That being said, you wanted to know what the highest score I've ever seen was and what that person was like. Well, I've had a couple of children--5 and 6 year-olds--who have scored in the 140s. One of those was very calm and deliberate with her responses, although she became somewhat upset when she didn't know the answer to a problem. The other was a spark plug who wouldn't stay in her seat and didn't much care about what we were doing.

Quote from: TheFlatBeat on June 20, 2009, 09:58:14 AM

Of course i start typed, someone has to be the first, have im right? There's no logic in your theory about mentally retarded ERs, at all, it's just an another typichal internet-troll-scum -thing you're doing because you have too much time for it.

RE'ers (generally) have worse grammar, which is an indication of being less intelligent.

OK, so get this this! I have an EXCELLENT proof that educated people do not have good grammar.
Go to this Myspace page http://www.myspace.com/educatedthugzz  The band is called Educated Thugzz.
So, we can conclude:
1 - they are educated, just see their band name.
2- they did however spell thugs wrong.
3 - also, I heard some bad grammar in their song "Like a Lego Set", for example the use of the word "ain't". I'm also pretty sure they said something like "yo" insted of "your"

So there you have it Waste of Mind, educated people use bad grammar. I guess your theory is flawed.

Maybe we could call the discussion done, and give the victory to the RE'ers? Yes?

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 20, 2009, 09:59:25 AM

Quote from: TheFlatBeat on June 20, 2009, 09:58:14 AM

Of course i start typed, someone has to be the first, have im right? There's no logic in your theory about mentally retarded ERs, at all, it's just an another typichal internet-troll-scum -thing you're doing because you have too much time for it.

RE'ers (generally) have worse grammar, which is an indication of being less intelligent.

OK, so get this this! I have an EXCELLENT proof that educated people do not have good grammar.
Go to this Myspace page http://www.myspace.com/educatedthugzz  The band is called Educated Thugzz.
So, we can conclude:
1 - they are educated, just see their band name.
2- they did however spell thugs wrong.
3 - also, I heard some bad grammar in their song "Like a Lego Set", for example the use of the word "ain't". I'm also pretty sure they said something like "yo" insted of "your"

So there you have it Waste of Mind, educated people use bad grammar. I guess your theory is flawed.

Maybe we could call the discussion done, and give the victory to the RE'ers? Yes?

You're right, myspace is the epitome of intellectual greatness. Oh wait, not right, that other word.....oh yeah retarded.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 23, 2009, 08:30:28 PM

Are you an idiot?

Low content posting and insulting behaviour towards members are not welcome in the serious discussion fora. This is your first and only warning.

A simple "yes" or "no" would have been (at the very least) something of an answer.  You could have, for bonus points, added in some details as to why you see yourself as or not as an idiot, but instead you decided to overstep your bounds as a regular user without moderator privileges and pretend you had them.

It was a simple question, KillaBee, and I would have been content with a simple answer.  Instead, you failed to answer at all.

But, perhaps I was unclear.  I did leave out exactly what prompted me to inquire--yes, perhaps I should do that now.

KillaBee, what truly does not follow is your response to mine.  It shows either your reading comprehension skills are not very good, or it shows that you simply overlooked or paid little mind to some words that were of great importance to what I had to say and ran deeper with meaning than you had anticipated (basically, how your reading comprehension skills are not very good).

You told me my points do not follow.  Then you claimed that an extensive and speedy adherence to the downright absurd rules of English grammar and spelling, which is then combined with a natural understanding and emulation of a reader's needs in order to be clear, in order to be understood and heard perfectly, could not possibly show that someone has a great aptitude for learning.  Of course, this really doesn't vouch much for the other six intelligences, but we can claim this person is at least knowledgeable as it pertains to linguistics and interpersonal relationships.

Then, for my own amusement, you reiterated your own failed argument to me with sweeping, weak general cases--which turn out to be no more than thought experiments, no less!

So, in my bemusement, I decided to ask if you were an idiot, for you surely believed you not only understood fully and completely what I had said and meant, but you also believed you had effectively countered what you read!  Let's not forget to take in to account that I had said in a previous post (which we cannot say one way or the other that you read it, given the significant lack of evidence and non-existence of a negative proof) that I was to be taken lightly, which I had previously thought people would pick up on when I used all-caps and rather plain, belligerent language.

I guess my final inquiry, then, would be this: do you deny the following statement's validity?

Practicing grammar and punctuations, coupled with an awareness for syntax and clarity, can lead to a healthy method of communication.

[edit]
As a side-note, I can say I'm absolutely astonished nobody has brought up the grammatically horrid dialects used in literature as a counter to my or WoM's argument.

As a side-note, I can say I'm absolutely astonished nobody has brought up the grammatically horrid dialects used in literature as a counter to my or WoM's argument.

SHHH they don't need to know about those.

I assumed the vulgar language and all-caps text would have shown that I was to be taken lightly, with a spoonful of sugar well-mixed.  In conjunction with taking me seriously, I also appreciate you telling me things I already know.

I don't know you. And that was your first post in this thread. How, exactly, am I supposed to infer from what you said that you were to be "taken lightly?" You are very quick to ask other posters whether or not they are idiots--are they supposed to take that lightly as well? One might be just as inclined to ask you whether or not you are socially competent. On the one hand, you expect people to take you lightly for using all caps and vulgar language, yet on the other hand you want to be taken seriously by people you imply are "idiots."

Ergo, the less time it takes one to learn something (we define "time" as "number of tries"), the more intelligent we can reasonably claim that person to be.

So.  Practicing grammar and punctuations, coupled with an awareness for syntax and clarity, can lead to a healthy method of communication.

"Can" is the most important word in this statement. As I already discussed at length, your first situation does not hold true in cases where the instructional method is poor, there is a language barrier between teacher and student, there are trust and/or relationship issues between student and instructor, learning disabilities are present, etc. Possibly, Killabee is objecting to your assertions based on the fact that I've already covered those points.

Your second statement is also problematic. Beyond issues of grammar, punctuation, syntax, and clarity, there is also the matter of voice. It is very important for a person to communicate in a way that is appropriate to the intended audience. For example, if you incorporate a lofty tone in a discussion on a casual message board, there is a good chance that your writing strategy will not lead to "healthy communication" regardless of how impeccable your grammar, etc.

This is partly why it's not such a cut and dry thing as to whether or not internet slang is appropriate on a message board. Certainly, in general, it is a good rule of thumb that people who use better language are more likely to be taken seriously. However, when your audience consists mostly of people who communicate through online short-hand or dialected language, it's important to be able to incorporate that type of rhetoric into your communication strategy. That is basic interpersonal communication, and it shouldn't be dismissed so off-handedly, which, I suppose is at the heart of what this thread has become.

You told me my points do not follow.  Then you claimed that an extensive and speedy adherence to the downright absurd rules of English grammar and spelling, which is then combined with a natural understanding and emulation of a reader's needs in order to be clear, in order to be understood and heard perfectly, could not possibly show that someone has a great aptitude for learning.  Of course, this really doesn't vouch much for the other six intelligences, but we can claim this person is at least knowledgeable as it pertains to linguistics and interpersonal relationships.

This is another good example of why great grammar doesn't necessarily lead to "healthy communication" nor is it even suggestive of a worthwhile opinion definitively. You throw around some terms that are part of a theory of intelligence developed by Howard Gardner that are meant to go over the head of the person you are addressing. The problem with that is two-fold. First, by trying to talk over someone's head, you make it clear that you are not even trying to engage in "healthy communication." Very clear there. Second, you profess to have some sort of command of Gardner's theory. However, you don't seem to understand that there is not a whole lot of empirical support for it. Maybe you do know this and are simply trying to put one past us, however, if it's true that you don't know about the lack of empirical support for Multiple Intelligence Theory, then it's a fine example of how all the great grammar in the world is pointless if the assertions you are making don't have any meat behind them.

I guess my final inquiry, then, would be this: do you deny the following statement's validity?

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 22, 2009, 09:02:55 PM

Practicing grammar and punctuations, coupled with an awareness for syntax and clarity, can lead to a healthy method of communication.

Just to reiterate, this is covered above. Killabee can concur or object as he/she sees fit.

[edit]
As a side-note, I can say I'm absolutely astonished nobody has brought up the grammatically horrid dialects used in literature as a counter to my or WoM's argument.

Basically, it's because people who use dialect in literature usually have strong command of the rules of grammar. They break the rules knowingly as a way to add depth to the character or story. So, in those cases, it's not a lack of ability that governs their use of dialect, rather an intentional use of it as a story-telling tool. As such, it falls outside of the topic of discussion.

Starbuck, I really don't appreciate you misinterpreting or misreading what I said.  Not only did you make implicit, negative judgments about my character, but you are wrong on a few accounts also.

Typically, Starbuck, short and weak posts on here are generally regarded as ridiculous.  I made such a one in here, using all-caps and vulgarity, in the belief that the voice (a concept you felt a compulsion to educate me on, and again, I vastly appreciate you telling me things I already know) of it would carry out its intentions.  Clearly, I was somewhat wrong, and I have taken in to account for the lack of a reading voice for anything posted on the fora.

Even still, I had meant to make a succinct point with it.  I see now how I might have left out important details, especially after seeing how you took my present indicative form to mean a past subjunctive in my final clause, and did not see how "syntax and clarity" meant to include the construction of "voice."  I admit, I seriously considered adding it to the list, but didn't because I assumed others would pick it out of the modifying phrase.

I honestly am glad you saw right through my trap at the end of my rebuttal to the troll KillaBee.  However, I do not agree with you that it is outside of this discussion.  Have you read Flowers for Algernon?  The other uses multiple misspellings and a limited vocabulary to show the reader his extreme mental retardation.  Then, further in the story, he again shows us how his IQ has tripled by detailing awkward discussions he has had with everyone who knew him as the retarded janitor--including, even, his contempt for one of the scientists who operated on him because the scientist did not learn a language in which other work relating to his is written!  However, we cannot use this story to say anything about the intelligence of the author.

I must say now that intelligence is more than just a simple "aptitude for learning."  There is also a certain level of awareness that goes into it.  Typically, intelligent people are more "aware" to subtleties than others.  Also, more intelligent minds can emulate the minds of others, effectively putting themselves in others' shoes.  Still, do not believe their resources are unlimited.  There are some things they simply cannot pick up on, like everybody else, since they haven't yet had the experience required to do so.  Still, they may be more inclined to do so or have a greater chance.

You seem to argue that learning can only happen when a teacher is instructing a student.  This is not true.  A student can be an erudite or an autodidact.  You discount both.  Why?

Then you misinterpret my conclusion.  I can admit, the opening gerund modifying phrase should be "Practicing grammar and types of punctuation," but you paid little mind to the most important part of the periodic sentence: the middle.  "Coupled with an awareness for syntax and clarity."  If one has proper syntax (word placement, word order, word choice, style, dialect, etc.) and is clear, then it is rather inevitable that they are to be understood.  As you can see, in my little verbial modifying phrase, I already countered the point you brought up by pay attention only to the final clause.

I am going to dismiss the claims that I am socially inept, that I attempted to talk over KillaBee's head, and that you are the local authority on my persona.  However, I am more inclined to believe in multiple categories of intelligence than just one simplistic view of it.  Furthermore, I was taught Gardner's theories as fact throughout my education, beginning in elementary school and carried on in middle and high school.  I took from that experience to mean that everyone knew (at least) of it.  Perhaps that was an improper observation.

As a final point, Starbuck, you came to the defense of a notorious and bad troll.  It was my goal to keep his antics out of the serious discussion by having his focus turned towards me.  And I already described to you my intentions in this thread in a private message, so I don't feel I need to explain why I ignored you in the first place.

Typically, Starbuck, short and weak posts on here are generally regarded as ridiculous.  I made such a one in here, using all-caps and vulgarity, in the belief that the voice (a concept you felt a compulsion to educate me on, and again, I vastly appreciate you telling me things I already know) of it would carry out its intentions.  Clearly, I was somewhat wrong, and I have taken in to account for the lack of a reading voice for anything posted on the fora.

snip...


You seem to argue that learning can only happen when a teacher is instructing a student.  This is not true.  A student can be an erudite or an autodidact.  You discount both.  Why?

snip...

  If one has proper syntax (word placement, word order, word choice, style, dialect, etc.) and is clear, then it is rather inevitable that they are to be understood.  As you can see, in my little verbial modifying phrase, I already countered the point you brought up by pay attention only to the final clause.

snip...

 However, I am more inclined to believe in multiple categories of intelligence than just one simplistic view of it.  Furthermore, I was taught Gardner's theories as fact throughout my education, beginning in elementary school and carried on in middle and high school.  I took from that experience to mean that everyone knew (at least) of it.  Perhaps that was an improper observation.



As a final point, Starbuck, you came to the defense of a notorious and bad troll.  It was my goal to keep his antics out of the serious discussion by having his focus turned towards me.  And I already described to you my intentions in this thread in a private message, so I don't feel I need to explain why I ignored you in the first place.

So much for being succinct.

The first part of your response, particularly what I have bolded, is very condescending. Being an intelligent person, you understand the consequence of speaking with condescention when engaged in debate. Instantly, you will realize that it's a problem concerning voice. This is a fairly consistent problem for you, judging not only from this thread, but from others as well.

The second part of your response: I never said that people couldn't learn without a teacher. The context of our discussion addressed learning in the classroom environment.

The third part of your response: I think you make "syntax" out to be more than it actually is. Also, is it possible that you think you are being clear, when, in fact, you are not?

Re: Gardner: I'll take what I learned as a doctoral student over what you learned in elementary school, etc., thanks.

Finally, if you want to have a pissing match with Killabee over something that started in an absurd discussion of dinosaurs, perhaps it would be best for you to keep it in that thread and not interrupt other conversations with it.

So much for being succinct.

The first part of your response, particularly what I have bolded, is very condescending. Being an intelligent person, you understand the consequence of speaking with condescension when engaged in debate. Instantly, you will realize that it's a problem concerning voice. This is a fairly consistent problem for you, judging not only from this thread, but from others as well.

The second part of your response: I never said that people couldn't learn without a teacher. The context of our discussion addressed learning in the classroom environment.

The third part of your response: I think you make "syntax" out to be more than it actually is. Also, is it possible that you think you are being clear, when, in fact, you are not?

Re: Gardner: I'll take what I learned as a doctoral student over what you learned in elementary school, etc., thanks.

Finally, if you want to have a pissing match with KillaBee over something that started in an absurd discussion of dinosaurs, perhaps it would be best for you to keep it in that thread and not interrupt other conversations with it.

Do you have reading disabilities I was previously unaware of?

Yeah. I think they're pretty insane, but they actually put up some OK arguments and dare to be different.

Not that different is necessarily a good thing.

Yeah. I think they're pretty insane, but they actually put up some OK arguments and dare to be different.

Not that different is necessarily a good thing.

Nor is it a bad thing.

Quote from: Starbuck on June 30, 2009, 03:11:02 PM

So much for being succinct.

The first part of your response, particularly what I have bolded, is very condescending. Being an intelligent person, you understand the consequence of speaking with condescension when engaged in debate. Instantly, you will realize that it's a problem concerning voice. This is a fairly consistent problem for you, judging not only from this thread, but from others as well.

The second part of your response: I never said that people couldn't learn without a teacher. The context of our discussion addressed learning in the classroom environment.

The third part of your response: I think you make "syntax" out to be more than it actually is. Also, is it possible that you think you are being clear, when, in fact, you are not?

Re: Gardner: I'll take what I learned as a doctoral student over what you learned in elementary school, etc., thanks.

Finally, if you want to have a pissing match with KillaBee over something that started in an absurd discussion of dinosaurs, perhaps it would be best for you to keep it in that thread and not interrupt other conversations with it.

Do you have reading disabilities I was previously unaware of?

yeah, it's called "DysBogia." It only presents itself in the context of your posts, apparently. And it seems that the condition is contagious.

yeah, it's called "DysBogia." It only presents itself in the context of your posts, apparently. And it seems that the condition is contagious.

Are you a troll?

i am a flat earther

This thread is the biggest failure I've ever seen.

Quote from: Starbuck on July 01, 2009, 02:33:05 PM

yeah, it's called "DysBogia." It only presents itself in the context of your posts, apparently. And it seems that the condition is contagious.

Are you a troll?

Wait, so, you told me that you enjoy yanking people's chains (especially Killabee's), then admitted that you hadn't read much of the thread, then basically said that your main purpose of coming into this discussion was to continue your personal vendetta with Killabee which started in an unrelated thread......

Yet, you're asking me if I'm the troll?

Do you have the ability to step back from something and look at it objectively?

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on July 01, 2009, 09:26:07 PM

Quote from: Starbuck on July 01, 2009, 02:33:05 PM

yeah, it's called "DysBogia." It only presents itself in the context of your posts, apparently. And it seems that the condition is contagious.

Are you a troll?

Wait, so, you told me that you enjoy yanking people's chains (especially Killabee's), then admitted that you hadn't read much of the thread, then basically said that your main purpose of coming into this discussion was to continue your personal vendetta with Killabee which started in an unrelated thread......

Yet, you're asking me if I'm the troll?

Do you have the ability to step back from something and look at it objectively?

Oh, lol.  Misinterpreter, surely, your skill is unmatched!

If I recall correctly, I said I came in here to distract well-known troll KillaBee from what appeared to be at the time a serious discussion.  Having taken some time to read the thread, I realize now that you all were agitated by the troll Waste of Mind into this silly debate.

Then, in your last post, you went on to believe that my first post was made in all seriousness, even after I had explained to you that it wasn't.

Then, in continuation, you questioned my definition of "syntax" as it pertains to writing.  Certainly, someone with a Master's degree in Creative Writing would know better!  Where did you get your Master's degree from?

Then, in response to what I said, you made a snide remark.  It would seem, Starbuck, that you're behaving like I ought to be, according to my own social construction.

Finally, if you recall, you were the first to be condescending.  If you want me to respect you, treat you civilly, then you must do the same to me.  Respect is not taken, it's given.

So, my conclusion was that you are a dead-pan, "internets is serious business" troll.  Is that not correct?

P.S. -- Old man, I do so wholesomely enjoy your continuous snide remarks.  They are like bits of candy to me, savory sweet things I look forward to whenever I see you have posted a response to mine.

Syntax has to do with grammar--the structure of a sentence and the order of words, and is technical in nature. "The big old black dog" instead of "The black old big dog."

Word choice is referred to as "diction" (hence DICTIONary), which falls under semantics, which gets more into meaning. "The Cerberus"

Style incorporates elements of syntax and semantics. So, syntax falls under style, not vice versa.

Dialect also incorparates elements of syntax, not the other way around.

So, really, syntax and semantics are building blocks of style, voice, and dialect--the higher order elements of writing.

For what it's worth, that's not something you would learn about in an MFA program. That's something you would learn, first in high school, then you would look more deeply into it in a linguistics program. Or you would cover it when learning to assess a student's academic achievement in the area of writing.

Remember: candy is done with the tip of the tongue and the teeth.

Syntax has to do with grammar--the structure of a sentence and the order of words, and is technical in nature. "The big old black dog" instead of "The black old big dog."

Word choice is referred to as "diction" (hence DICTIONary), which falls under semantics, which gets more into meaning. "The Cerberus"

Style incorporates elements of syntax and semantics. So, syntax falls under style, not vice versa.

Dialect also incorporates elements of syntax, not the other way around.

So, really, syntax and semantics are building blocks of style, voice, and dialect--the higher order elements of writing.

For what it's worth, that's not something you would learn about in an MFA program. That's something you would learn, first in high school, then you would look more deeply into it in a linguistics program. Or you would cover it when learning to assess a student's academic achievement in the area of writing.

Remember: candy is done with the tip of the tongue and the teeth.

You still did not answer as to where you studied.  Where?

And have you not heard of syntax as style?  It's making me question your authority on the matter--not that argumentum ad verecundiam is a respectable argument anyway.

Where I'm going, they say what I learned in high school is wrong.  Also, they've proven it.

Finally: Candy, for me, is done with the molars.  Crunch, crunch, crunch, the sound of bone snapping.

Thanks for the book reference, I'll check it out...But still, "syntax as style" implies that syntax is being used as an element of style, not vice versa like you previously claimed.

You know, in case you haven't figured it out, I chose the things that I want to address based on what I think is relevant, not because of any demands that you make. As is, I'm basically done with you, especially after that "I was trolling you, hardy, har-har" comment that you made on the other thread. That gives me a pretty good idea about where you are coming from, as if I really needed the confirmation.

Thanks for the book reference, I'll check it out...But still, "syntax as style" implies that syntax is being used as an element of style, not vice versa like you previously claimed.

You know, in case you haven't figured it out, I chose the things that I want to address based on what I think is relevant, not because of any demands that you make. As is, I'm basically done with you, especially after that "I was trolling you, hardy, har-har" comment that you made on the other thread. That gives me a pretty good idea about where you are coming from, as if I really needed the confirmation.

Yes.  Everyone can see how you pick the battles you think you know you can win.  Hello troll.  How are you?  Do you not address my other points (or leave out rather relevant information) simply so you can win?  That's cheating.  You ought to play fair.

Fair is fair.  So it goes.

On a far more serious note, I'm deeply saddened to see you quit so early, especially in a real discussion.  I was hoping to work you into a corner about writing, which you seem to have a rather cut-and-dry, simplistic view of, arguing this way and that about things that are essentially the same--But now I won't get to!  'Tis a tragedy, indeed.

I came out to watch you play.
Why are you running away?

But, anyway, just look at your abusive nature with commas!  I let the first few go, since I know people make errors (I actually had to correct an apostrophe that had supplanted itself in a possessive pronoun incorrectly), but there have been some nasty bumps in some of your sentences, my friend...far too many for them all to be coincidental.

I see you picked up on my reference to Artful Sentences: Syntax as Style.  The version I had (until some bastard who borrowed it lost it!) is written by Virgina Tufte.  It comes highly recommended by the most of the staff and students in the University of Iowa Writing Center.

You know, for someone who is supposed to be as wizened and experienced as you, you sure do complain a lot.  I want you to know, past all the hominem tennis and whatnot, I still do actually like and appreciate you.  This is the Internet.  You should try not to take things so personally.