The problem I see is that some use “stupid” when the term “ignorant” is more applicable. Stupid sounds like a mental deficiency that is genetic.
It is possible that a college graduate and a high school dropout both started out with the same potential for intelligence, but one learned to use his mind and the other didn’t.
Parents have an effect on how their children perceive school. I took school seriously because my parents did. I had a friend who could astound me with her intelligence, but her family didn’t put the same emphasis on school so neither did she and she barely squeeked through.
Human history is full of people who rose above poverty because their parents stressed knowledge.
Ignorance people can have ignorant children, but it’s not genetic.
Now, I want it stated plainly that I never mentioned race or ethnicity, and very firmly believe that they are completely irrelevant to intelligence.
That is, there may very well be more stupid whites, blacks, or martians, but I do not in any way accept that it’s because they are white or black or martian.
[rant] Let’s see, we are back to the idea that if you make $60,000 a year then you are a much more worthy human being than if you make $30,00 a year. If your company goes broke and you suddenly find yourself below the poverty line then has your intelligence taken a similar drop. One of the indicators you are probably using for a lack of intelligence among poor people is a lack of educational attainment. Well, it’s awfully hard to go to university if your parents are poor. I know, if you work hard you can make a success of your life. Bullshit, it doesn’t always work out that way. Most of the people who put forth that argument have, to quote Molly Ivins, "been born on third base and thought they hit a triple. It’s true that a number of poor people are unintelligent, it’s also true that a similar number of people are rich and unintelligent. Just because your parents are rich does not automatically mean that you are above average. Besides if you focus on education funding and you decide that it is true that increasing funding does not increase performance then why don’t we throw all of the underachievers into one big classroom and let Darwinianism decide who the winner is. [/rant]
Why indeed? It’s quality, not quantity that counts in education. You can never safely judge a school based on how much they charge in tuition. If that was the case, then if I’d was a school administrator, I’d just jack up the tuition.
I’m not dismissing the idea that the amount of money doesn’t matter. After all, spending more money to hire more teacher so the class sizes can be smaller is a good idea. Whereas spending more money on the higher price text books doesn’t guarantee that the information within will be somehow superior.
True. And there may be some exceptions. But, you will see a general correlation between the amount of money a school has per student and the quality of education.
Karma, I am neither a troll nor am I stupid. How in the hell did you interpret the statement to mean specifically what you believe. The guy is in fact saying that if you are rich you are smart and if you are poor there is no need to waste too much money trying to educate yourself.
Try directing your ire at the point I was making and not at me personally.
Unless you are a bigger ass than I originally thought.
I totally agree there is a correlation. I just get bothered when I see someone say, “we spend more, therefore it’s better”. Those are the people that vote for politicians who promise more funding for education, but don’t have coherent plans on to use the additional funds effectively.
Well, that’s just the point. There is no correlation between test scores and the amount of money dumped into public schools. Unless, as has happened a couple times, the money is spent specifically to raise test scores. But pouring money into public schools has not been shown to raise test scores (or knowledge, or intelligence, FTM).
And one more caveat (I’m disclaiming all over the place today). I am in no way affiliated with KarmaComa, and would respectfully request that he not be a jerk. Gee, making fun of typos, that’s real cool. :rolleyes:
Reasoning and understanding in the Pit? What’s going on here?
Of course spending money without any idea of what works and what doesn’t is foolish. So is believing if you spend a fortune on your education you will be smart.
What some of the more conservative posters are trying to say (and I’m sure they’ll correct me if I’m wrong) is that poor people are stupid and spending money on educating them is a waste. Look at the test scores! They are all stupid!
And that is the idea I’m ranting against. If you don’t spend money on the poor then they sure as hell will have no chance to better themselves. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the (usually) rich- white-class males will read an article on it yawn and turn the page while muttering about their money being wasted. I’m sorry there is more to life then increasing the size of your bank account.
Keith
What I’m am disputing is the cause and effect. Stupid people are poor. This does not mean stupidity causes poverty or poverty causes stupidity. Get it?
Now, malnutrition, bad education and under motivation those can cause stupidity.
The cause of poverty is lack of money.
MUST…SAY…IT…
Good girl Big Girl.
sorry.
I agree with the first part of your argument. But, does malnutrition et all really cause stupidity, or are peope just unmotivated? Can these “stupid” people become “smart”.
Saying that the average poor person is dumber than the average rich person is not the same as saying everyone who is poor is stupid.
Come on people, is this really such a contentious issue? Obviously intelligent people will tend on average to do better econmically. Obviously someone who’s a drooling vegetable will tend on average to do worse economically.
If you are stupid than you are more less likely to succeed. I agree with this statement.
If you do not succeed then it is likely you are stupid. I do not agree with this statement.
If you are poor you are more likely to be stupid. I do not agree with this statement.
If you are poor you are less likely to be stupid. I do not agree with this statement.
There are a whole host of reasons why a person is rich or poor. Blaming someone’s poverty on their intelligence is just a rich person’s way of inflating their own worth and rationalizing their self-importance.
Again with the cause and effect, biggirl! Sure, there are lots of reasons for stupidity (and I’d like to emphasize that I’m not talking about simple ignorance or lack of education, I’m talking about the inability to learn). And there are many reasons for people being poor. Sorry, "they don’t have money’ is just silly. Why don’t they have money?
Could just anyone be a nuclear physicist? A neuropsychologist? Hell, a computer programmer? No, no, and no. Do jobs that require no critical thinking or problem-solving skills pay well? Generally, no. (That’s excepting the entertainment and sports industries, though I’d argue that many media figures are successful in part because of their intelligence.)
So, job that requires intelligence = high-paying.
Job that doesn’t = low paying.
Stupid people make less money.
Again, obviously there are exceptions. But they remain exceptions and do not negate the basic argument.
Of course, Eysenck (in that third link) has been saying since the 60s that intelligence is inherited . A little background on him:
Hans J. Eysenck (1916-1997)
Born in Berlin, Hans Eysenck came to Britain in the early 1930’s
Went to secondary school and university in London
Professor of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Maudsley Hospital, London
probably the most influential British psychologist of our time - though there are many more recent who would like to inherit the title! over 40 “popular” books especially on personality and intelligence
I don’t (yet) have a hot button on this guy, but I’m developing a really bad feeling about him. Jensen (one of Phaedrus*'s favorite authorities) has made a number of rather startling claims about IQ that, if true, should radically alter the way we look at IQ scores, race, and society. Unfortunately, he feels that he has resolved all the issues regarding the “reality” of IQ tests, while I think that he has simply found some interesting numbers.
(The Phaedrus link is a cheap shot that has no bearing on Jensen’s credentials, but it was a shot I simply could not refrain from taking.)
Two areas in Jensen’s work that I find interesting are his association of intelligence with response time and his association of IQ with race.
He insists on a direct correlation between IQ and reflex/response time, but I have not yet discovered what he defines as response time. (My local library doesn’t have his books and I’m not about to support him by buying them.)
He also claims a direct correlation between the “amount” of “white” blood in black people and their IQ’s. For this latter statement, I have found two problems: he does not indicate how he arrived at a knowledge of how much “white” blood is found in any black individual and his broader statements supporting his correlation can be easily defeated with many other sociological interpretations.
I find his former assertion rather amusing because I am generally attributed with “better than average” intelligence and my physical response times would embarrass a half-frozen 80-year-old in an opiate-induced stupor. (Both traits run in my family.)