Re: Who likes Bush ?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:03:51 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>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.

But you missed the commonality amongst them all.  The ability to do
so.

>>>> 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.

And your opinion worth exactly what I paid for it to me.

>>>>  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.

Know I said the ability to learn.

>Problem is it's too self-limiting.

Yes your definition of intelligence is.

>>>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.

Well I post therfore I am.  You missed the theme that runs along all
learning and that is the ability to do so.

It is like spam [junk email/usenet posts].

People fight over defining just what spam is and lose track of what
they are fighting for.  Some say spam is UCE while others say it is
UBE.  Both camps miss the common thread between both definitions and
the term both use is "Unsolicited".

Now if you consider the issue you can see why this is the primary
charactoristic that defines spam and it should be the only
consideration for governing spam.

My reasoning is simplistic for this.  If all marketers abided b your
consent or lack of it you would not get what you did not ask for.
This renders all other considerations from the resipient's standpoint
moot.

It is pretty much the same linear thought that says ability to learn
is pretty much the defining charactoristic of intelligence.  If you
define intelligence by learning things [whatever those things might
be]  the ability to do so should IMHO be the defining point.

>>  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.

The two "sorts of Intelligence" you refer to share the one attribute
and that is the ability to do so.

>>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.

I have the ability to solve problems.  You may not believe this but it
is true.  I can usually see a solution to an issue if I give it some
thought.

Take spamming something as you can probably guess I have given a reat
deal of thought.

If you allow private right of action under federal law then the
spammers would be tracked down by enough people that they would be run
out of business.

I was there when Burns presented his spam act to the FTC.  I was on
the first panel and presented him with a formula that outlined what
would happen if spam was ever made legal.

He is a "Marketer" as he put it would fight anytrhing that infringed
on the marketer's ability to [my paraphrase here] stalk and force the
attention of the unwilling on their product or service.

My words but fairly accurate.

>>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.

It is actually about learning what words mean and using them in the
proper context to convey the proper meaning or the meaning you
intended.  This is not simply a matter of vocabulary this is also the
ability to read somebody and present your points in a fa****on the
ellicits the reaction or response you wanted from said individual or
group.

>>  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!

Think, know....

>>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.

It depends on if they understand what they have learned and apply what
they have learned.

It is kind of stupid to have the knowledge but not apply it.

>> Lerning by wrote or repitition means very little.
>
>It is, however, what gives you a big vocabulary.

I would again have to disagree.  Vocabulary is governed by habitat and
environment though not exclusively.  You can expand your vocabulary by
reading and listening.

A common mistake I see is the misuse of vocabulary as in talking over
another's head.  This does not mean they have a small vocabulary but
if you reference something another is unfamiliar with you do yourself
and the other a disservice as they are not able to see your complete
meaning.

>>  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.

I would again have to disagree.  Experience is also another factor in
learning.  We all bring our own personal experiences to everything we
do and this includes interpretation of fact or a situation.

Anyhow I have to get back to work on my book.


-- 
Mark Ferguson
outing them ole spammers
http://www.whew.com/spammers/Outed/