Re: Who likes Bush ?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:50:25 -0800, Mark Ferguson
<wa****ngton_resident@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:18:42 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:05:24 -0800, Mark Ferguson
>><wa****ngton_resident@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:00:07 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>There are many studies that discuss Intelligence of several forms.
>>>>And in fact, most individuals have varying degrees of Intelligence,
>>>>which is part of the reason why there are individual differences in
>>>>capabilities.
>>>
>>>Well personally I define intelligence as the ability to learn
>>
>>But learn what?
>
>Why does the ability to learn have to be specific?

Because different folks have different abilities to learn different
things.

>>> and conversely stupidity as the inability to learn.
>>
>>Again, learn what?
>
>You mean unable to learn.  Pretty self explanitory IMHO.

Your opinion has reason to be humble.  It's Wrong.

>>>  This removes all
>>>other considerations as to environment, education, etc....
>>
>>Save for what it is that a person is intelligent about -- which is a
>>variable you are not considering.
>
>That is your defining charactoristic of intelligence and not mine.

Oh, that I do understand.  You prefer what is known as the
Definitional Delimitation.  Define Intelligence as Verbal Fluency, and
if you find it, that person is, and if you don't, that person isn't.

Problem is it's too self-limiting.

>>Verbal ability is one and Only one indicator of Intelligence.  There
>>are others.  And not all those with high verbal intelligence are
>>capable of equal skill with others.
>
>Thse would be your preconceptions and not mine.

Yours are incorrect.

>  The ability to learn
>can be applied to anything and should not be exclusively something
>that one person considers of value.

Good.  Then you will likewise comprehend that if one person shows a
capacity to learn verbal skills but not mechanical, and another
mechanical but not verbal, we are dealing with two separate sorts of
Intelligence.

>My spelling sucks, my puncuations sucks yet I can write programming.

Damning with faint praise.  You show an Intelligence for programming,
but not for written verbal skills.

>Not raw code but low level code for the net in various languages.

But your intelligence is limited to only One form of your ability.
Works for me.

>Because my spelling sucks does not mean my vocabulary sucks.

Vocabulary is about memorization -- not intelligence.

>  I may
>not know how to spell what I am saying when I am speaking but I damn
>sure know what I am saying.

That's what You think!

>The ability to learn is what I base intelligence on and not what
>somebody has learned. 

What somebody has learned is not a bad indicator at all, since that is
available for testing.  It presumes that since they actually Did learn
it, they had the ability to do so.

> Lerning by wrote or repitition means very little.

It is, however, what gives you a big vocabulary.

>  It also comes down use of knowledge I guess.

Appropriate application is another form of Intelligence as well.  Lots
of folks have large vocabularies, or access to an on-line thesaurus.
But if their diction is inappropriate, one must reasonably question
what sorts of Intelligence they possess.