more american genius

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by skeeve

Now, while people might tell that knowing this is unimportant let me remind you that we all live in the society that claim to be democratic. One thing that follows from here is that people vote. Now for the last 5 years for example the question about state funding of stem cell research has been put on vote in several states here. Tell me please, can these people vote without understanding what is \"stem\", what is \"cell\", and frankly, what is \"research\"? The answer is, unfortunately, they can and they do and the rest of us have to deal with the consequences. The list of political decisions or conflicts that rise from this problem is very long and probably deserved a book or two.
Again to make it \"balanced\" heated discussion on genetically modified food on the other side of Atlantic... remember this question about tomatoes and genes? Statistically half of the population (that\'s optimistically) participates in discussion without clear understanding what they are discussing.

Well, Skeeve, it goes like this. In a Democracy whether you are informed or not you still pay taxes.
Now those taxes belong to the people, who are allowed to vote on what they wish to spend it on.
Now, people generally like to spend their money on tangible things, roads, drainage, etc. People generally do not like spending money on hopes, and could be\'s. Just like every other consumer they expect results from their hard earned money.
As a scientist who works on State funding myself, the onus is upon me to put information of my facility out there and explain to people what we do. We must show our results. It is our responsibility to give the people tangibles. We don\'t expect people to just give us money for nothing.
You\'d be surprised how much of scientific funding is political in nature, and how often the hyperbolic claims get the grants. If you truly want to see if a science is getting real results, see if any private companies are backing them. If not they\'re probably showing no promise.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

If you crashed onto an abandoned island, who would you prefer to have with you?
A.) A Soldier trained in survival
B.) A Construction Worker
C.) A Gynecologist

C. even though im a man, id take the gynecologest. why? i can fight, and im a capeable outdoorsmen (who am i going to be killing on a deserted island?), i dont need a construction worker, i can build a shelter sturdy enough to keep me alive. what i cant do, however, is stitch my own wounds up, set bones, perfom cpr on me if i fall unconsious or whatever. gynecologests might specialize in the er... goodie bits, but they are still doctors, who are qualified to treat a surprizingly wide variety of medical problems.

people keep bashing the molecule and laser question, because they are \"tough\" but im positive that they were going for some very basic answers (aka \"a beam of light\" or \"a structure made of atoms\") not scientific descriptions. these questions are, by that standard, very easy, esp when you consider that they are relatively mainstream ideas (how many movies portray lasers and molecules? a lot, seemingly every action movie ever made). i would argue that those questions are not from ant specific field, and do constitute, practical, general knowledge (laser in the eye anyone?). my previous statement was not to imply that americans are not idiots, but that people from all countries are idiots, no exceptions.

 

[lono]

And when the evenings got boring, I\'m thinking the gynecologist would have more interesting work related stories to tell around the campfire than the other two! lol

 

[Shawn R. L.]

Originally posted by funnymouth
my previous statement was not to imply that americans are not idiots, but that people from all countries are idiots, no exceptions.

The whole thing I find curious about this thread and others like it are that having your head crammed full of \'stuff\' dosent really mean that much. The guy says - \"name a country that begins with the letter U.\" SO WHAT! A lot of the questions, while mildly interesting, have NOTHING to do with my life. Knowing how many swallows it takes to carry a coconut is absolutely, completely irrelevant to my life (No, he didnt ask that one).

With he internet we have an almost unlimited volume of information at our fingertips yet here in the States the divorce rate is 50%, suicide is one of the highest killers of teens, substance abuse is RAMPANT - Having the knowlege to deal with those would show TRUE intelligence.

 

[funnymouth]

well, what kind of swallow is it? lol

you make a valid point shawn. hell, when you really get down to it, the most important skill anyone has is the ability to get in to someone elses pants.

 

[lono]

Originally posted by funnymouth
hell, when you really get down to it, the most important skill anyone has is the ability to get in to someone elses pants.

You really do admire those gynecologists don\'t you Funnymouth? lol

 

[Gilvan Blight]

Actually I would think being able to provide oneself with sustanence first. As Air and water are pretty abundant.

Next would come shelter and last clothing (though I\'m still not totally sure why clothing is listed as a basic need, especially if you already have shelter).

Getting into someone\'s pants isn\'t a need for an individual but rather for the race as a whole.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
Getting into someone\'s pants isn\'t a need for an individual but rather for the race as a whole.

so you have kids for the good of the race? ha! i dont believe it for a second.

reproduction is just as important as any of the so called \"necessities.\"


my opinion is biased, of corse, as a darwinist, and i suppose faith in god could substitute.

 

[Gilvan Blight]

Not really saying that either. Just noting it\'s not a basic need.

Edit: as in you won\'t die if you don\'t breed.

Now if no one breeds then the race could die.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
Not really saying that either. Just noting it\'s not a basic need.

Edit: as in you won\'t die if you don\'t breed.

Now if no one breeds then the race woulddie.

if it werent for the passions of your parents you wouldnt be alive to need bread.
(reproduction includes your own, it is, after all, the first thing you do)
its \"the chicken or the egg.\" reproduction cannot be untangled from the needs, and therefore is one.

i dont really dispute your arguement. im just a jerk.

 

[Gilvan Blight]

Now you are getting into the realm of: if you don\'t shit you don\'t live.

Or in more technically terms one of the conditions of something being living is that it produces waste.

You stating that the first things you do is breed, really isn\'t totaly true. What brought you into existance was breeding, but the first thing you actualy do is Grow. Being the most basic requirement of life.

So what you are saying is that one of the basic needs is: living.
As upposed to talking about what the basic needs are to live.

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by funnymouth
I dont really dispute your arguement. im just a jerk.

And by the look of your statement a very honest one, sir!

Reading Evil Dave\'s hypothetical scenario made me smile with it\'s simplistic skills levelling.
Survival and Construction in a desert island would surely rely more heavily on Human Ingenuity and Problem Solving rather than profession, after all a construction worker isn\'t going to find a pneumatic drill or concrete mixer washed up on the shore. So a Gynecologist with problem solving skills might be equally effective in finding an effective solution to problems such as food and shelter.
Besides as the trainer told us when doing my \"woodland skills / survival camping course\" mental attitude is the most important key to survival.

Man this threads come a long way from the original \"Dumb Americans\" precept, besides which I think the people interviewed are more representative of the human race in general rather than a single country. (Wouldn\'t mind seeing them doing that series of questions in Bolton on a Saturday afternoon).

 

[frenchkid]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
If you truly want to see if a science is getting real results, see if any private companies are backing them. If not they\'re probably showing no promise.

So as a scientist you define progresse as real world application of scientifique discoveries ? What do you think of the publish or perish mouvement that whent on a while ago amongst world scientist ? And do you think that when you publish you are actually giving the masses a mean to understand your reasearch or giving them a non formalised simplified and thus non scientifique idea of what is your research ?

Sorry for so many question, but I don\'t get to cross many scientist and science is my year\'s subject in Philosophie.

As for the island scenario I\'d have to agree with DR. It seems to me people are mixing him up survival, knowledge, and inteligence. Survival is somthing all animals do, dosn\'t make them inteligente; Knowledge is information you collect to use your intelligence and that requires intelligence to be collected; inteligence its self would be the abilty to processe data and use your reason to produce a train of though. In platon\'s menon what the young slave does is a display of inteligence without having any prior necessary knowledge.


For me not knowing where iran is, or any other of those trivia facts is not a sign of uninteligence by itself. Not having come acrosse a fact can hardly be considered somthing dumb. But it is a sign of uninteligence in the sens that it shows the people do nothing to participate and integrate in the society they live in. They look out for number one and don\'t gie a rat\'s ass that their\'s a whole humanity out there, that\'s stupid in my opinion.


@Mosch: Like I said, scratch Bruno. I had included him because of the earth roatation question but guess he\'s not part of General culture in other parts of the world. I do find it a bit wierd that he\'s less well known then Galileo or kepler but guess that just means the church did a good job burying him up.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by frenchkid
So as a scientist you define progresse as real world application of scientifique discoveries?

I don\'t, however, I am realistic enough to realize that people who are paying you expect usable results. Companies back those who are showing results that may benefit them in the long run.
Hence, if it does not benefit the people in a tangible way, I do not expect the people to fund it. While the mating habits of the dung beetle, or where belly button lint comes from may be fascinating, I don\'t think the taxpayer really sees the need to finance those studies.

What do you think of the publish or perish mouvement that whent on a while ago amongst world scientist?

I totally agree with it. If you are using your own or private funds you are free to do as you wish. However, when you are using Federal or State money, you should be able to account for your work.

And do you think that when you publish you are actually giving the masses a mean to understand your reasearch or giving them a non formalised simplified and thus non scientifique idea of what is your research?

Our official publications are aimed at the scientific community, however, we often do a little PR and give layman\'s terms releases to the press and college campus. We also report on a yearly basis to our State Legislature giving them a layman\'s terms rundown of what we are doing.
My facility is a little different than most, the state pays for the staff and facility itself, other scientists who use our facility must get their own grants to pay for their needs. All in all we keep the cost of running our facility under $5 million. Which is a drop in the ocean compared to the grants I\'ve seen come through here.

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by frenchkid

Originally posted by Evil Dave
If you truly want to see if a science is getting real results, see if any private companies are backing them. If not they\'re probably showing no promise.

So as a scientist you define progresse as real world application of scientifique discoveries ? What do you think of the publish or perish mouvement that whent on a while ago amongst world scientist ?

hate to burst your bubble, but its always been like that. its a meritcocracy. grant money comes from many sources, based on project proposals and reputation.

@evil D,

While the mating habits of the dung beetle, or where belly button lint comes from may be fascinating, I don\'t think the taxpayer really sees the need to finance those studies.

dont be so quck to do things like that. chromosomes were discovered by a guy staining salamander eggs. rachel carson the author of silent spring (and winner of the presidential medal of freedom) studied catfish larvae. what do you think the publics perception of watson, crick and franlins reseach was before they discovered DNA? dung beetle maiting habits might be important. it could lead to the next great revolution in gynaecology

lol

 

[funnymouth]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
So what you are saying is that one of the basic needs is: living.
As upposed to talking about what the basic needs are to live.

ah, and here\'s the rub of our dispute.
life is defined by its necessities.
life

 

[Einion]

Might as well use my 1,000th post for something worthwhile...

Originally posted by funnymouth
...as has been pointed out in numerous similar threads, i dont think it is actually representative of the average american.

Sadly, it seems it is.

Originally posted by lono
Is it bad that, despite her not being overly attractive and also wearing what looks to be a tie died t-shirt, I find the blonde girl (who can\'t think of a country beginning with U) much more appealing because of her dumbness? lol

Yes, it\'s officially bad. But she is kinda cute

That question about a country beginning with U is an interesting trap though: most of those asked, I\'d bet, would automatically think of their country as being America, not the United States. Now me, I instantly thought of Uruguay, and anyone with the least knowledge of world geography should have been able to think of that or Uganda.

Originally posted by frenchkid
Well, having tested the american school sytestem I\'d have to say they teach quit a lot.

Yeah, but how well? The breadth of the subject-matter is only part of it, the depth to which each one is covered is also important and the standard to which they\'re held is another (and many of us know that standards have dropped significantly over the last few decades).

Originally posted by frenchkid
... Giordano Bruno...

Who invented the telephone, the light bulb, the concept of mass production, the aeroplane, the Guillotine? (These are all trick questions). Who was the first to lift off in a balloon? Do you know who Leeuwenhoek is? Bréguet? Lots and lots of historical figures have fallen by the wayside.

Originally posted by skeeve
...only 20 % could explain what laser is; 13 % could define \"molecule\"

I can, and all the rest

But in all honesty I wouldn\'t expect most adults to know all this, regardless of where they\'re from. I would have in the past, but I\'ve since learned what a realistic expectation of knowledge levels is.

Originally posted by Evil Dave
However, the problem here is that we are judging others intelligence by the ability to regurgitate facts that most of them have not even looked at since high school.

But some of this should be considered to be a normal - a reasonably expected - level of knowledge. Currency in Britain?

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Question them in their chosen field and I\'d bet we\'d see more intelligent answers.

As a rule, I wouldn\'t put money on that myself! I have met countless numbers of people in my field who are quite frankly a bit thick.

Originally posted by Evil Dave
(Just as I\'m sure many of us that have been out of college for some time would have trouble with trigonometry or calculus problems. Just because you needed it once, does not mean you retain it in the real world.)

Fair enough but come on now, this isn\'t trig or algebra.

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Ignorance of a subject does not automatically mean someone is unintelligent.

Excellent point. Ignorance is not synonymous with intelligence.

Originally posted by Evil Dave
Knowledge does not automatically make someone intelligent.

Also dead on. Lots of \'paper geniuses\' with IQs in the upper reaches wouldn\'t come across as such if you talk to them - just look at the broad range of people who qualify for Mensa membership.

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
I\'m pretty sure the main thing is that most people don\'t care about things that aren\'t immediate in their life...

I think that\'s very true.

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
There\'s enough stuff I learned over the years I would be hard pressed to remember at a moments notice, especially with a mic in my face.

Yep, and I\'m sure a lot of people just went blank because of it, a kind of stage fright. I would have had that problem when I was younger, no question.

Originally posted by GreenOne
...but I don\'t know anobody that is so stupid in my own life...

Same here; and I think that\'s really a good point. Although I do know of some people this ignorant that I haven\'t met.

Originally posted by GreenOne
Intelligence is by definition the ability to learn matters and being able to recall it when needed, even if it\'s been a long time. Being able to remember the stuff they fed you at school is a proof that you keep your brain in good shape and is a proof of intelligence.

No it\'s not.

Intelligence is independant of knowledge, that\'s one of the key things about well-constructed IQ tests - they DON\'T rely on prior knowledge. Even Mensa tests sometimes fall into this trap, but what an IQ test should test for is reasoning ability, problem-solving skills, the ability to extrapolate.

Now some knowledge is a given - you have to have a reasonable language ability to be able to understand the wording of the questions, you\'re assumed to have numeracy - but that\'s very different to expecting someone to be able to answer \"how do you find the length of the long side of a right-angled triangle if you know the lengths of the other two sides?\" If the formula were provided then it is a test of intelligence to ask someone to manipulate the equation - e.g. how do you find out the length of the third side if you\'re given the square of the hypotenuse and the length of the second side?

Originally posted by GreenOne
It\'s easy to disagree on all the mental capacity terms, there is different definitions for dumb, idiot, stupid, intelligence, wisdom... I don\'t remember them all.

Yes, knowing what each of those actually should mean can be important (so you don\'t come across as being the very thing you\'re describing!) but they are different from ignorant. But while we\'re on the subject anyway, let\'s make sure we mention cretin, moron and imbecile.

Originally posted by dauber22
You\'re telling me that, by your definition, because I can\'t recall off the top of my head the proofs for the Pythagorean theorem, just because I haven\'t needed it since back in 9th grade some 30+ years ago, that I\'m unintelligent???

Idiot lol

Originally posted by Dragonsreach
(Wouldn\'t mind seeing them doing that series of questions in Bolton on a Saturday afternoon).

Can you imagine what it would be like in any average city centre in the UK on a Friday night? *shudder*

Einion

 

[supervike]

It\'s funny that the person who started this thread, to pick on dumb Americans, can\'t even spell the title of the thread right.


It\'s Jenius...not genius. Genius is some sort of English Beer.

Duh.

:duh::duh:

See, I have in fact proved that we is smart!

 

[Modderrhu]

Exactly, vike, you\'re spot on there. That mis-spelling reminds me of an interesting fact: the word \"gullible\" isn\'t in American dictionaries. Anyone know why? ???

 

[supervike]

I don\'t know what you are on about Mod....I just went to the Library and checked all the Dictionaries they had in stock (46 of them) and I found the word 18 times.