Billy Bates
Rodney
myself today, I came across this most charmingly illiterate letter,
written in 1880, from Billy Bates to the Todmorden Cricket Club:
**************
Lascelles Hall Hall
April 28/1880
Sir
I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
Nameley
June [he crosses out July] 19 and 26
July = 10
Augst = 28
Yours Truly
W Bates
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
My Blog: http://crickets-rich-tapestry.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John Hall
Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
>like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
--
John Hall
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Andy Guthrie
> In article <467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
>
> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
Outstanding, Hall-mes ;-)
Rodney
> In article <467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
>
> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
Yeah. It seems likely -- although, in that case, what he's ended up
writing is "fowling".
max.it
Rodney
"Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
John Hall
Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>max.it wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:50:27 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>> In article <467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
>>>>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
>>>> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
>>> Yeah. It seems likely -- although, in that case, what he's ended up
>>>writing is "fowling".
>>>
>
>"Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
semi-literate.
Rodney
> In article <467c2eb1$0$10762$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>> max.it wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:50:27 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>>> In article <467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
>>>>>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
>>>>> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
>>>> Yeah. It seems likely -- although, in that case, what he's ended up
>>>> writing is "fowling".
>>>>
>>> Like rember for remember.
>> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
>
> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
> semi-literate.
It would be interesting to look into that. I'll do some digging.
max.it
wrote:
>max.it wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:50:27 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>> In article <467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
>>>>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
>>>> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
>>> Yeah. It seems likely -- although, in that case, what he's ended up
>>> writing is "fowling".
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rodney Ulyate
>>> My Blog: http://crickets-rich-tapestry.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>>
>>
>> Like rember for remember.
>
>"Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
Rodney, you are the guy with the research, I'm only the guy with the
idea about the writing blooper.
max.it
wrote:
>John Hall wrote:
>> In article <467c2eb1$0$10762$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> max.it wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:50:27 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>>>> In article <467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
>>>>>>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
>>>>>> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
>>>>> Yeah. It seems likely -- although, in that case, what he's ended up
>>>>> writing is "fowling".
>>>>>
>>>> Like rember for remember.
>>> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
>>
>> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
>> semi-literate.
>
>It would be interesting to look into that. I'll do some digging.
One of my kids is dyslexic
(called a specific learning difficulty these days).
Imagine writing words, and you had to guess which vowel to use. All
the vowels sound the same and local accents only harden the task.
will_s
"Rodney" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com...
Robert Henderson
max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes
>>> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
>>> semi-literate.
>>
>>It would be interesting to look into that. I'll do some digging.
>
>
>One of my kids is dyslexic
>(called a specific learning difficulty these days). Imagine writing words,
>and you had to guess which vowel to use. All the vowels sound the same
>and local accents only harden the task.
>
>max.it
A fantasy condition Max. The dyslexia bubble can be pricked simply by
pointing out that there are schools in poor areas which achieve 100%
literacy -see below. . Children will obviously differ in their ability
and willingness to learn, but only the severely mentally handicapped
should prove incapable of learning to read.
Another question you might like to ask yourself is have you ever met
someone from a comfortable home who was functionally illiterate unless
they suffered from some severe mental disability such as Downs'
syndrome. I haven't. RH
Last Updated: Friday, 17 March 2006, 18:47 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
How phonics became easy as a-b-c
By Angela Harrison
BBC News website education reporter
"It has been a roller coaster" says Dr Watson
A report on how young children in England should be taught to read is
expected to endorse a phonics-based approach. As the final touches are
put to the government-sponsored Rose review, the women behind a major
phonics project talked about their approach - and its movement into the
modern electronic world. When Professor Rhona Johnston and Dr
Joyce Watson set out to help boost the literacy skills of children
starting school in Clackmannanshire, they had little idea that what they
were doing would become the foundation of future government policies.
The Scottish Executive decided to spread the word last summer and now
England is following suit. Many children in the study
were from quite deprived areas, but the system seems to make a level
playing field
Rhona Johnston
Jim Rose's interim review into early reading came out in favour of using
synthetic phonics "fast and first". His final report is expected next
week. Current guidance is that phonics should be used alongside other
methods. In short, synthetic phonics means children learn the sounds of
letters and of combinations of letters and use them to decode words. A
seven-year study based on schools in Clackmannanshire, carried out by
Professor Johnston and Dr Watson, concluded that use of synthetic
phonics helped children to learn to read and spell faster than those not
on the programme. What is more, the effects of the programme were
maintained throughout a child's time in primary school. Boys'
achievements In the first phase, in 1997, children in their first year
of schooling (Primary 1) who had been taught for 16 weeks using an
experimental system of synthetic phonics were seven months ahead of
their peers in reading and nine months ahead in spelling. The study
authors
realised they were onto something. "It is a method which is not in
general use in the UK and I think we might raise the whole level of
reading standards in the country," Prof Johnston told BBC News seven
years ago. Soon, more children were added to the programme until there
were 300 of them, who were all followed to the end of their primary
schooling. The researchers reported that by then, children taught to
read by synthetic phonics were:
3.5 years ahead of what was expected for their age in reading words
1.75 years ahead of that expected for their age in spelling
3.5 months ahead of that expected for their age in comprehension
They also said the programme helped to level the playing field for
learning to read between children from poor and better-off backgrounds
and between boys and girls. We had every expectation
that boys would fall behind so we were very surprised that boys had
pulled above girls
Prof Johnston
Professor Johnston said: "Many children in the study were from quite
deprived areas, but the system seems to make a level playing field so
that whatever children have not picked up at home is counteracted." She
believes this is because the system focuses on intensively teaching the
sounds of all the letters and blends of letters, so children quickly
learn all the building blocks needed to read. Therefore pupils who
arrive at school not knowing their letters are not at a disadvantage for
long. Something about the system also appeals to boys, the authors
say, because their results buck the national trend of boys lagging
behind girls in literacy. Professor Johnston said: "We had every
expectation that boys would fall behind so we were very surprised that
boys had pulled above girls. "At the end of the study boys were four
years ahead, while girls were three years ahead." The
publishers adapted the programme for whiteboards
This, the authors put down to the use of a clear system and the use of
physical movement in the learning programme. Children use magnetic
letters when learning the sounds and blends and putting them into words.
Dr Watson said she had to double check the figures on boys' and girls'
achievement because she could not believe them at first. As the
experiment progressed, funded by Clackmannanshire Council and the
Scottish Executive, Dr Watson and Professor Johnston worked on improving
the programme they were asking teachers to follow. Teachers fed their
experiences back to the pair, who adapted the programme as they went
along. Once the early results were out, they were asked to prepare and
pilot a guide for other teachers who wanted to follow the programme and
this became known as Fast Phonics First. The authors self-published
the material. The guides were stacked in Dr Watson's garage and she used
to send them out from her local post office. Interactive As
interest in the study grew, educational publishers Heinemann got in
touch and agreed a deal which would bring their guide to a wider
audience. It now distributes the learning scheme and is about to
launch an interactive version designed to run on school whiteboards.
Mary Hamley, from Heinemann's parent company, Harcourt, has been helping
to design this program. She says it is faithful to the written
version, but with added whiteboard thrills, so children can not only
hear the letter sounds as they see them highlighted, but can also drag
them around to make words. Dr Watson says the journey from a
small-scale study, to a large one, to the present day, has been
breathtaking. A one-time primary school teacher, she retired as a
lecturer in the Northern College of Education, Dundee, in 1994. By
that time she had already started on a self-funded PhD at St Andrew's
University into different teaching methods and their effects on
children's reading and spelling. "The
Clackmannanshire study was ground-breaking and it's been a whirlwind,"
she said. "All credit to the teachers who walked behind us and 'jumped
off the cliff'."
Monday, 17 July, 2006
By Emily Maitlis
Presenter, BBC Newsnight
Presented by Emily Maitlis Rule Britania And we revisit the
Britannia School in Newham - a place we've monitored for over a year -
where the results of synthetic phonics have proved amm mmaz iiing. Since
the school introduced the reading system, it has propelled itself from
the very bottom of the local league table to the top. Seven and eight
year olds are buzzing with their progress. Kids, say their teachers, who
would once have become disillusioned not just with school but with life.
So if it's that simple, why haven't all schools caught on to the secret?
David Grossman goes on the case.
BBC News 24
News services
Your news when you want it
News Front Page
World
UK
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Business
Politics
Health
Education
League Tables
Science/Nature
Technology
Entertainment
Also in the news
-----------------
Video and Audio
-----------------
Have Your Say
Magazine
In Pictures
Country Profiles
Special Reports
getRssUrl()
RELATED BBC SITES
SPORT
WEATHER
CBBC NEWSROUND
ON THIS DAY
EDITORS' BLOG
Last Updated: Friday, 2 September 2005, 00:52 GMT 01:52 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Row erupts over dyslexia 'denial'
One in 10 Britons is thought to be dyslexic
An education professor has cast doubt on the scientific validity of the
term 'dyslexia', saying experts cannot agree on what it is or how to
treat it. Writing in the Times Educational Supplement, Julian Elliott
said it was largely an "emotional construct". The Durham University
professor questions the scientific validity of the term 'dyslexia',
saying diagnosis does not lead to particular treatment. The British
Dyslexia Association says the claims are inflammatory. Professor
Elliott, a psychologist, said his argument was based on "an exhaustive
review of the research literature". After 30 years in the field, he
said, he had little confidence in his ability to diagnose dyslexia.
There is no consensus as to what it is and how to diagnose it
Professor Julian Elliott
Professor Elliott told the BBC News website: "There is no consensus as
to what it is and how to diagnose it. People describe all sorts of
symptoms as dyslexia. And if you do diagnose it, it does not point to
any intervention in particular. "It's one of those terms that is like
the Cheshire Cat - if it does exist, we don't know what to do about it."
He said, contrary to talk of 'miracle cures', there was no sound,
widely-accepted body of scientific work that had shown that any
particular teaching approach was more appropriate for 'dyslexic'
children than for other poor readers". Dyslexia is defined by BBC
health expert Dr Rob Hicks as "a congenital and developmental condition
that causes neurological anomalies in the brain. "It includes a range of
types of learning difficulties where a person of normal intelligence has
persistent and significant problems with reading, writing, spelling and
sometimes mathematics and musical notation." 'Delusional' Professor
Elliott's claims have angered the British Dyslexia Association. The
charity's chief executive Professor Susan Tresman said: "I cannot accept
that view, given the number of researchers into dyslexia that we work
with. There were 900 delegates from 35 countries at our conference last
year. Is he suggesting that they are all suffering from some kind of
emotional delusion?
Prof Susan Tresman
"There is as much a consensus view as in any area you would care to
investigate. "In excess of one million people download information
from our website every month. Is he suggesting that they are all
suffering from some kind of emotional delusion?" Professor Tresman
said people with dyslexia often had different symptoms - not just
problems with words - and that Professor Elliott seemed to be viewing
dyslexia just in terms of poor reading skills. She said there was a
series of well-recognised and highly sophisticated techniques used by
psychologists to assess people for dyslexia. In response, Professor
Elliott said: "If you are going to include numbers and music the term is
getting meaningless." Government figures suggest that one in 10
Britons is dyslexic, with four out of 10 of those being severely so.
Students formally diagnosed as having dyslexia are given up to 25% extra
time in GCSEs, A-levels and vocational assessments.
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Graybags
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8qXuIaOu...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
For 1880 he was probably a lot more literate than the average member of
society.
John Hall
compulsory education for all up to age eleven or so.
Rodney
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:12:14 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> max.it wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:50:27 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>>> In article <467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
>>>>>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
>>>>> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
>>>> Yeah. It seems likely -- although, in that case, what he's ended up
>>>> writing is "fowling".
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Rodney Ulyate
>>>> My Blog: http://crickets-rich-tapestry.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>>>
>>> Like rember for remember.
>> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
>
> Rodney, you are the guy with the research, I'm only the guy with the
> idea about the writing blooper.
Let me assure you, mate, that I'm not the guy being hostile. All's good. :)
Rodney
It's a far-from-desirable charge, I know; in fact, I can almost
empathise: my brother's been diagnosed with a minor degree of the
disorder, but he's doing very well.
Rodney
> was that Master Bates ?
Less said the better.
Rodney
You're referring to modern-day, Twentieth-Century society there?
Yes indeed.
Rodney
It seems from a letter which Ted Peate wrote to the same club about half
a month later that Todmorden CC was looking that season to secure the
services of two men later to become Yorkshire giants. It's also a
notable fact that Peate's spelling and grammar is a great deal better
than Bates's:
May 13/80
Dear Sir,
I find I cannot Play with you in any of your matches this Season hoping
to be at liberty some other time
I remain yours faithfully
E Peate
I.L. Thorpe. Esq
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <467c4337.53153...@news.btinternet.com>,
> max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes
>
> >>> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
> >>> semi-literate.
>
> >>It would be interesting to look into that. I'll do some digging.
>
> >One of my kids is dyslexic
> >(called a specific learning difficulty these days). Imagine writing words,
> >and you had to guess which vowel to use. All the vowels sound the same
> >and local accents only harden the task.
>
> >max.it
>
> A fantasy condition Max.
RH jumps on the iconoclast bandwagon yet again.
There is nothing at all natural about reading and writing, these
activities are far too recent to have placed significant evolutionary
pressure on brain function (unlike spoken language). As a result
there is no good reason to suppose that natural variation leaves us
all in a position to acquire these skills with equal facility. In my
experience, dyslexic students are not unknown, and their difficulties
are real, but can generally be overcome.
Max, I hope your child recieves the proper support and is not
discouraged from following any course of study in which he/she has a
genuine interest.
max.it
wrote:
He gets a lot of help in school, and we have worked hard to make sure
he is above the statement level. Our lad has no other learning
difficulties and this is why he responds so well to this help.
max.it
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <467c4337...@news.btinternet.com>,
>max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes
>>>> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
>>>> semi-literate.
>>>
>>>It would be interesting to look into that. I'll do some digging.
>>
>>
>>One of my kids is dyslexic
>>(called a specific learning difficulty these days). Imagine writing words,
>>and you had to guess which vowel to use. All the vowels sound the same
>>and local accents only harden the task.
>>
>>max.it
>
>A fantasy condition Max. The dyslexia bubble can be pricked simply by
>pointing out that there are schools in poor areas which achieve 100%
>literacy -see below. . Children will obviously differ in their ability
>and willingness to learn, but only the severely mentally handicapped
>should prove incapable of learning to read.
>
>Another question you might like to ask yourself is have you ever met
>someone from a comfortable home who was functionally illiterate unless
>they suffered from some severe mental disability such as Downs'
>syndrome. I haven't. RH
>
>
I have 5 kids all born and raised in exactly the same enviroment. All
the same schooling (to date) Only the middle child is dyslexic, and he
was the only one not to get a place in nursery school. He went to a
Montessori pre school. There is not a smell or taste he isn't able to
recognise
Robert Henderson
Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>> >and local accents only harden the task.
>>
>> >max.it
>>
>> A fantasy condition Max.
>
>RH jumps on the iconoclast bandwagon yet again.
>
>There is nothing at all natural about reading and writing,
It is as natural as any other conscious activity. Man is a creature of
culture. RH
> these activities are far too recent to have placed significant
>evolutionary pressure on brain function (unlike spoken language). As a
>result there is no good reason to suppose that natural variation leaves
>us all in a position to acquire these skills with equal facility
Do try read what I write. I made the point that humans vary in their
ability to read as in every other sphere .RH
>. In my experience
Which is?RH
>, dyslexic students are not unknown
How do you define a dyslexic? RH
>, and their difficulties are real, but can generally be overcome.
>
>Max, I hope your child recieves the proper support and is not
>discouraged from following any course of study in which he/she has a
>genuine interest.
--
Robert Henderson
max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes
>>Another question you might like to ask yourself is have you ever met
>>someone from a comfortable home who was functionally illiterate unless
>>they suffered from some severe mental disability such as Downs'
>>syndrome. I haven't. RH
>>
>>
>
>
> I have 5 kids all born and raised in exactly the same enviroment. All
>the same schooling (to date) Only the middle child is dyslexic
What exactly constitutes dyslexic Max? I presume from what you say he
can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have
the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of
line with the others. RH
>, and he was the only one not to get a place in nursery school. He went
>to a Montessori pre school. There is not a smell or taste he isn't
>able to recognise
>
Does he possess synaesthesia?
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1182606440.125089.192...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
> >> >and local accents only harden the task.
>
> >> >max.it
>
> >> A fantasy condition Max.
>
> >RH jumps on the iconoclast bandwagon yet again.
>
> >There is nothing at all natural about reading and writing,
>
> It is as natural as any other conscious activity. Man is a creature of
> culture. RH
You need to learn the difference between assertion and argument. ;o)
This is simply rubbish, there is evidence that speech has had an
effect on the development of brain function and physiology (i.e. there
have been physical adaptations). There is no evidence that written
language has yet had any effect (it is far more likely to have an
effect on spoken language first). This makes spoken language natural
and written language unnatural.
> > these activities are far too recent to have placed significant
> >evolutionary pressure on brain function (unlike spoken language). As a
> >result there is no good reason to suppose that natural variation leaves
> >us all in a position to acquire these skills with equal facility
>
> Do try read what I write. I made the point that humans vary in their
> ability to read as in every other sphere .RH
You said that "only the severely mentally handicapped should prove
incapable of learning to read". this is not the case, there is no
reason to assume that normal variation in cognitive function should
mean that everyone has the ability to read and write. Unless of
course you include being ilitterate in the definition of mental
handicap, which is a bit of a circular argument.
Note that dyslexia doesn't imply that you can't read or write, just
varying difficulties in reading and writing that you would not expect
given the level of spoken language. You can be dyslexic without being
illiterate.
> >. In my experience
>
> Which is?RH
RH, you know perfectly well that I am a lecturer in a UK university.
This means that I have both taught a large number of students and been
academic advisor to many students over the past decade or so. I think
I am in a pretty good position to coment on difficulties faced by
university students.
> >, dyslexic students are not unknown
>
> How do you define a dyslexic? RH
AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms
rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may
have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well
understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in
written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal
language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working
definition as any.
max.it
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <467d8a86...@news.btinternet.com>,
>max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes
>>>Another question you might like to ask yourself is have you ever met
>>>someone from a comfortable home who was functionally illiterate unless
>>>they suffered from some severe mental disability such as Downs'
>>>syndrome. I haven't. RH
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have 5 kids all born and raised in exactly the same enviroment. All
>>the same schooling (to date) Only the middle child is dyslexic
>
>What exactly constitutes dyslexic Max? I presume from what you say he
>can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have
>the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of
>line with the others. RH
As far as my Son goes, we were told that his dyslexia is text book
can't seperate his vowels. His reading is fairly good, his spelling is
poor, and his handwriting is poor.
He is very clever and scores well in his exams which have to be
sometimes delivered orally.
>
>
>>, and he was the only one not to get a place in nursery school. He went
>>to a Montessori pre school. There is not a smell or taste he isn't
>>able to recognise
>>
>
>Does he possess synaesthesia?
It's possible I hadn't thought about that.
Fred
> >You might find it of interest to have
> >the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of
> >line with the others. RH
>
> As far as my Son goes, we were told that his dyslexia is text book
> can't seperate his vowels. His reading is fairly good, his spelling is
> poor, and his handwriting is poor.
> He is very clever and scores well in his exams which have to be
> sometimes delivered orally.
Plenty of people with dyslexia are very bright. Einstein is reported
to have been dyslexic (although some challenge this), similarly
Churchill is reported to have suffered from it. Alexander Graham
Bell, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, John F. Kennedy, Mozart &
Leonardo DeVinci have all been claimed to have been dyslexic. For my
part I've known plenty of dyslexic students to achieve First class
results in finals and to produce distinguished graduate research.
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <467d8a86.7537...@news.btinternet.com>,
> max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes
>
> >>Another question you might like to ask yourself is have you ever met
> >>someone from a comfortable home who was functionally illiterate unless
> >>they suffered from some severe mental disability such as Downs'
> >>syndrome. I haven't. RH
>
> > I have 5 kids all born and raised in exactly the same enviroment. All
> >the same schooling (to date) Only the middle child is dyslexic
>
> What exactly constitutes dyslexic Max?
A fantasy condition, apparently.
>I presume from what you say he
> can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have
> the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of
> line with the others. RH
Isn't IQ measured by a timed written test? In this case wouldn't it
discriminate against dyslexic people without giving an indication of
their underlying intelligence excluding the effects of dyslexia? As
Fred says, plenty of highly intelligenet people have had dyslexia and
gone on to academic success or been of benefit to society in some
capacity.
Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to
hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views
w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
> >, and he was the only one not to get a place in nursery school. He went
> >to a Montessori pre school. There is not a smell or taste he isn't
> >able to recognise
>
> Does he possess synaesthesia?
>
> >max.it
>
> --
> Robert Henderson
Fred
> Leonardo DeVinci
Da Vinci.
That'll teach me to copy and paste...
max.it
wrote:
>On 24 Jun, 05:32, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In message <467d8a86.7537...@news.btinternet.com>,
>> max.it@teatime.?.invalid writes
>>
>> >>Another question you might like to ask yourself is have you ever met
>> >>someone from a comfortable home who was functionally illiterate unless
>> >>they suffered from some severe mental disability such as Downs'
>> >>syndrome. I haven't. RH
>>
>> > I have 5 kids all born and raised in exactly the same enviroment. All
>> >the same schooling (to date) Only the middle child is dyslexic
>>
>> What exactly constitutes dyslexic Max?
>
>A fantasy condition, apparently.
>
Look up Louis Amberg [sp] aka "Pretty Louie" A USA gangster guy.
I reckon Pretty was dyslexic, but his talent was misdirected by the
poverty of the 1930s.
David W Noon
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 24 Jun 2007 23:46 in article
<467ed677...@news.btinternet.com> of uk.sport.cricket,
max.it(max.it@teatime) wrote:
[snip]
> Look up Louis Amberg
I take it his real surname was Bergman. ... :-)
[Sorry, couldn't resist.]
- --
Regards
Dave [RLU#314465]
======================================================
dwn...@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
Remove spam trap to reply via e-mail.
======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGf72n9MqaUJQw2MkRAvMxAKCkG1M44WNhLUVoaokAhD/MQJFelQCfRl7k
jC7Nkloy9FKtREMjJLDPwQg=
=udQ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sid
> In article <467c2eb1$0$10762$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>> max.it wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:50:27 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>>> In article <467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful lot
>>>>>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
>>>>> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
>>>> Yeah. It seems likely -- although, in that case, what he's ended up
>>>> writing is "fowling".
>>>>
>>> Like rember for remember.
>> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
>
> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
> semi-literate.
Duh. Dyslexia wasn't invented in those days !
Sid
Robert Henderson
<longh...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Plenty of people with dyslexia are very bright. Einstein is reported
>to have been dyslexic (although some challenge this), similarly
>Churchill is reported to have suffered from it. Alexander Graham Bell,
>Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, John F. Kennedy, Mozart & Leonardo
>DeVinci have all been claimed to have been dyslexic.
Claimed not proved. RH
Robert Henderson
Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>> >> A fantasy condition Max.
>>
>> >RH jumps on the iconoclast bandwagon yet again.
>>
>> >There is nothing at all natural about reading and writing,
>>
>> It is as natural as any other conscious activity. Man is a creature of
>> culture. RH
>
>You need to learn the difference between assertion and argument. ;o)
>
>This is simply rubbish, there is evidence that speech has had an effect
>on the development of brain function and physiology (i.e. there have
>been physical adaptations). There is no evidence that written language
>has yet had any effect (it is far more likely to have an effect on
>spoken language first). This makes spoken language natural and written
>language unnatural.
>
Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
>> > these activities are far too recent to have placed significant
>> >evolutionary pressure on brain function (unlike spoken language). As a
>> >result there is no good reason to suppose that natural variation leaves
>> >us all in a position to acquire these skills with equal facility
>>
>> Do try read what I write. I made the point that humans vary in their
>> ability to read as in every other sphere .RH
>
>You said that "only the severely mentally handicapped should prove
>incapable of learning to read". this is not the case, there is no
>reason to assume that normal variation in cognitive function should
>mean that everyone has the ability to read and write. Unless of course
>you include being ilitterate in the definition of mental handicap,
>which is a bit of a circular argument.
>
All middle class children learn to read unless they are severely
mentally handicapped. End of story. RH
>Note that dyslexia doesn't imply that you can't read or write, just
>varying difficulties in reading and writing that you would not expect
>given the level of spoken language. You can be dyslexic without being
>illiterate.
>
>> >. In my experience
>>
>> Which is?RH
>
>RH, you know perfectly well that I am a lecturer in a UK university.
>This means that I have both taught a large number of students and been
>academic advisor to many students over the past decade or so. I think
>I am in a pretty good position to coment on difficulties faced by
>university students.
Hilarious pomposity. RH
>
>> >, dyslexic students are not unknown
>>
>> How do you define a dyslexic? RH
>
>AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms
>rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may
>have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well
>understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in
>written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal
>language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working
>definition as any.
Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Richard Dixon
wrote:
> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms
> >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may
> >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well
> >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in
> >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal
> >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working
> >definition as any.
>
> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
Whereas, of course, with your unique Keele University education, are
an instant expert on anything you care to comment on.
Richard
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1182675403.446427.186...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
That is assertion, not argument.
Dyslexia doesn't imply that you can't read, just that you have
difficulty reading that would not be expected given your general
intelligence, so your argument is based on a misconception. There are
plenty of middle class people that have such difficulty reading (I
even know a few dyslexic academics). If you think this doesn't
happen, it is just an indication that you should get out more.
> >Note that dyslexia doesn't imply that you can't read or write, just
> >varying difficulties in reading and writing that you would not expect
> >given the level of spoken language. You can be dyslexic without being
> >illiterate.
>
> >> >. In my experience
>
> >> Which is?RH
>
> >RH, you know perfectly well that I am a lecturer in a UK university.
> >This means that I have both taught a large number of students and been
> >academic advisor to many students over the past decade or so. I think
> >I am in a pretty good position to coment on difficulties faced by
> >university students.
>
> Hilarious pomposity. RH
Insult instead of argument as usual. It has been part of my job over
a decade or more to help students get the support they need to deal
with dyslexia, that puts me in a good position to comment. There is
nothing pompous about that. If you didn't like the answer, why ask
the question?
What experience/expertise do you have?
> >> >, dyslexic students are not unknown
>
> >> How do you define a dyslexic? RH
>
> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms
> >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may
> >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well
> >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in
> >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal
> >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working
> >definition as any.
>
> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
ROTFLMAO! The problem that Prof. Elliott (one of your sources) has
with dyslexia is that it is a variable collection of symptoms, with
poorly understood causes, rather than a specific diagnosis of a
particular disorder with a specific intervention. The difference is
that I disagree about the consequences, dyslexia is a useful term for
educational purposes to describe a related set of difficulties.
You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1182675403.446427.186...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >> >> A fantasy condition Max.
>
> >> >RH jumps on the iconoclast bandwagon yet again.
>
> >> >There is nothing at all natural about reading and writing,
>
> >> It is as natural as any other conscious activity. Man is a creature of
> >> culture. RH
>
> >You need to learn the difference between assertion and argument. ;o)
>
> >This is simply rubbish, there is evidence that speech has had an effect
> >on the development of brain function and physiology (i.e. there have
> >been physical adaptations). There is no evidence that written language
> >has yet had any effect (it is far more likely to have an effect on
> >spoken language first). This makes spoken language natural and written
> >language unnatural.
>
> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is
a result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure.
It is the development of spoken language that has driven the
development of our brains, not the other way around. There have been
no such adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been
around for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common
in the general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken
language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language
is not.
Robert Henderson
Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms
>> >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may
>> >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well
>> >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in
>> >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal
>> >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working
>> >definition as any.
>>
>> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
>
>ROTFLMAO! The problem that Prof. Elliott (one of your sources) has
>with dyslexia is that it is a variable collection of symptoms, with
>poorly understood causes, rather than a specific diagnosis of a
>particular disorder with a specific intervention. The difference is
>that I disagree about the consequences, dyslexia is a useful term for
>educational purposes to describe a related set of difficulties.
>
>You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
>
Robert Henderson
Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>> >language unnatural.
>>
>> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
>
>No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is a
>result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It
>is the development of spoken language that has driven the development
>of our brains, not the other way around. There have been no such
>adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been around
>for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common in the
>general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken
>language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language is not.
>
Sigh. The innate capacity is what it is at any point in time.RH
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1182938607.379434.93...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms
> >> >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may
> >> >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well
> >> >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in
> >> >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal
> >> >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working
> >> >definition as any.
>
> >> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
>
> >ROTFLMAO! The problem that Prof. Elliott (one of your sources) has
> >with dyslexia is that it is a variable collection of symptoms, with
> >poorly understood causes, rather than a specific diagnosis of a
> >particular disorder with a specific intervention. The difference is
> >that I disagree about the consequences, dyslexia is a useful term for
> >educational purposes to describe a related set of difficulties.
>
> >You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
>
> Status quo.RH
So you have been doing it for some time then? LOL!
Do you not find it amusing that you replied "Hasn't got a clue" when I
basically echoed one of your own sources?
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1182939653.944096.122...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
> >> >language unnatural.
>
> >> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
>
> >No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is a
> >result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It
> >is the development of spoken language that has driven the development
> >of our brains, not the other way around. There have been no such
> >adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been around
> >for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common in the
> >general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken
> >language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language is not.
>
> Sigh. The innate capacity is what it is at any point in time.RH
So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
max.it
wrote:
>Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to
>hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views
>w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
Another point. The "dyslexic one" seems to be able to operate live
linux systems without any trouble. I use live cd's for data disposal
this means that I don't see the data and I have to use a command line
interface, so my kids don't mind booting a live distro and seeing
what happen next.
I caught (noticed) my 14 year old printing out back issues of the
freak brothers, so I gave him a big old Oki laser with about 2 years
worth of toner left and told him to work away. He had breached the
school firewall and downloaded the freak bros to his keyring storage
thingy and went forth to publish underground copies of the underground
mag.
When I was 14 I had a bull terrier and a couple of ferrets and a
licence to keep British birds (finches)..........I'm not old
.......Honest
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
>On 27 Jun, 17:53, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In message <1182939653.944096.122...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> >> >language unnatural.
>>
>> >> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
>>
>> >No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is a
>> >result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It
>> >is the development of spoken language that has driven the development
>> >of our brains, not the other way around. There have been no such
>> >adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been around
>> >for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common in the
>> >general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken
>> >language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language is not.
>>
>> Sigh. The innate capacity is what it is at any point in time.RH
>
>So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
>
>
Robert Henderson
Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>>I presume from what you say he
>> can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have
>> the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of
>> line with the others. RH
>
>Isn't IQ measured by a timed written test? In this case wouldn't it
>discriminate against dyslexic people without giving an indication of
>their underlying intelligence excluding the effects of dyslexia?
Sigh. Very low IQ question. The test questions can be give orally. How
do you think illiterates and very young children are assessed? Also, the
visiospatial questions require little by way of explanation. RH
>As Fred says, plenty of highly intelligenet people have had dyslexia
>and gone on to academic success or been of benefit to society in some
>capacity.
>
>Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to
>hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views
>w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
I would advise anyone never to say what their IQ is because whatever the
score it will produce an unfavourable result. If low you will be
defined as thick, if average mediocre, if high frighteningly or
irritating clever.
You need to understand what IQ test are for. At the level of the
individual they tell you whether someone has the intellect to undertake
a particular job or course of study., although they are only one factor
amongst a number., including personality type. For example, an IQ of 150
will allow for the possibility that you can take a maths degree, it will
not guarantee it. If you have an IQ of 80 you will never be able to take
a maths degree. You get the idea?
Your IQ score will also point to likely social outcomes, the lower the
IQ, the less likely you are to hold a well paid job, the more likely to
commit crime, be unemployed etc.
At the level of populations, IQ is a valuable tool in predicting social
outcomes. The more people with a low IQ, the more social mayhem. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<sidne...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>>
>>>> Like rember for remember.
>>> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
>> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
>> semi-literate.
>
>Duh. Dyslexia wasn't invented in those days !
>
>Sid
Quite. RH
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1182965772.988289.85...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
> >On 27 Jun, 17:53, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> In message <1182939653.944096.122...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
> >> >> >language unnatural.
>
> >> >> Sigh. That is merely utilising the innate capacity of the brain. RH
>
> >> >No Robert, the "innate" capacity for speech in modern human brains is a
> >> >result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It
> >> >is the development of spoken language that has driven the development
> >> >of our brains, not the other way around. There have been no such
> >> >adaptions to accommodate written language, which has only been around
> >> >for a few thousand years, and has only been moderately common in the
> >> >general population for a few hundred years. This is why spoken
> >> >language is now innate (i.e. natural) in a way that written language is not.
>
> >> Sigh. The innate capacity is what it is at any point in time.RH
>
> >So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
>
> Sigh. What ever has evolved is by definition natural. RH
So programming a computer is natural?
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1182706225.750728.255...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >>I presume from what you say he
> >> can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have
> >> the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of
> >> line with the others. RH
>
> >Isn't IQ measured by a timed written test? In this case wouldn't it
> >discriminate against dyslexic people without giving an indication of
> >their underlying intelligence excluding the effects of dyslexia?
>
> Sigh. Very low IQ question.
No, it is an ignorant question (I have never taken an IQ test and
can't find any really useful information on the nature of the test on-
line), so I am asking someone who I think may know.
> The test questions can be give orally. How
> do you think illiterates and very young children are assessed?
> Also, the
> visiospatial questions require little by way of explanation. RH
How do they compensate for the differences in the mode of the test (I
believe it is a time test, so this would matter).
> >As Fred says, plenty of highly intelligenet people have had dyslexia
> >and gone on to academic success or been of benefit to society in some
> >capacity.
>
> >Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to
> >hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views
> >w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
>
> I would advise anyone never to say what their IQ is because whatever the
> score it will produce an unfavourable result. If low you will be
> defined as thick, if average mediocre, if high frighteningly or
> irritating clever.
Robert, I didn't ask what your IQ was, I asked if you had taken one (I
even gave the reason, which you have also ignored). Why do you have
such difficulty answering a simple and direct question?
> You need to understand what IQ test are for. At the level of the
> individual they tell you whether someone has the intellect to undertake
> a particular job or course of study., although they are only one factor
> amongst a number., including personality type.
Nonsense, unless the job involved very similar activities as those
directly tested, simply becuase there are much better measures of
ability (at least in terms of suitability for further study).
> For example, an IQ of 150
> will allow for the possibility that you can take a maths degree, it will
> not guarantee it. If you have an IQ of 80 you will never be able to take
> a maths degree. You get the idea?
Having done well at A level maths would be a far better guide, so why
bother with IQ?
> Your IQ score will also point to likely social outcomes, the lower the
> IQ, the less likely you are to hold a well paid job, the more likely to
> commit crime, be unemployed etc.
That is quite likely to be true, but difficult to be sure which is the
cause and which the effect.
> At the level of populations, IQ is a valuable tool in predicting social
> outcomes. The more people with a low IQ, the more social mayhem. RH
Back to the bell curve again? I have yet to see a study that properly
accounts for socio-economic environment when drawing such concusions.
The Bell Curve certainly isn't it and you know it.
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <whigi.287$iq2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Sid
> <sidneysn...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>
> >>>> Like rember for remember.
> >>> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
> >> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
> >> semi-literate.
>
> >Duh. Dyslexia wasn't invented in those days !
>
> >Sid
>
> Quite. RH
The name hadn't been invented, but that doesn't mean that he didn't
have it.
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1182965681.386551.30...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >AFAIUI, dyslexia is a syndrome, i.e. a collection of related symptoms
> >> >> >rather than a specific diagnosis of a particular disorder, that may
> >> >> >have a variety of undelying causes (which are not currently well
> >> >> >understood). I would define it as being an obvious difficulty in
> >> >> >written language in a student with normal or above normal verbal
> >> >> >language skills. Not being a specialist, this is as good a working
> >> >> >definition as any.
>
> >> >> Translation: Hasn't a clue. RH
>
> >> >ROTFLMAO! The problem that Prof. Elliott (one of your sources) has
> >> >with dyslexia is that it is a variable collection of symptoms, with
> >> >poorly understood causes, rather than a specific diagnosis of a
> >> >particular disorder with a specific intervention. The difference is
> >> >that I disagree about the consequences, dyslexia is a useful term for
> >> >educational purposes to describe a related set of difficulties.
>
> >> >You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
>
> >> Status quo.RH
>
> >So you have been doing it for some time then? LOL!
>
> >Do you not find it amusing that you replied "Hasn't got a clue" when I
> >basically echoed one of your own sources?
>
> Status quo. RH
RH runs away, yet again.
Rodney
> John Hall wrote:
>> Graybags <gb...@lineone.net> writes:
>>> "John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:8qXuIaOu...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>>>> In article <467c2eb1$0$10762$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> max.it wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:50:27 +0200, Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <467beafe$0$16288$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>>>>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> I ham oping for engagments for the bowling [the "b" looks an awful
>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>> like an "f"] dates and my terms is 30 per Match
>>>>>>>> Then perhaps it was, and he was making a stab at "following"?
>>>>>>> Yeah. It seems likely -- although, in that case, what he's ended up
>>>>>>> writing is "fowling".
>>>>>>>
>>>>> "Fowling" is a touch more ambiguous in my personal opinion.
>>>> Sounds as though Bates could have been dyslexic as well as only
>>>> semi-literate.
>>> society.
>>>
>>>
>> About average, I would guess. I think that by then Britain had
>> compulsory education for all up to age eleven or so.
>
> It seems from a letter which Ted Peate wrote to the same club about half
> a month later that Todmorden CC was looking that season to secure the
> services of two men later to become Yorkshire giants. It's also a
> notable fact that Peate's spelling and grammar is a great deal better
> than Bates's:
>
> May 13/80
> Dear Sir,
>
> I find I cannot Play with you in any of your matches this Season hoping
> to be at liberty some other time
>
> I remain yours faithfully
> E Peate
>
> I.L. Thorpe. Esq
I've just learnt that Peate was short-sighted, which would suggest that
he spent a fair amount of time writing.
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
My Blog: http://crickets-rich-tapestry.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John Hall
Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>I've just learnt that Peate was short-sighted, which would suggest that
>he spent a fair amount of time writing.
Huh? I don't follow.
--
John Hall
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
Rodney
> In article <4683a6c4$0$32552$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I've just learnt that Peate was short-sighted, which would suggest that
>> he spent a fair amount of time writing.
>
> Huh? I don't follow.
I, for example, am short-sighted because I spend far too much time
writing about Ted Peate.
John Hall
Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>John Hall wrote:
>> In article <4683a6c4$0$32552$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I've just learnt that Peate was short-sighted, which would suggest that
>>> he spent a fair amount of time writing.
>> Huh? I don't follow.
>
>I, for example, am short-sighted because I spend far too much time
>writing about Ted Peate.
:)
To be serious, I think that the idea that short sight can be caused by
too much pouring over books was discredited long ago.
Rodney
> In article <4684019d$0$16382$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>> John Hall wrote:
>>> In article <4683a6c4$0$32552$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I've just learnt that Peate was short-sighted, which would suggest that
>>>> he spent a fair amount of time writing.
>>> Huh? I don't follow.
>> I, for example, am short-sighted because I spend far too much time
>> writing about Ted Peate.
>
> :)
>
> To be serious, I think that the idea that short sight can be caused by
> too much pouring over books was discredited long ago.
Oh. I wasn't short-sighted until I became a book-worm, but I'll happily
take your trustworthy word for it.
max.it
wrote:
>John Hall wrote:
>> In article <4684019d$0$16382$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>> In article <4683a6c4$0$32552$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
>>>> Rodney <rodney...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> I've just learnt that Peate was short-sighted, which would suggest that
>>>>> he spent a fair amount of time writing.
>>>> Huh? I don't follow.
>>> I, for example, am short-sighted because I spend far too much time
>>> writing about Ted Peate.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> To be serious, I think that the idea that short sight can be caused by
>> too much pouring over books was discredited long ago.
>
>Oh. I wasn't short-sighted until I became a book-worm, but I'll happily
>take your trustworthy word for it.
Whenever I'm squinting at a printed circuit board I find that a torch
and magnifying glass are really useful.
Robert Henderson
Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> >> >You don't half know how to make yourself look a twit!
>>
>> >> Status quo.RH
>>
>> >So you have been doing it for some time then? LOL!
>>
>> >Do you not find it amusing that you replied "Hasn't got a clue" when I
>> >basically echoed one of your own sources?
>>
>> Status quo. RH
>
>RH runs away, yet again.
>
Robert Henderson
Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>On 28 Jun, 07:26, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In message <1182706225.750728.255...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
>> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >>I presume from what you say he
>> >> can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have
>> >> the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of
>> >> line with the others. RH
>>
>> >Isn't IQ measured by a timed written test? In this case wouldn't it
>> >discriminate against dyslexic people without giving an indication of
>> >their underlying intelligence excluding the effects of dyslexia?
>>
>> Sigh. Very low IQ question.
>
>No, it is an ignorant question (I have never taken an IQ test and
>can't find any really useful information on the nature of the test on-
>line), so I am asking someone who I think may know.
Ye Gods, you admit you know nothing about IQ testing yet you make
dogmatic statements about it. If you can't Google up something you must
be really barely sentient. Try putting Standard IQ tests into Google.
RH
>
>> The test questions can be give orally. How
>> do you think illiterates and very young children are assessed?
>> Also, the
>> visiospatial questions require little by way of explanation. RH
>
>How do they compensate for the differences in the mode of the test (I
>believe it is a time test, so this would matter).
There is nothing to compensate for as such because it would not take any
longer to give the question orally than for someone to read the very
brief rubric for each type of test. Moreover, most verbal test questions
could be reduced to pictorial representations, e.g. odd man out
questions, analogous questions. All you need do is give the candidate a
series of illustrations rather than words to compare. RH
>
>> >As Fred says, plenty of highly intelligenet people have had dyslexia
>> >and gone on to academic success or been of benefit to society in some
>> >capacity.
>>
>> >Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to
>> >hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views
>> >w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
>>
>> I would advise anyone never to say what their IQ is because whatever the
>> score it will produce an unfavourable result. If low you will be
>> defined as thick, if average mediocre, if high frighteningly or
>> irritating clever.
>
>Robert, I didn't ask what your IQ was, I asked if you had taken one (I
>even gave the reason, which you have also ignored). Why do you have
>such difficulty answering a simple and direct question?
Yes, I have taken several IQ tests for academic and work purposes. . RH
>
>> You need to understand what IQ test are for. At the level of the
>> individual they tell you whether someone has the intellect to undertake
>> a particular job or course of study., although they are only one factor
>> amongst a number., including personality type.
>
>Nonsense, unless the job involved very similar activities as those
>directly tested, simply becuase there are much better measures of
>ability (at least in terms of suitability for further study).
This is simply wrong. IQ correlates strongly with general work
performance. This is the nonsense the USA have foisted on employers
through affirmative action. RH
>
>> For example, an IQ of 150
>> will allow for the possibility that you can take a maths degree, it will
>> not guarantee it. If you have an IQ of 80 you will never be able to take
>> a maths degree. You get the idea?
>
>Having done well at A level maths would be a far better guide, so why
>bother with IQ?
>
Sigh. The degree example is merely an example. An IQ test would be
useful much earlier than a degree, but even at the degree level an IQ
test will tell you something useful, especially when the university
entrance exams have become so devalued as to not distinguish between the
able and very able. RH
>> Your IQ score will also point to likely social outcomes, the lower the
>> IQ, the less likely you are to hold a well paid job, the more likely to
>> commit crime, be unemployed etc.
>
>That is quite likely to be true, but difficult to be sure which is the
>cause and which the effect.
It doesn't matter if you can't. If low IQ correlates strongly with
social outcomes it is a valuable predictor of social outcomes. RH
>
>> At the level of populations, IQ is a valuable tool in predicting social
>> outcomes. The more people with a low IQ, the more social mayhem. RH
>
>Back to the bell curve again? I have yet to see a study that properly
>accounts for socio-economic environment when drawing such concusions.
>The Bell Curve certainly isn't it and you know it.
>
On the contrary, it is a very cautious piece of work which makes every
effort to do so. What the BC shows is that IQ trumps socioeconomic
status every time, ie, strip out all those with similar IQs regardless
of SES and the same trend is found: IQ low = poor outcome, IQ high =
strong outcome. RH
Robert Henderson
Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> >So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
>>
>> Sigh. What ever has evolved is by definition natural. RH
>
>So programming a computer is natural?
>
The mental capacity to so is. Sigh. RH
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1183019004.670919.199...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >> >So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
>
> >> Sigh. What ever has evolved is by definition natural. RH
>
> >So programming a computer is natural?
>
> The mental capacity to so is. Sigh. RH
RH shows signs of dyslexia - again.
If you define anything that we have the mental or physical capacity to
actually do as being natural then it becomes impossible for use to do
anything un-natural, in which case the words loose their meanings.
Spoken language has had an impact on our evolution as a species,
written language and computer programming have not. This makes spoken
language natural in a way that the other to activities are not.
Martin Durkin
@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know) circular arguments were first
identified by Aristotle in about 350 BC. Is that long enough for RH's
propensity for circular argument to be classed as natural?
Dr A. N. Walker
John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>To be serious, I think that the idea that short sight can be caused by
>too much pouring over books was discredited long ago.
What on earth were they pouring over books to test this?
FWIW, my own eyesight has deteriorated recently to the point
where I need glasses to read, and I don't know what can have caused
this other than 60+ years of reading ....
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1183020548.553518.251...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >On 28 Jun, 07:26, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> In message <1182706225.750728.255...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
> >> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
> >> >>I presume from what you say he
> >> >> can read and write well enough. You might find it of interest to have
> >> >> the IQ of your five children tested to see if his is radically out of
> >> >> line with the others. RH
>
> >> >Isn't IQ measured by a timed written test? In this case wouldn't it
> >> >discriminate against dyslexic people without giving an indication of
> >> >their underlying intelligence excluding the effects of dyslexia?
>
> >> Sigh. Very low IQ question.
>
> >No, it is an ignorant question (I have never taken an IQ test and
> >can't find any really useful information on the nature of the test on-
> >line), so I am asking someone who I think may know.
>
> Ye Gods, you admit you know nothing about IQ testing yet you make
> dogmatic statements about it. If you can't Google up something you must
> be really barely sentient. Try putting Standard IQ tests into Google.
> RH
If you do, you get a load of web pages that don't look like official
IQ tests, but something more like advertising. There is no way I can
be sure that a real IQ test has the same sort of quuestions. Which
was why I was asking someone I though had taken such a test.
> >> The test questions can be give orally. How
> >> do you think illiterates and very young children are assessed?
> >> Also, the
> >> visiospatial questions require little by way of explanation. RH
>
> >How do they compensate for the differences in the mode of the test (I
> >believe it is a time test, so this would matter).
>
> There is nothing to compensate for as such because it would not take any
> longer to give the question orally than for someone to read the very
> brief rubric for each type of test.
Rubbish, I can read far faster than I can speak.
> Moreover, most verbal test questions
> could be reduced to pictorial representations, e.g. odd man out
> questions, analogous questions.
Not most of the questions I found by searching on google as you
suggested.
> All you need do is give the candidate a
> series of illustrations rather than words to compare. RH
So a question like "what is next in the sequence 144, 121, 100, 81,
64?" can be represented in a pictorial manner? I got this question
using the search you suggested.
> >> >As Fred says, plenty of highly intelligenet people have had dyslexia
> >> >and gone on to academic success or been of benefit to society in some
> >> >capacity.
>
> >> >Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to
> >> >hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views
> >> >w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
>
> >> I would advise anyone never to say what their IQ is because whatever the
> >> score it will produce an unfavourable result. If low you will be
> >> defined as thick, if average mediocre, if high frighteningly or
> >> irritating clever.
>
> >Robert, I didn't ask what your IQ was, I asked if you had taken one (I
> >even gave the reason, which you have also ignored). Why do you have
> >such difficulty answering a simple and direct question?
>
> Yes, I have taken several IQ tests for academic and work purposes. . RH
Like getting blood out of a stone, why could you not just answer a
simple and direct question the first time it was asked?
Right, can you give an example of a verbal understanding question, or
a mathematical reasoning question that can be represented pictorially
without making the question more difficult or easier?
> >> You need to understand what IQ test are for. At the level of the
> >> individual they tell you whether someone has the intellect to undertake
> >> a particular job or course of study., although they are only one factor
> >> amongst a number., including personality type.
>
> >Nonsense, unless the job involved very similar activities as those
> >directly tested, simply becuase there are much better measures of
> >ability (at least in terms of suitability for further study).
>
> This is simply wrong. IQ correlates strongly with general work
> performance. This is the nonsense the USA have foisted on employers
> through affirmative action. RH
No Robert, read what I have written, IQ tests are next to useless
because in the vast majority of circumstances the candidate has a
variety of better, more specific indicators of their ability, so why
use a poor proxy?
> >> For example, an IQ of 150
> >> will allow for the possibility that you can take a maths degree, it will
> >> not guarantee it. If you have an IQ of 80 you will never be able to take
> >> a maths degree. You get the idea?
>
> >Having done well at A level maths would be a far better guide, so why
> >bother with IQ?
>
> Sigh. The degree example is merely an example.
Yes, one that weakens your argument, but it was you that chose to use
it.
> An IQ test would be
> useful much earlier than a degree,
Yep, and students do GCSEs before A levels, and many other maths exams
before that, which give a direct measure of mathematical ability, so
there is still no need for IQ tests.
>but even at the degree level an IQ
> test will tell you something useful, especially when the university
> entrance exams have become so devalued as to not distinguish between the
> able and very able. RH
For which your evidence is?
> >> Your IQ score will also point to likely social outcomes, the lower the
> >> IQ, the less likely you are to hold a well paid job, the more likely to
> >> commit crime, be unemployed etc.
>
> >That is quite likely to be true, but difficult to be sure which is the
> >cause and which the effect.
>
> It doesn't matter if you can't. If low IQ correlates strongly with
> social outcomes it is a valuable predictor of social outcomes. RH
Nonsense. if IQ is strongly affected by socio-economic environment
then you can affect social outcomes by investing to improve the socio-
economic environment. If you assume that the causal link is in the
opposite direction then there is no point in intervention. Knowing
what is the cause and what is the effect is vitally important. This
is why The Bell Curve is such poisonous garbage as it uses a
completely bogus statistical analysis to arrive at the answer their
sponsors wanted. Good job that people like James Heckman have
thouroughly debunked it.
> >> At the level of populations, IQ is a valuable tool in predicting social
> >> outcomes. The more people with a low IQ, the more social mayhem. RH
>
> >Back to the bell curve again? I have yet to see a study that properly
> >accounts for socio-economic environment when drawing such concusions.
> >The Bell Curve certainly isn't it and you know it.
>
> On the contrary, it is a very cautious piece of work which makes every
> effort to do so.
You know that is not true. They don't account for socio-economic at
all when discussing race and IQ. Their measure of SES is cavalier to
say the least. Their measure of IQ isn't actually and IQ test, but
includes tests of schooling (e.g. questions involving trigonometry).
The list of flaws is huge and you have been unwilling to answer any of
them.
Do you think it is reasonable to represent someone socio-economic
environment as a single number?
> What the BC shows is that IQ trumps socioeconomic
> status every time, ie, strip out all those with similar IQs regardless
> of SES and the same trend is found: IQ low = poor outcome, IQ high =
> strong outcome. RH
Have you read the article by James Heckman yet?
Martin Durkin
@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk:
> In article <aK$nAkG0T...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
> John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>To be serious, I think that the idea that short sight can be caused by
>>too much pouring over books was discredited long ago.
>
> What on earth were they pouring over books to test this?
>
> FWIW, my own eyesight has deteriorated recently to the point
> where I need glasses to read, and I don't know what can have caused
> this other than 60+ years of reading ....
>
How do you know that it would not have deteriorated more quickly if you had
not been reading? Most muscles benefit from exercise, why not the ones that
focus the eyes?
John Hall
Dr A. N. Walker <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes:
>In article <aK$nAkG0T...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
>John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>To be serious, I think that the idea that short sight can be caused by
>>too much pouring over books was discredited long ago.
>
> What on earth were they pouring over books to test this?
Damn! I do know the difference between "pour" and "pore", honest.
>
> FWIW, my own eyesight has deteriorated recently to the point
>where I need glasses to read, and I don't know what can have caused
>this other than 60+ years of reading ....
>
I suspect that 60+ years of living would have been sufficient.
Dr A. N. Walker
Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [...] If you can't Google up something you must
>be really barely sentient. [...]
From RH, who is unable to google for articles given their
message-ID, this is somewhat of a "pot-kettle" insult to Gavin.
[Immediately following is the sole cricket content of this
post, so that the otherwise-uninterested can ignore stuff about IQ:]
To add at least a little cricket content, while it is manifest
that *other things being equal* a fit cricketer is better than an unfit
one, in real life other factors are much more important -- such as the
ability to hold a cricket bat or to run up and bowl accurately. So we
have the spectacle several times in [fairly] recent years of bowlers
taking shedloads of wickets or batsmen making plenty of runs but dropped
because they are deemed unfit, or of teams being put through training
regimes that seem to result merely in a high degree of knackerment when
they eventually reach the field of play. A Test cricketer should be
judged by his ability to score runs, take wickets and field over the
period of a five-day match, not by his weight, or smoking habits, or
ability to do press-ups, or speed over 100m. Even less by a "Sports
Quotient", or SQ, that averages all these things.
[The above paragraph misplaced from "****" below.]
>>> Also, the
>>> visiospatial questions require little by way of explanation. RH
> [...] Moreover, most verbal test questions
>could be reduced to pictorial representations, e.g. odd man out
>questions, analogous questions. All you need do is give the candidate a
>series of illustrations rather than words to compare. RH
If you do this, then you are distorting the test results in a
way that favours those with "visiospatial" abilities over those with
verbal abilities. Further, "explanation", whether written or oral,
introduces cultural bias, and strongly favours those who have taken
similar tests before [and therefore do not need the explanations].
Pictorial representations have their own cultural biases, as we find
it much easier to "odd man out" between pictures/diagrams we understand
than between meaningless jumbles.
IQ tests are a bit of fun; as soon as we start taking them
seriously, the sinister side of them is not far away -- as indeed your
favourite authors show.
[Gavin:]
>>Nonsense, unless the job involved very similar activities as those
>>directly tested, simply becuase there are much better measures of
>>ability (at least in terms of suitability for further study).
>This is simply wrong. IQ correlates strongly with general work
>performance.
Some Hendersonian logic there. Whether or not IQ correlates
strongly with general performance has nothing to do with whether or
not there are much better measures of suitability for further study.
As Gavin pointed out, a maths A-level is a much better indicator than
an IQ score of how good a mathematician a typical 18yo is.
>>> [...] If you have an IQ of 80 you will never be able to take
>>> a maths degree.
You have spouted this sort of rubbish frequently in the past.
Do you have any evidence *at all* for it? If you are claiming that
someone who is *stupid* cannot succeed academically, then you are on
safer ground, but there are many non-academic reasons why bright
people may do badly on specific IQ tests.
> [... E]ven at the degree level an IQ
>test will tell you something useful, especially when the university
>entrance exams have become so devalued as to not distinguish between the
>able and very able. RH
*What* entrance exams? And why do you claim they are devalued?
We certainly don't use entrance exams, we go by GCSE, AS and A-level
results instead, like almost all universities. On university entrance,
we don't need to distinguish the able from the very able, but the able
from the unable.
I have in front of me when looking at a UCAS form the applicant's
results over several years of public exams aimed specifically at that
applicant's proposed course, supplemented by a personal statement and a
reference; what do you claim an IQ score would add? Are you proposing
that we should take B-rated mathematicians if they are good at doing IQ
tests [or crosswords or Sudoku], and reject AAA applicants if they report
an IQ score of 80?
> [...] If low IQ correlates strongly with
>social outcomes it is a valuable predictor of social outcomes. RH
Valuable what for? It is not only useless but also very dangerous
to use it to predict *individual* social outcomes. It is not only useless
but also very dangerous to use it when groups are changing. It is not only
useless but also very dangerous to use it to dictate social outcomes. It
is useful if you have good reason to suppose that the group whose outcomes
you are predicting are from the same population as the group from which you
derived the correlation *and* that no other factors are involved. How
often does that happen? And how often, by contrast, are the correlations
used entirely inappropriately, as for example in BC and in L&V and in so
many of your rants in this newsgroup and elsewhere?
**** Sole on-topic content moved from here to the top of this
article. ****
> [...] What the BC shows is that IQ trumps socioeconomic
>status every time, ie, strip out all those with similar IQs regardless
>of SES and the same trend is found: IQ low = poor outcome, IQ high =
>strong outcome. RH
Have you thought this through? If you pick those with similar
IQ, then you don't have "IQ low" and "IQ high" to contrast. And if you
pick those with the same SES, then you find that their high or low IQ has
no effect on their SES. And, surprise, surprise, if you take countries
with the same levels of education, then you find that L&V's figures show
no correlation between IQ and national wealth, whereas if you take those
with similar IQs then there is a very strong correlation between levels
of education and wealth. The innumerate should not be let loose on data
such as that. Which, sadly, doesn't stop them; fools rush in ....
shend...@gmail.com
the sudoku rules but playing two people, one against the other, like
battleshipps. They have a free version to download at http://www.shendoku.com/sample.pdf
. Anything else they are bringing out or they are working on you can
find at www.shendoku.com or at they´r blog www.shendoku.blogspot.com .
Have fun, I am. I specially like one slogan I heard about Shendoku:
SUDOKU is like masturbation (one person).... SHENDOKU is like sex (it
takes two).
Robert Henderson
>On 28 Jun, 16:27, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In message <1183019004.670919.199...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
>>
>> >> Sigh. What ever has evolved is by definition natural. RH
>>
>> >So programming a computer is natural?
>>
>> The mental capacity to so is. Sigh. RH
>
>RH shows signs of dyslexia - again.
>
>If you define anything that we have the mental or physical capacity to
>actually do as being natural then it becomes impossible for use to do
>anything un-natural, in which case the words loose their meanings.
>
Sigh. Nothing human beings do is unnatural by definition. We are part of
the Natural World. Specific behaviours in individuals may be abnormal
but they are still natural, ie, within the parameters of Homo Sapiens.
RH
>Spoken language has had an impact on our evolution as a species,
>written language and computer programming have not.
You don't know that. Intelligence will be subject to natural selection
and it is intelligence which allows written language and abilities such
as programming. RH .
>This makes spoken
>language natural in a way that the other to activities are not.
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes
>In article <aK$nAkG0T...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
>John Hall <john_...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>>To be serious, I think that the idea that short sight can be caused by
>>too much pouring over books was discredited long ago.
>
> What on earth were they pouring over books to test this?
>
> FWIW, my own eyesight has deteriorated recently to the point
>where I need glasses to read, and I don't know what can have caused
>this other than 60+ years of reading ....
>
age of 60 your eyes require about twice the light they did at the age of
twenty. Read under high level light and you will probably be able to
read without glasses still. RH
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1183110153.782744.304...@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >On 28 Jun, 16:27, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> In message <1183019004.670919.199...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
> >> >> >So how would you define what is natural and what isn't?
>
> >> >> Sigh. What ever has evolved is by definition natural. RH
>
> >> >So programming a computer is natural?
>
> >> The mental capacity to so is. Sigh. RH
>
> >RH shows signs of dyslexia - again.
>
> >If you define anything that we have the mental or physical capacity to
> >actually do as being natural then it becomes impossible for use to do
> >anything un-natural, in which case the words loose their meanings.
>
> Sigh. Nothing human beings do is unnatural by definition. We are part of
> the Natural World. Specific behaviours in individuals may be abnormal
> but they are still natural, ie, within the parameters of Homo Sapiens.
> RH
Laughable. So why have the words natural and unnatural? There is
nothing in the universe that is not part of the natural world, so by
your logic everything is natural and the word has no meaning.
> >Spoken language has had an impact on our evolution as a species,
> >written language and computer programming have not.
>
> You don't know that. Intelligence will be subject to natural selection
> and it is intelligence which allows written language and abilities such
> as programming. RH .
People have been programming computers on a large scale only for a
generation or so. This is far too little time for it to have placed
any significant evolutionary pressure. The same is true of written
language (with a slightly longer history). There is no evidence that
all humans are able to program a computer, or play the violin, or bowl
an outswinger or a huge range of other activities that can be done,
but which are not natural activities, but deliberately learned
skills. There is no a-priori reason to expect that reading and
writing are available to all within the limits of normal variation..
Fred
> > Sigh. Nothing human beings do is unnatural by definition. We are part of
> > the Natural World. Specific behaviours in individuals may be abnormal
> > but they are still natural, ie, within the parameters of Homo Sapiens.
> > RH
>
> Laughable. So why have the words natural and unnatural? There is
> nothing in the universe that is not part of the natural world, so by
> your logic everything is natural and the word has no meaning.
Indeed. Happily this means RH will accept that it is natural for
Panesar to play for England.
Gavin Cawley
LOL! Excellent point!
Robert Henderson
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes
>In article <J8d5buCR...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
>Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> [...] If you can't Google up something you must
>>be really barely sentient. [...]
>
> From RH, who is unable to google for articles given their
>message-ID, this is somewhat of a "pot-kettle" insult to Gavin.
>
Sigh. I refuse to Google for articles cited in ngs because it is
boorish behaviour by the poster not because I cannot. Of course, as an
extreme example of a bounded mind you will not understand this because
your psychological insight and relationship skills will be minimal. RH
> [Immediately following is the sole cricket content of this
>post, so that the otherwise-uninterested can ignore stuff about IQ:]
>
> To add at least a little cricket content, while it is manifest
>that *other things being equal* a fit cricketer is better than an unfit
>one, in real life other factors are much more important -- such as the
>ability to hold a cricket bat or to run up and bowl accurately. So we
>have the spectacle several times in [fairly] recent years of bowlers
>taking shedloads of wickets or batsmen making plenty of runs but dropped
>because they are deemed unfit, or of teams being put through training
>regimes that seem to result merely in a high degree of knackerment when
>they eventually reach the field of play. A Test cricketer should be
>judged by his ability to score runs, take wickets and field over the
>period of a five-day match, not by his weight, or smoking habits, or
>ability to do press-ups, or speed over 100m. Even less by a "Sports
>Quotient", or SQ, that averages all these things.
And the relevance to IQ testing is...... RH
>
> [The above paragraph misplaced from "****" below.]
>
>>>> Also, the
>>>> visiospatial questions require little by way of explanation. RH
>> [...] Moreover, most verbal test questions
>>could be reduced to pictorial representations, e.g. odd man out
>>questions, analogous questions. All you need do is give the candidate a
>>series of illustrations rather than words to compare. RH
>
> If you do this, then you are distorting the test results in a
>way that favours those with "visiospatial" abilities over those with
>verbal abilities.
Even if it did the effects would be minimal because performance in
verbal and performance tests for any individual will be close - even
Mongoloids who score higher on performance tests don't show a massive
difference between verbal and performance tests.
There is little reason to believe that even a small advantage would be
gained because all the pictorial representations would be doing is
identifying the items to the candidate. Performance tests require the
candidate to solve the problem using the visual data as part of the
problem. RH ,
> Further, "explanation", whether written or oral,
>introduces cultural bias, and strongly favours those who have taken
>similar tests before [and therefore do not need the explanations].
>Pictorial representations have their own cultural biases, as we find
>it much easier to "odd man out" between pictures/diagrams we understand
>than between meaningless jumbles.
>
> IQ tests are a bit of fun;
IQ tests are a valuable tool in predicting individual suitability for
jobs and academic courses. Fact. RH
> as soon as we start taking them
>seriously, the sinister side of them is not far away -- as indeed your
>favourite authors show.
Ah, so we come to the real reason you won't credit them: you care for
the truths they reveal at the level of the group. RH
>
>[Gavin:]
>>>Nonsense, unless the job involved very similar activities as those
>>>directly tested, simply becuase there are much better measures of
>>>ability (at least in terms of suitability for further study).
>>This is simply wrong. IQ correlates strongly with general work
>>performance.
>
> Some Hendersonian logic there. Whether or not IQ correlates
>strongly with general performance has nothing to do with whether or
>not there are much better measures of suitability for further study.
>As Gavin pointed out, a maths A-level is a much better indicator than
>an IQ score of how good a mathematician a typical 18yo is.
>
>>>> [...] If you have an IQ of 80 you will never be able to take
>>>> a maths degree.
>
> You have spouted this sort of rubbish frequently in the past.
>Do you have any evidence *at all* for it? If you are claiming that
>someone who is *stupid* cannot succeed academically, then you are on
>safer ground, but there are many non-academic reasons why bright
>people may do badly on specific IQ tests.
I defy you to find someone with an IQ of 80 who has taken a maths
degree. How are you defining bright? RH
>
>> [... E]ven at the degree level an IQ
>>test will tell you something useful, especially when the university
>>entrance exams have become so devalued as to not distinguish between the
>>able and very able. RH
>
> *What* entrance exams? And why do you claim they are devalued?
>We certainly don't use entrance exams, we go by GCSE, AS and A-level
>results instead, like almost all universities. On university entrance,
>we don't need to distinguish the able from the very able, but the able
>from the unable.
>
> I have in front of me when looking at a UCAS form the applicant's
>results over several years of public exams aimed specifically at that
>applicant's proposed course, supplemented by a personal statement and a
>reference; what do you claim an IQ score would add? Are you proposing
>that we should take B-rated mathematicians if they are good at doing IQ
>tests [or crosswords or Sudoku], and reject AAA applicants if they report
>an IQ score of 80?
>
>> [...] If low IQ correlates strongly with
>>social outcomes it is a valuable predictor of social outcomes. RH
>
> Valuable what for?
Employment, academic selection and social policy. RH
> It is not only useless but also very dangerous
>to use it to predict *individual* social outcomes.
It is not used for that, at least not since the eugenics movement went
flat. RH . RH
> It is not only useless
>but also very dangerous to use it when groups are changing. It is not only
>useless but also very dangerous to use it to dictate social outcomes. It
>is useful if you have good reason to suppose that the group whose outcomes
>you are predicting are from the same population as the group from which you
>derived the correlation *and* that no other factors are involved. How
>often does that happen? And how often, by contrast, are the correlations
>used entirely inappropriately, as for example in BC and in L&V and in so
>many of your rants in this newsgroup and elsewhere?
>
> **** Sole on-topic content moved from here to the top of this
>article. ****
>
>> [...] What the BC shows is that IQ trumps socioeconomic
>>status every time, ie, strip out all those with similar IQs regardless
>>of SES and the same trend is found: IQ low = poor outcome, IQ high =
>>strong outcome. RH
>
> Have you thought this through? If you pick those with similar
>IQ, then you don't have "IQ low" and "IQ high" to contrast.
True, which is what the BC uses to demonstrate over and over again that
IQ is the prime determinant in life outcomes. RH
> And if you
>pick those with the same SES, then you find that their high or low IQ has
>no effect on their SES. And, surprise, surprise, if you take countries
>with the same levels of education, then you find that L&V's figures show
>no correlation between IQ and national wealth, whereas if you take those
>with similar IQs then there is a very strong correlation between levels
>of education and wealth. The innumerate should not be let loose on data
>such as that. Which, sadly, doesn't stop them; fools rush in ....
>
All that begs the question of why countries vary so widely in their
social circumstances. Low IQ = low level of development etc. RH
Robert Henderson
Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> >> Sigh. Very low IQ question.
>>
>> >No, it is an ignorant question (I have never taken an IQ test and
>> >can't find any really useful information on the nature of the test on-
>> >line), so I am asking someone who I think may know.
>>
>> Ye Gods, you admit you know nothing about IQ testing yet you make
>> dogmatic statements about it. If you can't Google up something you must
>> be really barely sentient. Try putting Standard IQ tests into Google.
>> RH
>
>If you do, you get a load of web pages that don't look like official IQ
>tests, but something more like advertising. There is no way I can be
>sure that a real IQ test has the same sort of quuestions. Which was
>why I was asking someone I though had taken such a test.
>
You aren't safe to be let out on your own. Your inability to use a
search engine efficiently is very revealing because using a search
engine is one of the small number of computer programmes in widespread
use which rewards intelligence.
Give me any subject to research using Googole and I guarantee I will
locate what I need very rapidly. The fact that you are so hopeless as to
be unable to find details of something as well covered as IQ tests
confirms what I have told you before, you are an educated dullard.
OK, I'll make it easy for you. Google up the Wikipaedia page on IQ.
Don't take any notice of what they say (they are the font of all
misinformation) but follow their external links. RH
>> >> The test questions can be give orally. How
>> >> do you think illiterates and very young children are assessed?
>> >> Also, the
>> >> visiospatial questions require little by way of explanation. RH
>>
>> >How do they compensate for the differences in the mode of the test (I
>> >believe it is a time test, so this would matter).
>>
>> There is nothing to compensate for as such because it would not take any
>> longer to give the question orally than for someone to read the very
>> brief rubric for each type of test.
>
>Rubbish, I can read far faster than I can speak.
Sigh. Understanding an IQ question is more than simply reading it once.
. Frequently you would need to read it several times. It might even be
marginally quicker to understand information orally given. RH
>
>> Moreover, most verbal test questions
>> could be reduced to pictorial representations, e.g. odd man out
>> questions, analogous questions.
>
>Not most of the questions I found by searching on google as you
>suggested.
>
>> All you need do is give the candidate a
>> series of illustrations rather than words to compare. RH
>
>So a question like "what is next in the sequence 144, 121, 100, 81,
>64?" can be represented in a pictorial manner? I got this question
>using the search you suggested.
It could be given orally or one would use smaller numbers which could be
represented by counters., eg, 3 7 15 . RH
>
>> >> >As Fred says, plenty of highly intelligenet people have had dyslexia
>> >> >and gone on to academic success or been of benefit to society in some
>> >> >capacity.
>>
>> >> >Have you ever taken an IQ test Robert (I am genuinely interested to
>> >> >hear from someone with practical experience, especially for views
>> >> >w.r.t. the sensitivity to dyslexia)?
>>
>> >> I would advise anyone never to say what their IQ is because whatever the
>> >> score it will produce an unfavourable result. If low you will be
>> >> defined as thick, if average mediocre, if high frighteningly or
>> >> irritating clever.
>>
>> >Robert, I didn't ask what your IQ was, I asked if you had taken one (I
>> >even gave the reason, which you have also ignored). Why do you have
>> >such difficulty answering a simple and direct question?
>>
>> Yes, I have taken several IQ tests for academic and work purposes. . RH
>
>Like getting blood out of a stone, why could you not just answer a
>simple and direct question the first time it was asked?
>
>Right, can you give an example of a verbal understanding question, or a
>mathematical reasoning question that can be represented pictorially
>without making the question more difficult or easier?
Simple. Just take any odd man out test and substitute pictures for
words. For the maths questions, see example above. RH
>
>> >> You need to understand what IQ test are for. At the level of the
>> >> individual they tell you whether someone has the intellect to undertake
>> >> a particular job or course of study., although they are only one factor
>> >> amongst a number., including personality type.
>>
>> >Nonsense, unless the job involved very similar activities as those
>> >directly tested, simply becuase there are much better measures of
>> >ability (at least in terms of suitability for further study).
>>
>> This is simply wrong. IQ correlates strongly with general work
>> performance. This is the nonsense the USA have foisted on employers
>> through affirmative action. RH
>
>No Robert, read what I have written, IQ tests are next to useless
>because in the vast majority of circumstances the candidate has a
>variety of better, more specific indicators of their ability, so why
>use a poor proxy?
Simply wrong. The IQ trumps them all when taking it at the level of a
substantial group. RH
>
>> >> For example, an IQ of 150
>> >> will allow for the possibility that you can take a maths degree, it will
>> >> not guarantee it. If you have an IQ of 80 you will never be able to take
>> >> a maths degree. You get the idea?
>>
>> >Having done well at A level maths would be a far better guide, so why
>> >bother with IQ?
>>
>> Sigh. The degree example is merely an example.
>
>Yes, one that weakens your argument, but it was you that chose to use
>it.
>
Translation: the point at issue has soared above Gavin's IQ range. RH
>> An IQ test would be
>> useful much earlier than a degree,
>
>Yep, and students do GCSEs before A levels, and many other maths exams
>before that, which give a direct measure of mathematical ability, so
>there is still no need for IQ tests.
>
Oh yes there is where so many A Level students have the same grades. RH
>>but even at the degree level an IQ
>> test will tell you something useful, especially when the university
>> entrance exams have become so devalued as to not distinguish between the
>> able and very able. RH
>
>For which your evidence is?
>
>> >> Your IQ score will also point to likely social outcomes, the lower the
>> >> IQ, the less likely you are to hold a well paid job, the more likely to
>> >> commit crime, be unemployed etc.
>>
>> >That is quite likely to be true, but difficult to be sure which is the
>> >cause and which the effect.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if you can't. If low IQ correlates strongly with
>> social outcomes it is a valuable predictor of social outcomes. RH
>
>Nonsense. if IQ is strongly affected by socio-economic environment then
>you can affect social outcomes by investing to improve the socio-
>economic environment. If you assume that the causal link is in the
>opposite direction then there is no point in intervention. Knowing
>what is the cause and what is the effect is vitally important. This is
>why The Bell Curve is such poisonous garbage as it uses a completely
>bogus statistical analysis to arrive at the answer their sponsors
>wanted. Good job that people like James Heckman have thouroughly
>debunked it.
Heroically irrelevant to the point I made. . RH
>
>> >> At the level of populations, IQ is a valuable tool in predicting social
>> >> outcomes. The more people with a low IQ, the more social mayhem. RH
>>
>> >Back to the bell curve again? I have yet to see a study that properly
>> >accounts for socio-economic environment when drawing such concusions.
>> >The Bell Curve certainly isn't it and you know it.
>>
>> On the contrary, it is a very cautious piece of work which makes every
>> effort to do so.
>
>You know that is not true. They don't account for socio-economic at
>all when discussing race and IQ.
Go and read the relevant chapters for God's sake. RH
>Their measure of SES is cavalier to say the least. Their measure of IQ
>isn't actually and IQ test, but includes tests of schooling (e.g.
>questions involving trigonometry). The list of flaws is huge and you
>have been unwilling to answer any of them.
>
>Do you think it is reasonable to represent someone socio-economic
>environment as a single number?
>
>> What the BC shows is that IQ trumps socioeconomic
>> status every time, ie, strip out all those with similar IQs regardless
>> of SES and the same trend is found: IQ low = poor outcome, IQ high =
>> strong outcome. RH
>
>Have you read the article by James Heckman yet?
>
I have no need to as I have read the BC. RH
Fred
wrote:
> OK, I'll make it easy for you. Google up the Wikipaedia page on IQ.
> Don't take any notice of what they say (they are the font of all
> misinformation) but follow their external links. RH
Fred
Sorry, that's 17 mins before his post, not mine.
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1183111940.990025.55...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
[snip loads of evasive nonesense from RH]
> >> >Back to the bell curve again? I have yet to see a study that properly
> >> >accounts for socio-economic environment when drawing such concusions.
> >> >The Bell Curve certainly isn't it and you know it.
>
> >> On the contrary, it is a very cautious piece of work which makes every
> >> effort to do so.
>
> >You know that is not true. They don't account for socio-economic at
> >all when discussing race and IQ.
>
> Go and read the relevant chapters for God's sake. RH
I did, as you well know. I read all of the chapeters detailing their
statistical methodology (logistic regression), I read the chapters on
race and IQ, I read ALL of the copious notes at the end of the book
where a lot of the fudges are hidden.
You on the other hand are unwilling to read a short article by James
Heckman (a real expert in labour economics) pointing out the flaws.
They don't control for socio-economic status when discussing race.
They don't understand that logistic regression cannot be used to weigh
the importance of correlated explanatory variables (i.e. their whole
methodology is only valid if IQ and SES are uncorrellated)
When they do the control using a laughably poor measure. You also
know this to be true, otherwise you would answer the question "can
someones socio-economic environment be adequately represented by a
single number?". (see below)
> >Their measure of SES is cavalier to say the least. Their measure of IQ
> >isn't actually and IQ test, but includes tests of schooling (e.g.
> >questions involving trigonometry). The list of flaws is huge and you
> >have been unwilling to answer any of them.
>
> >Do you think it is reasonable to represent someone socio-economic
> >environment as a single number?
question ducked yet again.
> >> What the BC shows is that IQ trumps socioeconomic
> >> status every time, ie, strip out all those with similar IQs regardless
> >> of SES and the same trend is found: IQ low = poor outcome, IQ high =
> >> strong outcome. RH
>
> >Have you read the article by James Heckman yet?
>
> I have no need to as I have read the BC. RH
So you don't think it is neccessary to read articles that point out
fatal flaws in your source material? How scientific.
Robert Henderson
<longh...@hotmail.com> writes
Noe, because that is a cultural decision which transgresses the
nationality question. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> Sigh. Nothing human beings do is unnatural by definition. We are part of
>> the Natural World. Specific behaviours in individuals may be abnormal
>> but they are still natural, ie, within the parameters of Homo Sapiens.
>> RH
>
>Laughable. So why have the words natural and unnatural?
Sigh. Anything humans do is natural but the products of their behaviour
may not be, eg, high technology, although even there an analogy could be
drawn with artefact creation by animals such as nest building,. RH
> There is nothing in the universe that is not part of the natural
>world, so by your logic everything is natural and the word has no
>meaning.
>
>> >Spoken language has had an impact on our evolution as a species,
>> >written language and computer programming have not.
>>
>> You don't know that. Intelligence will be subject to natural selection
>> and it is intelligence which allows written language and abilities such
>> as programming. RH .
>
>People have been programming computers on a large scale only for a
>generation or so. This is far too little time for it to have placed
>any significant evolutionary pressure. The same is true of written
>language (with a slightly longer history). There is no evidence that
>all humans are able to program a computer, or play the violin, or bowl
>an outswinger or a huge range of other activities that can be done, but
>which are not natural activities, but deliberately learned skills.
>There is no a-priori reason to expect that reading and writing are
>available to all within the limits of normal variation..
Sigh. That is not how natural selection works. It sifts out the
disadvantageous and promotes the advantageous trait. The trait will be a
general quality not a specific ability applicable for to one area of
expertise such as programming, RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<longh...@hotmail.com> writes
Sigh. Gavin has already admitted he Googles for articles so there is no
conflict. rH
Gavin Cawley
> In message <1183202119.586989.86...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Fred
> <longhop2...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >On 30 Jun, 10:18, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> OK, I'll make it easy for you. Google up the Wikipaedia page on IQ.
> >> Don't take any notice of what they say (they are the font of all
> >> misinformation) but follow their external links. RH
>
> >And yet 17 mins ago on this same thread you said:
>
> >"Sigh. I refuse to Google for articles cited in ngs because it is
> >boorish behaviour by the poster"
>
> Sigh. Gavin has already admitted he Googles for articles so there is no
> conflict. rH
If you feel that posting URLs or directing people to Google is boorish
behaviour, surely it is still boorish behaviour if the intended
recipient is known to be tolerant of such boorish behaviour? However,
in any case it remains rather hypocritical to indulge in activities
for which you criticise others, even if the criticism is unjustified
(posting URLs etc is generally pragmatic and helpful rather than
boorish).
I had a go at one of the IQ tests given as an external link (although
I only took 10 mins over it rather than the full 40). If this is
truely representative of real IQ tests, I think they are way too
narrow to be really indicative of anything other than a particular
sort of visual pattern recognition skill, that wouldn't neccesarily be
helpful in e.g. mathematics, which requires a deeper form of
reasoning. The other problem with it is that it looks very much like
a skill you could easily learn or be taught, rather like cryptic cross-
words, which are a mystery to those who are not aware of the
conventions used in forming the clues, but get easier with practice.
I'm sure I could have improved my score very significantly with a
little extra familiarity with the form of the test.
Robert, as you have taken several IQ tests, did your scores go up over
time?
At the end of the day, I agree with ANW; IQ tests are fine as a bit of
fun, but not to be taken too seriously.
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1183194410.097126.22...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >> Sigh. Nothing human beings do is unnatural by definition. We are part of
> >> the Natural World. Specific behaviours in individuals may be abnormal
> >> but they are still natural, ie, within the parameters of Homo Sapiens.
> >> RH
>
> >Laughable. So why have the words natural and unnatural?
>
> Sigh. Anything humans do is natural but the products of their behaviour
> may not be, eg, high technology, although even there an analogy could be
> drawn with artefact creation by animals such as nest building,. RH
But there is no such thing as an un-natural behaviour for a human
being?
> > There is nothing in the universe that is not part of the natural
> >world, so by your logic everything is natural and the word has no
> >meaning.
>
> >> >Spoken language has had an impact on our evolution as a species,
> >> >written language and computer programming have not.
>
> >> You don't know that. Intelligence will be subject to natural selection
> >> and it is intelligence which allows written language and abilities such
> >> as programming. RH .
>
> >People have been programming computers on a large scale only for a
> >generation or so. This is far too little time for it to have placed
> >any significant evolutionary pressure. The same is true of written
> >language (with a slightly longer history). There is no evidence that
> >all humans are able to program a computer, or play the violin, or bowl
> >an outswinger or a huge range of other activities that can be done, but
> >which are not natural activities, but deliberately learned skills.
> >There is no a-priori reason to expect that reading and writing are
> >available to all within the limits of normal variation..
>
> Sigh. That is not how natural selection works. It sifts out the
> disadvantageous and promotes the advantageous trait. The trait will be a
> general quality not a specific ability applicable for to one area of
> expertise such as programming, RH
Not quite, evolution is blind, it sifts for traits that answer the
current selection pressures according to the environment. Sometimes
this is answered by a general quality, sometimes by a specific
adaption (e.g. Galapagos finches). Verbal language has resulted in
specific adapions, written language and computer programming have not
(I doubt it has yet resulted in significant changes in general
qualities either). So while it is reasonable to expect verbal
language to be widespread, the same is not true of written language or
computer programming, as one is innate and the others are not.
Robert Henderson
Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> Sigh. Gavin has already admitted he Googles for articles so there is no
>> conflict. rH
>
>If you feel that posting URLs or directing people to Google is boorish
>behaviour, surely it is still boorish behaviour if the intended
>recipient is known to be tolerant of such boorish behaviour? However,
>in any case it remains rather hypocritical to indulge in activities for
>which you criticise others, even if the criticism is unjustified
>(posting URLs etc is generally pragmatic and helpful rather than boorish).
>
>I had a go at one of the IQ tests given as an external link (although I
>only took 10 mins over it rather than the full 40). If this is truely
>representative of real IQ tests, I think they are way too narrow to be
>really indicative of anything other than a particular sort of visual
>pattern recognition skill, that wouldn't neccesarily be helpful in e.g.
>mathematics, which requires a deeper form of reasoning. The other
>problem with it is that it looks very much like a skill you could
>easily learn or be taught, rather like cryptic cross- words, which are
>a mystery to those who are not aware of the conventions used in forming
>the clues, but get easier with practice. I'm sure I could have improved
>my score very significantly with a little extra familiarity with the
>form of the test.
>
>Robert, as you have taken several IQ tests, did your scores go up over
>time?
>
>At the end of the day, I agree with ANW; IQ tests are fine as a bit of
>fun, but not to be taken too seriously.
Prolixity alert! Prolixity alert! RH
Robert Henderson
Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> >Laughable. So why have the words natural and unnatural?
>>
>> Sigh. Anything humans do is natural but the products of their behaviour
>> may not be, eg, high technology, although even there an analogy could be
>> drawn with artefact creation by animals such as nest building,. RH
>
>But there is no such thing as an un-natural behaviour for a human
>being?
>
There is abnormal behaviour not unnatural behaviour. RH
I suggest you learn what pre-adaptation is. RH
Gavin Cawley
> In message <1183372277.573317.242...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Gavin Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >> >Laughable. So why have the words natural and unnatural?
>
> >> Sigh. Anything humans do is natural but the products of their behaviour
> >> may not be, eg, high technology, although even there an analogy could be
> >> drawn with artefact creation by animals such as nest building,. RH
>
> >But there is no such thing as an un-natural behaviour for a human
> >being?
>
> There is abnormal behaviour not unnatural behaviour. RH
So it would be meaningless then to talk of "natural loyalty" as
loyalty is a behaviour and all behaviour is natural?
I should point out that the behaviour of considering Monty Panesar as
English is not abnormal considering the favourable crowd reception he
gets when he comes on to bowl for England.
It is meaningless to talk of pre-adaption in the context of our own
inventions, simply because if we weren't already the way we are, we
would have invented them differently (c.f. the anthropic principle).
For example, we are not pre-adapted for written language, but instead
written language has evolved within the physical and cognitive
limitations of the population that uses it. I suspect that with time,
written language becomes grammatically more regular and more phonetic,
as it becomes required by a greater proportion of the population.
Computer programming has also evolved to suit our limitations rather
the computers. Computers used to be programmed in their own language
(machine code), now they are programmed in something much closer to
ours. Oddly enough, programming is now easier than it used to be and
a much larger proportion of the population is capable of programming
non-trivial tasks than used to be the case. No pre-adaption there
either.
Gavin Cawley
> In message <1183371807.131040.208...@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
O.K., walk away from the discussion if you like. At least I took the
trouble to investigate things and to try to see your point of view, it
is a pity that four short paragraphs was too much trouble for you.
Dr A. N. Walker
Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> From RH, who is unable to google for articles given their
>>message-ID, this is somewhat of a "pot-kettle" insult to Gavin.
>Sigh. I refuse to Google for articles cited in ngs because it is
No it isn't; it is standard and polite practice. And it
really *is* boorish when you go out of your way to concoct absurd
insults aimed at everyone who tries to help you.
>> [...] A Test cricketer should be
>>judged by his ability to score runs, take wickets and field over the
>>period of a five-day match, not by his weight, or smoking habits, or
>>ability to do press-ups, or speed over 100m. Even less by a "Sports
>>Quotient", or SQ, that averages all these things.
>And the relevance to IQ testing is...... RH
I had some hope that you might be able to deduce that all by
yourself. Perhaps I overestimated you?
>Even if it did the effects would be minimal because performance in
>verbal and performance tests for any individual will be close - even
>Mongoloids who score higher on performance tests don't show a massive
>difference between verbal and performance tests.
No they won't. Many *individuals* have very widely differing
abilities in particular parts of tests, just as they have very widely
differing abilities at different sports, or even [as in cricket] at
different aspects of the same sport.
>There is little reason to believe that even a small advantage would be
>gained because all the pictorial representations would be doing is
>identifying the items to the candidate.
And switching verbal cultural bias to pictorial cultural bias.
>IQ tests are a valuable tool in predicting individual suitability for
>jobs and academic courses. Fact. RH
Utter twaddle. Fact. Which is why no-one sensible uses them
for that purpose.
>> [...] Have you thought this through? If you pick those with similar
>>IQ, then you don't have "IQ low" and "IQ high" to contrast.
>True, which is what the BC uses to demonstrate over and over again that
>IQ is the prime determinant in life outcomes. RH
Then you clearly *haven't* thought it through. For those with
similar IQ, IQ is manifestly *not* a determinant [prime or otherwise]
in their differing outcomes.
>All that begs the question of why countries vary so widely in their
>social circumstances. Low IQ = low level of development etc. RH
You're confusing yourself again. Wide differences in "social
circumstances" are a large part -- perhaps the whole part -- of why
countries with low levels of development have low levels of education
and so low performances on IQ tests. The correlations "found" by BC and
L&V are spurious; which does not stop gullible people from spouting them
as fact and using them in sinister rants in newsgroups and elsewhere.
Robert Henderson
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> writes
>In article <gBPj06QY...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
>Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> From RH, who is unable to google for articles given their
>>>message-ID, this is somewhat of a "pot-kettle" insult to Gavin.
>>Sigh. I refuse to Google for articles cited in ngs because it is
>>boorish behaviour by the poster not because I cannot. [...]
>
> No it isn't; it is standard and polite practice. And it
>really *is* boorish when you go out of your way to concoct absurd
>insults aimed at everyone who tries to help you.
>
mind. RH
>>> [...] A Test cricketer should be
>>>judged by his ability to score runs, take wickets and field over the
>>>period of a five-day match, not by his weight, or smoking habits, or
>>>ability to do press-ups, or speed over 100m. Even less by a "Sports
>>>Quotient", or SQ, that averages all these things.
>>And the relevance to IQ testing is...... RH
>
> I had some hope that you might be able to deduce that all by
>yourself. Perhaps I overestimated you?
Translation: Dr B-M makes the schoolboy philosophical error of
confusing expertise not dependent on intellect with ability based on
intellect. RH
>
>>Even if it did the effects would be minimal because performance in
>>verbal and performance tests for any individual will be close - even
>>Mongoloids who score higher on performance tests don't show a massive
>>difference between verbal and performance tests.
>
> No they won't. Many *individuals* have very widely differing
>abilities in particular parts of tests, just as they have very widely
>differing abilities at different sports, or even [as in cricket] at
>different aspects of the same sport.
>
Nope. The norm is for individuals to score broadly similarly across the
tests. Fact. RH
>>There is little reason to believe that even a small advantage would be
>>gained because all the pictorial representations would be doing is
>>identifying the items to the candidate.
>
> And switching verbal cultural bias to pictorial cultural bias.
So what? Care to demonstrate the objective advantage or disadvantage of
either bias when taking IQ tests? RH
>
>>IQ tests are a valuable tool in predicting individual suitability for
>>jobs and academic courses. Fact. RH
>
> Utter twaddle. Fact. Which is why no-one sensible uses them
>for that purpose.
Tell that to all Western governments and all multinationals who all use
IQ tests as part of their psychometric assessment of candidates. The US
uses the SAT for university entrance, a test with a high g loading.
Some universities in Britain are now doing something similar. . The
entry tests for executive and admin grades in the British civil service
contain IQ tests. RH
>
>>> [...] Have you thought this through? If you pick those with similar
>>>IQ, then you don't have "IQ low" and "IQ high" to contrast.
>>True, which is what the BC uses to demonstrate over and over again that
>>IQ is the prime determinant in life outcomes. RH
>
> Then you clearly *haven't* thought it through. For those with
>similar IQ, IQ is manifestly *not* a determinant [prime or otherwise]
>in their differing outcomes.
The BC finds a good deal of similarity of outcome even amongst those of
the same IQ but with widely varying SES. More particularly, those
with higher IQs tend to do better within their own social group. I
suggest you read the BC from front to back. RH
>
>>All that begs the question of why countries vary so widely in their
>>social circumstances. Low IQ = low level of development etc. RH
>
> You're confusing yourself again. Wide differences in "social
>circumstances" are a large part -- perhaps the whole part -- of why
>countries with low levels of development have low levels of education
>and so low performances on IQ tests. The correlations "found" by BC and
>L&V are spurious; which does not stop gullible people from spouting them
>as fact and using them in sinister rants in newsgroups and elsewhere.
>
You haven't meaningfully addressed the question I posed. Why do
countries have different levels of social development? Again you give
the game away with your "sinister". Your objection is a value
judgement. RH
Robert Henderson
In message <1183384725.9...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>>
>> >> >Laughable. So why have the words natural and unnatural?
>>
>> >> Sigh. Anything humans do is natural but the products of their behaviour
>> >> may not be, eg, high technology, although even there an analogy could be
>> >> drawn with artefact creation by animals such as nest building,. RH
>>
>> >But there is no such thing as an un-natural behaviour for a human
>> >being?
>>
>> There is abnormal behaviour not unnatural behaviour. RH
>
>So it would be meaningless then to talk of "natural loyalty" as loyalty
>is a behaviour and all behaviour is natural?
No, it would be natural in the sense of being within the human template
and natural in the sense that the person had a reason which would
engender loyalty to someone. RH
>
>I should point out that the behaviour of considering Monty Panesar as
>English is not abnormal considering the favourable crowd reception he
>gets when he comes on to bowl for England.
That is a mixture of pantomime and the reign of pc terror making people
think they must praise an ethnic in such circumstances to be safe. Rh
Status quo. RH
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1183384725.994911.106...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >> >> >Laughable. So why have the words natural and unnatural?
>
> >> >> Sigh. Anything humans do is natural but the products of their behaviour
> >> >> may not be, eg, high technology, although even there an analogy could be
> >> >> drawn with artefact creation by animals such as nest building,. RH
>
> >> >But there is no such thing as an un-natural behaviour for a human
> >> >being?
>
> >> There is abnormal behaviour not unnatural behaviour. RH
>
> >So it would be meaningless then to talk of "natural loyalty" as loyalty
> >is a behaviour and all behaviour is natural?
>
> No, it would be natural in the sense of being within the human template
> and natural in the sense that the person had a reason which would
> engender loyalty to someone. RH
So there is such a thing as unnatural loyalty? If there isn't the
adjective "natural" is meaningless in this context.
> >I should point out that the behaviour of considering Monty Panesar as
> >English is not abnormal considering the favourable crowd reception he
> >gets when he comes on to bowl for England.
>
> That is a mixture of pantomime and the reign of pc terror making people
> think they must praise an ethnic in such circumstances to be safe. Rh
Rubbish, they are perfectly safe if they gave the same polite applause
they give to other players. There are plenty of other England players
with overseas ancestry that did not get any special treatment, which
shows the "PC terror" argument to be nonsense.
RH runs away again, in this case because he is unable to argue that
pre-adaption is a meaningful concept in relation to human invention.
Richard Dixon
> RH runs away again, in this case because he is unable to argue that
> pre-adaption is a meaningful concept in relation to human invention.- Hide quoted text -
2007 hasn't been a vintage year for RH. He must be getting quite fit
though with all this running away.
Richard
Robert Henderson
Richard Dixon <rdng...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Robert Henderson
Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>> > There is abnormal behaviour not unnatural behaviour. RH
>>
>> >So it would be meaningless then to talk of "natural loyalty" as loyalty
>> >is a behaviour and all behaviour is natural?
>>
>> No, it would be natural in the sense of being within the human template
>> and natural in the sense that the person had a reason which would
>> engender loyalty to someone. RH
>
>So there is such a thing as unnatural loyalty? If there isn't the
>adjective "natural" is meaningless in this context.
Yes, there is unnatural loyalty when a person is loyal despite being
mistreated by the object of the loyalty. RH
Status quo. RH
Gavin Cawley
wrote:
> In message <1183474641.833479.63...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
> >> > There is abnormal behaviour not unnatural behaviour. RH
>
> >> >So it would be meaningless then to talk of "natural loyalty" as loyalty
> >> >is a behaviour and all behaviour is natural?
>
> >> No, it would be natural in the sense of being within the human template
> >> and natural in the sense that the person had a reason which would
> >> engender loyalty to someone. RH
>
> >So there is such a thing as unnatural loyalty? If there isn't the
> >adjective "natural" is meaningless in this context.
>
> Yes, there is unnatural loyalty when a person is loyal despite being
> mistreated by the object of the loyalty. RH
So there is no such thing as unnatural behaviour, but there is such a
thing as unnatural loyalty? This implies that loyalty is not a
behaviour. Interesting. ;-)
As I had not previously mentioned pre-adaption, RH misuses "status
quo", according to his own rule:
"Doesn't work. You can only use status quo after a second post
replicating a first has been made. RH"
Message-ID: <eso8P$KKwqC...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
> >RH runs away again, in this case because he is unable to argue that
> >pre-adaption is a meaningful concept in relation to human invention.
>
> Status quo. RH
RH still has no answer.
Robert Henderson
Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>> >So there is such a thing as unnatural loyalty? If there isn't the
>> >adjective "natural" is meaningless in this context.
>>
>> Yes, there is unnatural loyalty when a person is loyal despite being
>> mistreated by the object of the loyalty. RH
>
>So there is no such thing as unnatural behaviour, but there is such a
>thing as unnatural loyalty? This implies that loyalty is not a
>behaviour. Interesting. ;-)
Sigh, no it shows your intellectual limitations. It is natural behaviour
in the context of being within the parameters of what it is to be human;
it is unnatural within the context of Man's conscious appreciation of
behaviour. RH
Gavin Cawley
> In message <1183535853.589740.134...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Gavin
> Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>
> >> >So there is such a thing as unnatural loyalty? If there isn't the
> >> >adjective "natural" is meaningless in this context.
>
> >> Yes, there is unnatural loyalty when a person is loyal despite being
> >> mistreated by the object of the loyalty. RH
>
> >So there is no such thing as unnatural behaviour, but there is such a
> >thing as unnatural loyalty? This implies that loyalty is not a
> >behaviour. Interesting. ;-)
>
> Sigh, no it shows your intellectual limitations. It is natural behaviour
> in the context of being within the parameters of what it is to be human;
> it is unnatural within the context of Man's conscious appreciation of
> behaviour. RH
Evasion alert, evasion alert!
"Natural" behaviour only has meaning in terms of the inborn mental or
physical endowments of a person, or in terms of normality. "the
context of Man's conscious appreciation of behaviour" is pure
pretentious nonsense.
Dr A. N. Walker
Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Translation: autistic -style incomprehension [...]
RH follows usual habit of reducing cricket content to zero,
and increasing insult level towards 100%. There will be no further
response by me to RH in this thread here. Anyone, including RH, who
wants one can re-post his article to a more sensible group.
Meanwhile, is anyone keeping count of the RH buzzword bingo?
I must be nearing my double-century.
Robert Henderson
Cawley <g...@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes
>> >behaviour. Interesting. ;-)
>>
>> Sigh, no it shows your intellectual limitations. It is natural behaviour
>> in the context of being within the parameters of what it is to be human;
>> it is unnatural within the context of Man's conscious appreciation of
>> behaviour. RH
>
>Evasion alert, evasion alert!
>
>"Natural" behaviour only has meaning in terms of the inborn mental or
>physical endowments of a person, or in terms of normality. "the
>context of Man's conscious appreciation of behaviour" is pure
>pretentious nonsense.
Note: Subject GED displays imitative behaviour. RH
Robert Henderson
<a...@cuboid.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <ETLKwLOF...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>,
>Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Translation: autistic -style incomprehension [...]
>
> RH follows usual habit of reducing cricket content to zero,
>and increasing insult level towards 100%. There will be no further
>response by me to RH in this thread here. Anyone, including RH, who
>wants one can re-post his article to a more sensible group.
>
Translation: unable to answer the points made. Bounded mind panics and
flees. RH
> Meanwhile, is anyone keeping count of the RH buzzword bingo?
>I must be nearing my double-century.
>
--