Test predicts ability to learn programming

[Morkonan]

Actually, one could question whether or not we actually understand mortality. We certainly fear it, and fear is usually of that which is unknown to us. Some people don't fear it, so it's not like we actually have a survival instinct. Workplace accidents also seem to fly in the face of this. If I said i got kicked in the jewels, you will wince, indicating that you feel the pain in your head. Thus, you can experience something without taking the actual damage. This allows us to condition humans for responses without actually doing things to them.

We have the ability to construct scenarios in our heads and then work through them, coming to solutions without actually having to put ourselves in danger.

We certainly have a survival instinct. A drowning man can drown his rescuer in his desperation to "survive." A dying person gasps for days, their body virtually eating itself in order to stay alive. Are they "fearing death" or is their primitive rat brain just reacting the way it's supposed to?

Many prey animals have a "freeze" mechanism. You've heard of "Fight or Flee", right? Well, it's more properly - Fight, Flee, or Freeze. Ever seen a gazelle lying on the ground placidly letting a lion eat its guts while it's obviously still alive, still capable of running away, its eyes blinking, nose quivering? There ya go. What good is this mechanism? It's the last-ditch effort to take advantage of a predator's possible inclination to let go of seemingly "helpless or dead" prey. At least, that's the more popular view. Some would say that this is "shock." Certainly, there is some of that, but that's not what this actually is. A gazelle in such a situation is fully capable of voluntary movement and escaping, even if it later dies of its wounds. It's much more than a shock response.

It's this "freeze" response to an overwhelming situation that military training seeks to prevent. We are just as hardwired, in some situations, as any animal. We're just a bit more capable at training ourselves to not react instinctively. And... this is why bungee-jumping, tourists on a "shark experience" swim and "let's go on a wildlife safari in Africa with our windows down" exists... Unfortunately, we're capable of over-riding our evolutionary reinforced, and sensible, responses.

...We seem to disagree on pretty much everything except this. So, I have a feeling that our disagreements revolve around a fundemental difference on how to handle this...

I wanted to return to this comment to point out that we really don't disagree on a lot of things. It's also not that we disagree on something fundamental, either, when we do.

We're talking different languages and coming at this issue from different perspectives.

A test that is only designed to "screen" or is supposed to have some sort of predictive value doesn't always measure what it was intended to measure. All too often, these tests are designed as very easy tools to use to accomplish a very general goal, not very effective tools to use to accomplish a very specific goal.

So, a student who does well on this test might show promise as a programmer, right? Does that mean that students who do poorly can not be very effective programmers? Not just "no" but "heck no."

And, besides, that's not really the goal of modern education in the West, is it? We don't gather up students in a room and then select them for careers based on some sort of testing. We tell students "If you apply yourselves, you can be whatever you want to be", right? Then, we're supposed to design courses that "create" those people from the raw materials the teachers have...

That's really the goal, here. We can use screening ans assessment tests to get some idea of the general capabilities of an individual student. But, we can't base availability of instruction on general assessment tools, making choices concerning a privileged few who, perhaps, may have inherent advantages indicated by the test.

Our goal has many more constraints including our "cultures" which, mostly in the West, demand that we provide programs of instruction that enable and empower individuals to pursue their desired paths. We don't have to hand out degrees like a Pez dispenser, but we do have to make such degrees accessible if a student... applies themselves.

To sum: We believe that if a student isn't successful, it should not be the fault of the program of instruction nor should it be due to bias by the institution.

IOW - This test, while potentially useful, can't be used as a basis for an entire program of instruction. It can help to supplement it, but we still have to create a program that someone who failed this test can access in order to "learn computer."

[kohlrak]

Actually, one could question whether or not we actually understand mortality. We certainly fear it, and fear is usually of that which is unknown to us. Some people don't fear it, so it's not like we actually have a survival instinct. Workplace accidents also seem to fly in the face of this. If I said i got kicked in the jewels, you will wince, indicating that you feel the pain in your head. Thus, you can experience something without taking the actual damage. This allows us to condition humans for responses without actually doing things to them.

We have the ability to construct scenarios in our heads and then work through them, coming to solutions without actually having to put ourselves in danger.

Correct. Do we fear this, though? I believe this "empathy" is what separates us. Animals react when they see us suffer or are in pain, but are they empathic like we are?

We certainly have a survival instinct. A drowning man can drown his rescuer in his desperation to "survive." A dying person gasps for days, their body virtually eating itself in order to stay alive. Are they "fearing death" or is their primitive rat brain just reacting the way it's supposed to?

If you take their word for it: rat brain. That said, i'm not even going to begin to suggest a moral or ethical policy based on this. There are just some choices that should always be left to the person who must suffer the consequences of those choices. Discuss them, yes, but not to make them for them.

Many prey animals have a "freeze" mechanism. You've heard of "Fight or Flee", right? Well, it's more properly - Fight, Flee, or Freeze. Ever seen a gazelle lying on the ground placidly letting a lion eat its guts while it's obviously still alive, still capable of running away, its eyes blinking, nose quivering? There ya go. What good is this mechanism? It's the last-ditch effort to take advantage of a predator's possible inclination to let go of seemingly "helpless or dead" prey. At least, that's the more popular view. Some would say that this is "shock." Certainly, there is some of that, but that's not what this actually is. A gazelle in such a situation is fully capable of voluntary movement and escaping, even if it later dies of its wounds. It's much more than a shock response.

Honestly, I just think the Gazelle understands it's totally screwed (and it doesn't have to know this too consciously) and is more worried about any attempt of moving making the existing and inevitable pain even worse (next it gets clawed in the face or something and the lion gets rougher with it to keep it where it belongs). We see this alot with, say, boxing. What do new people do when they get flogged? Some see it coming and run like hell, some people just try to brawl back (seem to be the most successful ones), and then you got the people who turn their backs. Does anyone know why you turn your back, when it isn't even remotely helpful? If you know you're going to get hit, the back has more bone to it, thus it hurts alot less. You're protecting your vitals while taking shots. Not good for your kidneys, though.

It's this "freeze" response to an overwhelming situation that military training seeks to prevent.

Alot more than just that, I assure you. But, you hit the nail on the head: it comes from being overwhelmed. If running doesn't work, freeze is the next thing. People rarely fight, from what i've seen.

We are just as hardwired, in some situations, as any animal. We're just a bit more capable at training ourselves to not react instinctively. And... this is why bungee-jumping, tourists on a "shark experience" swim and "let's go on a wildlife safari in Africa with our windows down" exists... Unfortunately, we're capable of over-riding our evolutionary reinforced, and sensible, responses.

I think it's deeper than that. Ever try training this reaction out of yourself? It's a default reaction for a reason: it's better to do nothing than to do something that's wrong and makes the situation worse. The people who like danger haven't really gotten bitten by danger. It's kind of like smoking. "It wasn't what killed my Grandma." If someone punches you 10 times and only the last time hurt, you'll never respect them, even though that one time hurt. Therefore, when boxing, take advantage of you jabs as a feeler punch to know where you're at. Then let them eat the cross and follow that up with another hard shot, as they'll walk right into it.

...We seem to disagree on pretty much everything except this. So, I have a feeling that our disagreements revolve around a fundemental difference on how to handle this...

I wanted to return to this comment to point out that we really don't disagree on a lot of things. It's also not that we disagree on something fundamental, either, when we do.

We're talking different languages and coming at this issue from different perspectives.

Perspectives usually come from fundementals. I'm referring to other topics altogether, not necessarily this one. For example, the Trump topic.

A test that is only designed to "screen" or is supposed to have some sort of predictive value doesn't always measure what it was intended to measure. All too often, these tests are designed as very easy tools to use to accomplish a very general goal, not very effective tools to use to accomplish a very specific goal.

This is actually precisely why I wanted to discuss this topic. Notice IQ tests are predictive of futures, and even ability to get hired as a programmer, yet IQ is not reliable to predict one's likelihood of learning? IQ correlates with race, so the race and IQ debate happens, right? We forget that correlation does not imply causation. There could easily be anothe correlating factor that becomes the cause. What i find interesting, though, is the people who get most offended by the correlation are the same people that want everything aside from moral or mental potential to be related to genetics.

Personally, I think correlation does not imply causation. For example, the "twin studies," do they compensate for automatic culture reassignment based on race? In other words, could IQ be related to culture, as oppossed to race, and the kids that were adopted at a young age merely adopt the culture attributed to their race simply because that was what society expects of them, which leads to the lower IQ (and consequent behavioral issues)?

Furthermore, if it is culture, rather than race, does that not mean that anyone could ultimately learn anything with the proper instruction methods as well as instructee's approach? This circles back to programming, and from what I can tell, absolutely. When I see people having trouble, I ask them what is on their mind and why they did something. Sometimes, I find i have to ask them to go over the whole program, because if I ask about something specific they'll just straight up assume that's the error (which it could be) and then delete it or what not, and you never figure out what the real problem was (that created the bad code). It's really interesting to see what mistakes people make and for what reasons. Sometimes you can fix one mistake, and that'll fix all their other practices. A few common patterns i find:

• ・Hiding "difficult" topics leads to accidental discovery of those topics, without awareness that the topics exist. This leads to alot of bugs.
  
  ・"Just doing what i'm told," or trying different things instead of thinking through the problem, because everything's magical and once it works it works just fine, right? if it works now, there must not be a bug? Doesn't matter if it also includes an extra 10 to 20 lines of code and variable declarations that ultimately don't accomplish anything other than slowing down the code.
  
  ・Not checking return codes (boy, was I ever guilty of this one back in the day), because some functions are very reliable in your test environment, even though they're likely to break in the real world (not checking for null with fopen is a favorite of mine).
  
  ・"I should be able to use a cellphone function for every phone object, since I can use a phone function on every cellphone object." This is more of a thing where APIs and Libraries aren't documented nearly well enough, which is especially bad in a learning environment.
  
  ・"This is too hard." Usually someone who is approaching the problem with a certain expectation that isn't true. Need to find out what the assumptions are, and show them why certain assumptions are incorrect. Usually the result of trying to teach something as a rule, when it's a rule of thumb.
  
  ・"That's bad practice." Rule of thumb gone wild (goto debate strikes again). And/or, lack of instruction in alternative methods (either the one that they are calling bad practice, or the one that they could use instead of what they're calling bad practice).

Just a few off the top of my head, which is only because those are the ones I see in almost everyone.

So, a student who does well on this test might show promise as a programmer, right? Does that mean that students who do poorly can not be very effective programmers? Not just "no" but "heck no."

As I've managed to break the test (which i stated in the first post), I agree. What is really interesting, is that i solved the issue by using "the hardest programming language:" assembly. I argue that a good part of what makes this stuff challenging is that we try too hard to "make things easier." Sometimes, in doing so, we actually make them harder. Ever try learning a language and starting with one of those old style language learning kits? Still found the most useful method is immersion, which we've known for so many years, yet we insist on trying to "make it easier" on people by doing catered language lessons. Sure, C++ is easier to code in than assembly, but not for beginners. The advantage of C++ and such comes from being able to short hand alot of instructions onto one line with a simple math expression:

Code: Select all

seed dd 0xDEADDEAD
prng:
	mov eax, [seed]
	shr eax, 3
	xor eax, [seed]
	rol eax, 5
	mov [seed], eax
	ret

to

Code: Select all

unsigned int rol(unsigned int val, int rotval) {
    return (val << rotval) | (val >> sizeof(unsigned int) - rotval));
}

unsigned int seed = 0xDEADDEAD;

unsigned int prng(){
	seed = ROL(((seed >> 3) ^ seed), 5);
	return seed;
}

Here you can see the advantages and disadvantages: Sometimes the processor implements something fun and useful, but you just can't use it without intrinsics, reinventing it (what you see above), inline assembly, or mixing source languages (which is way easier than you'd think). Also, "shl" is way easier to google than "<<" if you happen to forget what it is.

And, besides, that's not really the goal of modern education in the West, is it? We don't gather up students in a room and then select them for careers based on some sort of testing. We tell students "If you apply yourselves, you can be whatever you want to be", right? Then, we're supposed to design courses that "create" those people from the raw materials the teachers have...

Well, that's the thing: the rubber's hitting the road. It really has gotten to the point where we have to ask ourselves whether or not we honestly believe that. I'm sorry to say, that it is looking alot like we don't. I'd love to change that. However, the perceptive cause is a political nightmare, so alot of people are trying to tiptoe around it, because to find the actual cause, you'd have to address the perceived cause, which no one can do. Before we can say it's approach, etc, we need to first actually do the study involving race. I think we all know what the results would say, so we'd like to avoid that controversy. Now, i say the "outliers" in the results would hold the key to what it really is, but before you can "analyze the exceptions," we'd need to make the general rule.

Given that we don't like to look at exceptions, I can understand why we avoid the general rule experiments: Why do we say "I have 2 boxes," but cannot say "I have 2 water?" Mass nouns vs non-mass nouns are hard in english, so we avoid the topic of why a noun is or isn't fundementally one or the other, then when a mass noun shows up as a non-mass noun ("there were 2 gasses coming out of the sewer, a harmless gas, and chlorine gas"), people who don't speak english natively end up horribly confused. This fear of going down the rabbit hole to explain exceptions is something we need to address as a culture, because it's slowly eroding the various academic communities, including the scientific communities. However, not only is it inconvenient to do so, certain political groups love to hide in these really conveniant spaces for exceptions.

If Chinese people are short, Yao Ming either has some non-chinese blood, a rare mutation occured (where alot of genes mutated just the right way at the same time [realistically, "no"]), or it's not DNA. Do I have the answer? Nope, but I think it's worth looking at. I think one can be close to a solution, but while "close enough" works in some situations, i think we have enough margins of error in enough things that it's catching up to us, especially when it's erupting into violence. For horseshoes is close enough. For hand grenades it's close enough. For thigs that determine peoples' ability to succeed in life and reproduce, I don't think so.

That's really the goal, here. We can use screening ans assessment tests to get some idea of the general capabilities of an individual student. But, we can't base availability of instruction on general assessment tools, making choices concerning a privileged few who, perhaps, may have inherent advantages indicated by the test.

I think we could pull off a certain test that would be way more deserving. Perhaps a sort of "morality test" that could be done in a very, very objective way, politics removed (which is probably why it'll never happen). However, to get there, we have to face the demons that we have been avoiding. To take race again, since it's such a big deal, I have a great story for you (that happened, no joke): When I was working in the kitchen of a nursing home, one lady from another department came up to me and said that someone told her to tell me something. I said that without knowing who it was, the information wasn't really all that relevant. She couldn't remember the woman's name, but she's a woman and works in the kitchen. I pointed out that out of the 20 or more people that work in the kitchen, only about 5 or 6 are male, thus that wasn't very helpful. I gave up, and later the woman in question found me. This woman happened to be the only black woman working at the facility at that time. So, fine, you couldn't remember a name like "Sharona," but she couldn't remember she was black? I confronted the original woman who was to pass Sharona's message to me, and Sharona was right there to hear this one, and she said "I was afraid of being offensive." So, in the west, we believe that skin color holds no more value than hair or eye color, yet we have trouble referring to skin color but not to hair or eye color? People are a little frisky about "fat" and "skinny," since those revolve around lifestyle choices (things that you actually could judge someone on, with moral standing) which I get, but how are we to ever get passed this issue if we're afraid of it? How are we ever going to get past race issues when we have admission and employment quotas? How about those race rights groups? How can we ever get past this stuff if we cannot face it and put it to rest?

But, that's another topic, and i'm probably already pushing the rules with what i've said here, so I doubt we'll be able to discuss this furthere, here. However, it needs to be brought up. Once you get past race, the next thing will probably be mental disorders and such (for example, I have ADHD). I would argue these are a much, much bigger factor, but i've also noticed that since this is also sensitive, alot of people have gotten away with making some nasty claims. For example, one study says people with autism spectrum disorders such as ADHD have a tendancy to have higher IQ than those who do not (I think they might actually have something, here, given the symptoms, i'm willing to bet that they're the result of high IQ rather than some other condition). Another study came out, to counter it, that suggested that children with ADHD have smaller brains on average. The injustice being that there are three potential reasons for this that were not addressed, and because it's an unpopular topic, the favored report can be used to oppress those like me with diagnosed ADHD:

• 1. Things in biology that grow slowly end up with higher complexity on average before it stops growing. Take male muscles vs female muscles: girls often outperform boys. 10 years later, and men are outperforming women at the same tasks. Basic biology.
  
  2. At the time of study, ADHD was treated with Ritalin, which has a side effect of stunted brain growth. In the counter study suggesting ADHD diagnosed children have smaller brains, did they account for medication?
  
  3. Does brain size ultimately affect intelligence? A famous case (yet we have little detail on) suggests a man with so little brain tissue that doctors ponder how he is even alive, has an IQ of 60, which is low, but people with over 10 times the brain mass often don't have an IQ of more than 110. That's quite the diminishing returns, right? Must be tiered, because with those diminishing returns, you'd expect to be able to visually identify einstein's cranial differences from "normal people" at least a kilometer away. I'm willing to bet IQ is not tied to brain mass.

And what even is IQ? All we know is low IQ correlates with violence and lack of success in life, while high IQ correlates with being rich. How do we know it's not trainable when we don't even know what it even is outside of that? Clearly, from the test above, we know that IQ isn't even predictive of programmer capabilities.

Our goal has many more constraints including our "cultures" which, mostly in the West, demand that we provide programs of instruction that enable and empower individuals to pursue their desired paths. We don't have to hand out degrees like a Pez dispenser, but we do have to make such degrees accessible if a student... applies themselves.

Yeah, but we need to get away from the quota system. We need a system to measure application, willingness to learn, and so forth. But we won't even get there if we don't first tackle the issues we're afraid of. Otherwise, any complex test we come up with will become cost-effectively "practical" (simplified) into a system we got rid of a long time ago, because we knew it was a bad idea. The problem is, we know something is morally wrong and impractical, but we never bothered figuring out why, or how we managed to end up with the practical idea. We were just kinda like "woah, this isn't working," and then reversed it. Did things improve? To some degree, yes, but we addressed the symptoms rather than the problem, which is why we're falling right back into the trap that we escaped from.

To sum: We believe that if a student isn't successful, it should not be the fault of the program of instruction nor should it be due to bias by the institution.

IOW - This test, while potentially useful, can't be used as a basis for an entire program of instruction. It can help to supplement it, but we still have to create a program that someone who failed this test can access in order to "learn computer."

There's the thing: both statements are mutually exclusive. If the test is incorrect in predicting programmer capability, despite it completely correlating with student success rates, it's an indication that the intruction is not addressing the problem, and that the current solution to the problem is that the students know what they're doing before getting told what they're doing. That's basically what the test indicates: that the majority of students who don't already know their stuff aren't learning. Either some people can't learn and the people who can already know the basics before instruction, or something in the curriculum needs changed to address the students who don't already know what's being taught to them. In other words, people are going to get a degree, not to learn, or if they are there to learn, they're still not learning. It's cruel to say, but there's little other explanation for what we're seeing.

[pjknibbs]

I'm beginning to think Morkonan and kohlrak are in a race to create the biggest walls of text...

[kohlrak]

I'm beginning to think Morkonan and kohlrak are in a race to create the biggest walls of text...

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Risus at ultrices mi tempus imperdiet nulla. Id porta nibh venenatis cras sed felis eget. Sed odio morbi quis commodo odio aenean sed adipiscing. At erat pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit at imperdiet dui. Erat nam at lectus urna duis convallis convallis. Auctor urna nunc id cursus metus aliquam eleifend mi. Consectetur adipiscing elit duis tristique sollicitudin nibh sit. Mauris sit amet massa vitae tortor condimentum lacinia quis vel. Vitae nunc sed velit dignissim sodales. Tellus molestie nunc non blandit massa. Praesent elementum facilisis leo vel fringilla est ullamcorper eget nulla. Commodo ullamcorper a lacus vestibulum sed. Sed vulputate mi sit amet mauris. Congue quisque egestas diam in. Mi tempus imperdiet nulla malesuada pellentesque elit eget. At elementum eu facilisis sed odio. Tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed. Est ullamcorper eget nulla facilisi etiam dignissim.

Malesuada fames ac turpis egestas sed tempus urna. Viverra orci sagittis eu volutpat odio facilisis. Porttitor massa id neque aliquam vestibulum morbi blandit. Orci porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Bibendum arcu vitae elementum curabitur vitae nunc sed velit dignissim. Eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin sagittis. Dolor purus non enim praesent elementum facilisis leo vel fringilla. Viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet. Laoreet non curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor. Fames ac turpis egestas sed. Euismod in pellentesque massa placerat duis ultricies lacus. Tortor pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus. Suspendisse sed nisi lacus sed viverra tellus in hac habitasse. Tellus at urna condimentum mattis pellentesque id nibh tortor id. Adipiscing bibendum est ultricies integer quis auctor elit sed vulputate.

Ipsum suspendisse ultrices gravida dictum. In iaculis nunc sed augue lacus viverra vitae congue eu. Non odio euismod lacinia at. Dolor sit amet consectetur adipiscing elit ut. Scelerisque eleifend donec pretium vulputate sapien nec sagittis aliquam malesuada. Euismod in pellentesque massa placerat. Massa sapien faucibus et molestie. Mauris cursus mattis molestie a iaculis at erat pellentesque. Ac auctor augue mauris augue neque gravida in fermentum. Tortor id aliquet lectus proin nibh nisl condimentum id. Eget nunc lobortis mattis aliquam faucibus. Pellentesque elit eget gravida cum sociis. Sed vulputate odio ut enim blandit volutpat maecenas volutpat blandit. Risus viverra adipiscing at in. Non curabitur gravida arcu ac tortor dignissim convallis aenean. Orci a scelerisque purus semper eget duis at tellus at. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus. Adipiscing commodo elit at imperdiet dui accumsan.

Habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque elit ullamcorper dignissim. Sit amet porttitor eget dolor. Mollis nunc sed id semper risus in hendrerit gravida. At in tellus integer feugiat scelerisque varius morbi. Ultricies mi eget mauris pharetra et ultrices neque ornare. Nunc faucibus a pellentesque sit amet. Id leo in vitae turpis. Natoque penatibus et magnis dis. Ac auctor augue mauris augue neque gravida in fermentum. Congue eu consequat ac felis. Fermentum et sollicitudin ac orci. Mus mauris vitae ultricies leo. Pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum consectetur libero. Nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed. Facilisis volutpat est velit egestas dui id ornare. Tristique nulla aliquet enim tortor at. Eu nisl nunc mi ipsum faucibus.

Consectetur libero id faucibus nisl tincidunt. Nisi est sit amet facilisis magna etiam tempor orci. Blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu dui. Mi eget mauris pharetra et ultrices. Lectus arcu bibendum at varius vel pharetra vel. Ut venenatis tellus in metus vulputate eu scelerisque felis. Auctor eu augue ut lectus arcu bibendum at varius vel. Libero nunc consequat interdum varius sit amet mattis vulputate. Sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis rhoncus urna neque viverra. Nunc sed id semper risus in hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque.

Ipsum a arcu cursus vitae. Phasellus vestibulum lorem sed risus ultricies tristique. Ac placerat vestibulum lectus mauris ultrices eros. Lectus mauris ultrices eros in cursus turpis massa tincidunt dui. Rhoncus est pellentesque elit ullamcorper. Nibh sed pulvinar proin gravida. Orci eu lobortis elementum nibh tellus. Facilisi nullam vehicula ipsum a arcu cursus vitae. Vitae auctor eu augue ut lectus arcu. At urna condimentum mattis pellentesque id nibh. Libero justo laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet. Ut enim blandit volutpat maecenas volutpat. Ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas. Commodo nulla facilisi nullam vehicula ipsum a arcu cursus vitae. Nam libero justo laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet dictum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipiscing elit pellentesque.

Suspendisse in est ante in nibh. Erat velit scelerisque in dictum. Pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit at imperdiet dui accumsan sit amet. Facilisis mauris sit amet massa vitae. Mauris commodo quis imperdiet massa tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien. Scelerisque in dictum non consectetur. Purus in mollis nunc sed id semper. Viverra mauris in aliquam sem fringilla ut morbi. Egestas sed sed risus pretium quam. Enim nunc faucibus a pellentesque sit amet porttitor. Amet facilisis magna etiam tempor. Viverra tellus in hac habitasse platea dictumst. Vitae purus faucibus ornare suspendisse sed nisi lacus sed. Euismod nisi porta lorem mollis aliquam ut porttitor. Et egestas quis ipsum suspendisse. Tortor posuere ac ut consequat.

Aenean euismod elementum nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing. Dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu. At in tellus integer feugiat scelerisque varius morbi enim nunc. Porttitor eget dolor morbi non arcu risus quis. Eu scelerisque felis imperdiet proin. Cursus metus aliquam eleifend mi. Nunc non blandit massa enim nec dui. Urna duis convallis convallis tellus id interdum velit laoreet id. Platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque elit. Justo eget magna fermentum iaculis eu non diam phasellus. Eu nisl nunc mi ipsum. Vulputate odio ut enim blandit volutpat maecenas volutpat blandit aliquam. Faucibus pulvinar elementum integer enim neque. Viverra accumsan in nisl nisi scelerisque eu ultrices vitae auctor. Nulla malesuada pellentesque elit eget gravida cum. Purus gravida quis blandit turpis cursus in hac habitasse. Lobortis elementum nibh tellus molestie nunc. Sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate. Interdum varius sit amet mattis vulputate.

Amet cursus sit amet dictum sit amet justo donec enim. Augue ut lectus arcu bibendum at varius vel pharetra vel. Tortor pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac. Viverra mauris in aliquam sem fringilla. Euismod lacinia at quis risus sed vulputate odio. Tincidunt augue interdum velit euismod in pellentesque massa placerat. Arcu cursus euismod quis viverra nibh. Ullamcorper malesuada proin libero nunc consequat interdum varius sit. Dictum varius duis at consectetur lorem donec massa sapien. Eget gravida cum sociis natoque. Ut sem viverra aliquet eget sit amet tellus cras adipiscing. Sodales neque sodales ut etiam sit. Egestas sed tempus urna et pharetra pharetra massa massa ultricies. Posuere ac ut consequat semper viverra nam libero justo. Quis ipsum suspendisse ultrices gravida. Praesent semper feugiat nibh sed pulvinar proin gravida hendrerit.

Ullamcorper a lacus vestibulum sed arcu non. Diam ut venenatis tellus in metus. Cursus metus aliquam eleifend mi in nulla posuere sollicitudin. Vitae justo eget magna fermentum iaculis eu non. Tincidunt eget nullam non nisi est sit amet. Eget egestas purus viverra accumsan in. Tortor consequat id porta nibh venenatis. Pellentesque nec nam aliquam sem et tortor consequat id. Vivamus arcu felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas. Faucibus et molestie ac feugiat sed lectus. Quis enim lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui. Condimentum mattis pellentesque id nibh. Turpis massa tincidunt dui ut ornare lectus. Mauris augue neque gravida in fermentum et sollicitudin. Morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis.

Vestibulum morbi blandit cursus risus. Viverra mauris in aliquam sem. Ut eu sem integer vitae justo eget magna. In mollis nunc sed id semper risus. Justo eget magna fermentum iaculis eu non diam phasellus vestibulum. Elementum nisi quis eleifend quam adipiscing. Fames ac turpis egestas maecenas pharetra convallis. Risus feugiat in ante metus dictum at tempor commodo ullamcorper. Massa enim nec dui nunc mattis. Maecenas volutpat blandit aliquam etiam. Lectus magna fringilla urna porttitor. Egestas sed tempus urna et pharetra pharetra massa massa. Vitae congue eu consequat ac felis donec et. Porta lorem mollis aliquam ut. Adipiscing elit pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus. Vel eros donec ac odio tempor orci. Velit sed ullamcorper morbi tincidunt ornare. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis.

Nibh praesent tristique magna sit amet. Nascetur ridiculus mus mauris vitae. Pellentesque nec nam aliquam sem et tortor consequat. Nunc mattis enim ut tellus elementum sagittis. Molestie at elementum eu facilisis sed odio. Placerat in egestas erat imperdiet sed euismod nisi. Luctus accumsan tortor posuere ac ut. Amet dictum sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate. Viverra justo nec ultrices dui sapien eget mi proin sed. Senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac. Hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non tellus orci ac auctor augue. Scelerisque varius morbi enim nunc faucibus a pellentesque sit amet. Viverra tellus in hac habitasse. Vel facilisis volutpat est velit egestas dui id. Risus quis varius quam quisque id diam. Vulputate odio ut enim blandit volutpat maecenas volutpat blandit. Aliquet bibendum enim facilisis gravida neque convallis. Turpis egestas maecenas pharetra convallis posuere.

Vulputate mi sit amet mauris. Metus aliquam eleifend mi in. Sagittis aliquam malesuada bibendum arcu vitae elementum curabitur vitae nunc. Laoreet id donec ultrices tincidunt arcu. Ut sem nulla pharetra diam sit. Ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper morbi. Non quam lacus suspendisse faucibus interdum. Tincidunt praesent semper feugiat nibh sed pulvinar proin gravida. Et egestas quis ipsum suspendisse ultrices gravida dictum. Urna nec tincidunt praesent semper. Bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis ipsum suspendisse ultrices. Urna neque viverra justo nec. Accumsan lacus vel facilisis volutpat est velit egestas dui. Tempus iaculis urna id volutpat lacus laoreet.

Consequat id porta nibh venenatis. Elit duis tristique sollicitudin nibh. Facilisis leo vel fringilla est ullamcorper eget nulla facilisi. Leo in vitae turpis massa sed elementum tempus. Vel eros donec ac odio. Imperdiet nulla malesuada pellentesque elit eget gravida cum sociis natoque. Laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet dictum sit amet. Dignissim diam quis enim lobortis scelerisque fermentum dui faucibus in. Neque vitae tempus quam pellentesque nec nam aliquam sem et. Eget magna fermentum iaculis eu. Turpis cursus in hac habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis. Tristique et egestas quis ipsum suspendisse ultrices. Orci sagittis eu volutpat odio facilisis mauris sit amet. Id nibh tortor id aliquet lectus proin nibh nisl. Diam maecenas ultricies mi eget mauris pharetra et ultrices. Vel fringilla est ullamcorper eget nulla facilisi. Nisl purus in mollis nunc sed id semper. Vel pretium lectus quam id leo in. Non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum. Nulla facilisi cras fermentum odio eu feugiat.

Sollicitudin nibh sit amet commodo nulla. Blandit turpis cursus in hac. In mollis nunc sed id semper risus. Amet nisl purus in mollis nunc sed id. Ultricies mi eget mauris pharetra et ultrices. Scelerisque eu ultrices vitae auctor eu augue. Sagittis vitae et leo duis ut diam quam nulla porttitor. Egestas tellus rutrum tellus pellentesque eu tincidunt. Egestas congue quisque egestas diam in arcu. Et ultrices neque ornare aenean euismod. Vitae congue eu consequat ac felis donec et odio pellentesque. Pretium aenean pharetra magna ac placerat vestibulum. Vitae et leo duis ut diam quam nulla porttitor. Nunc sed velit dignissim sodales. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Accumsan lacus vel facilisis volutpat est velit egestas dui. Tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu. Viverra accumsan in nisl nisi scelerisque eu.

Neque aliquam vestibulum morbi blandit cursus risus at. Dignissim sodales ut eu sem integer vitae justo. Scelerisque eleifend donec pretium vulputate sapien nec sagittis aliquam malesuada. Mattis pellentesque id nibh tortor id aliquet lectus proin. Dictum fusce ut placerat orci nulla pellentesque dignissim enim. Elementum curabitur vitae nunc sed velit. Semper eget duis at tellus at. Sit amet consectetur adipiscing elit duis. Porttitor lacus luctus accumsan tortor posuere ac ut. Eget gravida cum sociis natoque penatibus et. Sit amet justo donec enim diam vulputate ut. Imperdiet dui accumsan sit amet nulla facilisi morbi tempus. At auctor urna nunc id cursus metus aliquam eleifend mi. Neque vitae tempus quam pellentesque nec. Turpis massa tincidunt dui ut ornare lectus sit amet. Duis ultricies lacus sed turpis tincidunt.

Ut aliquam purus sit amet luctus. Diam sollicitudin tempor id eu nisl nunc mi ipsum faucibus. Tempor nec feugiat nisl pretium. Pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit at imperdiet dui accumsan sit. Tellus in hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum. Eget gravida cum sociis natoque penatibus. Tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris. Diam sollicitudin tempor id eu nisl nunc mi ipsum. In hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non tellus orci. Eget dolor morbi non arcu.

Nec feugiat in fermentum posuere urna nec tincidunt. Tincidunt nunc pulvinar sapien et ligula. Hac habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis purus sit. Ut sem viverra aliquet eget sit amet tellus cras adipiscing. Erat velit scelerisque in dictum non consectetur a erat nam. Non quam lacus suspendisse faucibus interdum posuere lorem. Nunc eget lorem dolor sed viverra ipsum nunc aliquet. Nibh praesent tristique magna sit amet purus gravida quis blandit. Porta non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum consectetur. Fames ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet nibh praesent. Sit amet aliquam id diam maecenas. Neque viverra justo nec ultrices dui sapien. Nunc pulvinar sapien et ligula ullamcorper malesuada. Vulputate mi sit amet mauris commodo quis imperdiet massa. Placerat vestibulum lectus mauris ultrices eros in cursus turpis. Quis vel eros donec ac odio tempor. Pretium lectus quam id leo in vitae turpis massa sed. Viverra orci sagittis eu volutpat odio facilisis mauris.

Viverra nam libero justo laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet. Quis varius quam quisque id diam vel quam. Etiam non quam lacus suspendisse faucibus interdum posuere lorem ipsum. Lacus vestibulum sed arcu non odio. Nulla at volutpat diam ut venenatis tellus. Rutrum quisque non tellus orci ac auctor augue. Facilisis magna etiam tempor orci eu lobortis. Non tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris augue. Pellentesque diam volutpat commodo sed egestas egestas. Amet est placerat in egestas. Eget nunc lobortis mattis aliquam faucibus. Et leo duis ut diam quam. At erat pellentesque adipiscing commodo elit at imperdiet dui accumsan. Vulputate odio ut enim blandit volutpat. Nisl vel pretium lectus quam id leo.

Fusce ut placerat orci nulla pellentesque dignissim. Elit pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada. Feugiat in ante metus dictum at. Ut placerat orci nulla pellentesque dignissim. Nec feugiat in fermentum posuere urna nec tincidunt. Sed velit dignissim sodales ut. Eleifend quam adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis rhoncus. Est ullamcorper eget nulla facilisi etiam dignissim diam quis enim. Lectus mauris ultrices eros in cursus turpis massa tincidunt. Posuere morbi leo urna molestie at. Sagittis aliquam malesuada bibendum arcu vitae elementum curabitur vitae. Quis vel eros donec ac. Fermentum odio eu feugiat pretium nibh.

[Chips]

I'm beginning to think Morkonan and kohlrak are in a race to create the biggest walls of text...

Has to be said, the topic was near immediately derailed into the usual forum ego boosting; tedious. Was about to start catching up but this alerted me to the futility of it, so cheers

[Morkonan]

Correct. Do we fear this, though? I believe this "empathy" is what separates us. Animals react when they see us suffer or are in pain, but are they empathic like we are?

Are they "empathic?" Can they correctly interpret the internal states of another member of their species or even outside of it? We can't know for sure. Some appear to be able to. That's really what defines our ability to detect this - Their behaviors. If they behave as if they do, then they "do." Some monkeys and apes exhibit behaviors that indicate a capacity or ability to empathize. Some domesticated dogs do, as well. Most studies along these lines focus on "fairness" or "ethics" using reward systems. For obvious reasons, one of which is the fact that we can't easily communicate with animals, it's difficult to extrapolate exhibited behaviors to truly interpret internal states. Short answer - So far, it appears some species do, in fact, have the ability to "empathize", sometimes even with members outside of its species.

...Perspectives usually come from fundementals. I'm referring to other topics altogether, not necessarily this one. For example, the Trump topic...

"Fundamentals" is a really... fundamentally broad term.

..This is actually precisely why I wanted to discuss this topic. Notice IQ tests are predictive of futures, and even ability to get hired as a programmer, yet IQ is not reliable to predict one's likelihood of learning? IQ correlates with race, so the race and IQ debate happens, right? We forget that correlation does not imply causation. There could easily be anothe correlating factor that becomes the cause. What i find interesting, though, is the people who get most offended by the correlation are the same people that want everything aside from moral or mental potential to be related to genetics.

I.Q. is a good indicator of many things, but it's not absolute in its predictive value. There appears to be either a fault in predictive value in terms of scaling or there's "something else" going on in some results. Within a ranger of scores, there's good predictive value. Outside of that range, it's a bit more unreliable. Far outside of that range at either end of the spectrum... it gets weird. At the extreme high-end, you end up finding some very weird people. Certainly, more functional than those at the extremely low end of the spectrum, but not always more "successful." It appears, at least in terms of such test scores, that the very highest scores might not be desirable in all cases. ie: There is "something else" going on and we can't seem to really put our fingers on it. (Note: I'm not in favor of all these so-called "other forms of intelligence" by the way, like "Social Intelligence" blah blah blah. IMO, they're mostly garbage categories in the way their used, even if there could be a glimmer of truth somewhere. If we want to measure something specific, we can't measure everything.)

Personally, I think correlation does not imply causation. For example, the "twin studies," do they compensate for automatic culture reassignment based on race? In other words, could IQ be related to culture, as oppossed to race, and the kids that were adopted at a young age merely adopt the culture attributed to their race simply because that was what society expects of them, which leads to the lower IQ (and consequent behavioral issues)?

Love me some twin studies!

They're one of the few ways we can isolate certain variables. Most popularly, they're applied to the "nature vs nurture" debate. In that setting, they seem to be fairly reliable in that "capacity" is a reliable predictor. When it comes to cultural differences in upbringing, that doesn't appear to be a huge issue. However, few twin studies involve radically different cultures. There's one concerning Korean children adopted by Westerners while their twins remained in Korea, IIRC. Also, IIRC, there weren't very many differences in that study's findings than there have been in others. (Will have to look that one up, though, to be sure.)

But, specifically regarding "I.Q. Tests" - They're the most accurate predictor of intellectual capacity that we have available. They're not absolute predictors of "success" in whatever one wishes to measure, but they're very good predictors of how one would perform in an I.Q. Test. There's a popular mythology surrounding I.Q. tests that really needs to be dispelled - They're not biased against various "nurture" variables that some would suggest. One's culture, in a properly constructed I.Q. test, and many of them are, will not be biased against.

All in all, though, we simply just have to measure one's success in anything by how successful one actually is. If we wish to make predictions, we have to temper those predictions with the fact that we're not always correct. We make mistakes and that's a universal truism. But, simply because we are guilty of that, it doesn't mean we're always guilty of that... (A lot of words to simply answer "maybe" to everything.)

Furthermore, if it is culture, rather than race, does that not mean that anyone could ultimately learn anything with the proper instruction methods as well as instructee's approach?

First, AFAIK, there's no evidence in modern, properly constructed, intelligence tests that indicate any bias involving culture or race. Could there be? If so, we haven't figured out how to properly detect it, so we can't confirm it.

Proper instruction should be proper... A course is constructed, hopefully, so that someone with a basic intellectual skill-set and capacity can "learn" something. Will they excel at it? Not everyone excels at everything. Some people can even appear to excel at something by just mimicking someone else. Does a programmer have the same understanding of code if they copy/pasted snippets that were actually written by another innovative, highly capable, coder? Obviously not. But, where is the evidence that they... don't? Or, what's to say that they didn't actually learn from that copy/paste job and now have increased their capabilities by making it work? We'll have to wait for further evidence of their own innovations and capabilities.

This circles back to programming, and from what I can tell, absolutely. When I see people having trouble, ...

This is important.

The quality of a teacher and their ability to teach is paramount in a student's ability to learn. Exhibiting an intuitive ability to guide a troubled student through a difficult exercise and to tailor that instruction according to the strengths of the student or addressing their weaknesses is, apparently, not something that can easily be taught to teachers. However, that being said, a good teacher who is intimately familiar with the subject being taught can correctly identify where a student is having difficulties and react accordingly by providing them instruction that provides that student with the tools necessary to comprehend the subject.

The point is - There are multiple ways to achieve the same thing and different sorts of teachers capable of guiding a student to success. Einstein once quipped, paraphrased, that if you can't explain it to a child, you don't know it. Yet, one could also say that if you don't know children, you can't explain something to them. Both are paths to successful instruction. IMO, that's important.

...However, not only is it inconvenient to do so, certain political groups love to hide in these really conveniant spaces for exceptions...

Here's the thing... What do we wish to accomplish with instruction and teaching methods? Then, that's what we need to do.

We want to construct a course of study that enables an average human-being to learn a subject well enough that they can successfully practice it in "the wild." Is there some magic dust we can sprinkle on such courses so that they produce exceptionally capable and innovative students? Yes and no. There are improvements that could be made in many courses of instruction, but we can't overload them with such improvements to the point where their original intention is lost. That's what graduate programs are for... Half of those are Amway products, intended to teach students to teach so they can teach other students to teach so they can... /sigh Anyway, the point is - Focus. We can't lose that or we've left the path of wisdom.

Still, there's also the matter of ceilings.

The U.S. Public Education system is outstanding at producing what it was originally intended to produce - Dial watchers and lever pullers who would not become wrench-turning monkeys due to the nature of their work. It's so outstanding at this task that one of the only ways to ensure something grander is for students to step outside of this system. It seems that, while very successful at what it does, public education has limits and often presents an artificial ceiling, sometimes limiting the opportunities for those who could otherwise have greater capacity or who could excel in an environment that wasn't so doggedly focused at "just" preventing people from being drooling mouth-breathing idiots.

...If Chinese people are short, Yao Ming either has some non-chinese blood, a rare mutation occured (where alot of genes mutated just the right way at the same time [realistically, "no"]), or it's not DNA. Do I have the answer? Nope, but I think it's worth looking at. I think one can be close to a solution, but while "close enough" works in some situations, i think we have enough margins of error in enough things that it's catching up to us, especially when it's erupting into violence. For horseshoes is close enough. For hand grenades it's close enough. For thigs that determine peoples' ability to succeed in life and reproduce, I don't think so...

We're really good at having Eureka moments when confronted with what are really simple things. Virtually every "Eureka Moment" is a realization that whatever the idea is, it's actually a relatively simple problem if one approaches it from a certain direction. It's the direction that's unique, not the ultimate solution when viewed appropriately. And, when we view such solutions appropriately, they're often recognized as "beautiful."

Some things are messy and will likely always be messy and non-beautiful. One of those things is likely making predictions about other human beings, their capacity, their likelihood of success in any endeavor, how they truly "feel", what factors were intrinsic to their current success or failure, etc...

A friend of mine and his family came to visit me for a couple of weeks. (Long ago) He has a wife and three children and, as one can imagine, the kids are a handful. But, they're good kids, by-and-large, and aren't, themselves, that difficult. He, however, has a bit of a temper at times and isn't the sort of person that diffuses intense emotions very easily. So, if he gets worked up, it tends to spill over into unrelated things.

His young daughter was being a child. He was a bit ticked off at something that had nothing to do with her and, when she did whatever a young child does, he started getting a bit angry with her. This accelerated over the course of a few seconds and, when she responded as a young child, eliciting the expected behavior of a young child in such a situation, he slapped her. In the face...

I am typically a non-violent person. I'm also very traditional in some senses, honoring guest-right like some ancient Greek, but also having certain expectations regarding standards of behavior. I'm also extremely defensive when it comes to children. All of this put together resulted in situation where, propriety be damned, I was about to beat the crap out of my "friend."

Restraining myself, at least physically, if not emotionally and verbally, I condensed everything down to one statement:

"Everything she experiences is the first time she's ever experienced it. What do you want that experience to be for her?"

Why all this?

We have to realize that human beings are complicated and there are no truly simple predictors of anything. One childhood experience could frame the rest of that child's interpretations, sometimes "forever." One experience in our own lives can have a monumental effect on our future ability. Abused children often have troubled adulthoods, adult survivors of trauma often have difficulties they've never encountered before, one illuminating statement can have profound effects on a philosopher or a chemist, and one very forcefully presented point of view can have a unique effect on a parent.

We're chasing magic. If that's what we're really doing, we're not going to develop anything "perfect." What we can do, however, is to present enough opportunities for that "magic" to occur that it's likely enough to occur for our purposes.

Immersing someone in a language - That's always considered to be the "best way to teach a spoken language," right? Obviously. But, in practice, it's not just learning through experiencing the language or by being forced to practice it. There are other qualities present. Non-verbal cues that impart true meaning behind the words, the way a culture impacts the practical use of its spoken languages, daily inspiration and motivation one experiences in truly assuming the role of a native language speaker, no matter how difficult, and finding one's stride, so to speak. Could we get the same results in spoken language instruction if we locked people in a room with a speaker blaring out syllables and the only way they could escape was to learn how to speak that language? No. To do it right, we have to give the opportunity for the magic to happen enough room that it eventually does happen. And, when it does, it could all be due to just one single moment of experience that provides the "breakthrough knowledge" the student needs in order to truly grok the essence of something.

I think we could pull off a certain test that would be way more deserving. Perhaps a sort of "morality test" that could be done in a very, very objective way, politics removed (which is probably why it'll never happen). However, to get there, we have to face the demons that we have been avoiding.

Ah, social mores, do they exist? I believe in "Good" and "Evil." I believe these can be recognized by any human-being. Does that mean that universal social mores exist? Well, most researchers say "No." I think they haven't been paying a lot of attention, but that's just my opinion.

... How can we ever get past this stuff if we cannot face it and put it to rest?...

We have a communal instinct to generalize the specific. It's helpful, really. It allows us to take complex social information and apply it to our personal interactions. But, some of these associations can end up being specifically invalid, even if they are helpful in some way in general.

"All fat people are unhealthy."

In general, that's true. But, is it also true that that these people have a lifestyle that is reflective of some undesirable personal value system? No. If someone tells me a Samoan man is coming to visit, I might make sure a sturdy chair is available. There's predictive value in assuming that they may be a large person. That doesn't mean they're fat and, even if they are, that doesn't mean they have an undesirable value system. Does it mean, conversely, that they have an exceptional value system if they aren't fat?

Generalizing makes interacting more easier and more betterer, in general. But, we have developed a habit to point out that generalizing isn't always valid when applied to "specifics," especially when we're discussing individual people who have, for obvious reasons, care about how they're perceived by others.

In short - We can not stay on the path of reason if we generalize everything, especially if we do it to the point where we discover it's not useful. When it comes down to individual people, their behavior, their value-system, their internalized experiences and their individual performance, we can only say that there are a few generalized predictors that tend to break down when applied to individual, personal, experiences. They're truly useful for groups, for general predictions, but less so when it comes down to individual people.

More importantly, we have to recognize this fact. We have to admit that generalized predictions are valid just as much as it is plain that individual achievement can overcome negative general predictions.

...The injustice being that there are three potential reasons for this that were not addressed, and because it's an unpopular topic, the favored report can be used to oppress those like me with diagnosed ADHD..

A diagnosis of ADHD is only that. (Note: "Autism Spectrum Disorders" is just another APA category that will probably be changed in another DSM version... It's been made entirely too broad, IMO.) That diagnosis doesn't appear to have hampered you. The "condition" may present you with some difficulties, but not the diagnoses itself. Though, given our proclivity with generalizations, that diagnoses may give rise to certain assumptions made by others.

Things in biology that grow slowly end up with higher complexity on average before it stops growing.

Kind of... Is a cicada a more advanced or complex thing just because it can take decades for it to reach sexual maturity? Heck, I remember reading about a few different bugs that take longer. Some ocean-going animals can take longer, as well, and some never even reach something called "sexual maturity." (Fookin weird reproduction)

What's worth remembering isn't how long it takes for an animal to reach sexual maturity, but that there's, in general , an evolutionary reinforced reason why it takes as long or short a time as it does. That's the key.

Why does it take so long for humans to develop to sexual maturity? Females couldn't give birth to a human that was more developed and we couldn't grow up faster than we have. Though, in recent ages, due to increases in the value of our diets (particularly high-value fat and protein), children are "growing up" faster. This is not, yet, an evolutionarily reinforced attribute, but it could be given enough significant impact. Luckily, the same cultures that provide such sustenance also do not reinforce earlier reproductive habits. In fact, birth rates tend to decline in these types of human cultures whereas in "animals" such conditions would probably yield population explosions and shorter lifespans. We have, apparently, developed some evolutionarily reinforced cultural and social behaviors that prevent catastrophic human population problems... in my opinion. (Some learned professionals would start screaming at me at this point, but they're just wrong and mad about being wrong. )

.. In the counter study suggesting ADHD diagnosed children have smaller brains, did they account for medication?

In general, they probably did. (I don't know for sure.) The indignation you may feel when reading that is indicative of the problem - There's a stigma associated with anything having to do with someone's "brain." In terms of individuals, it's not necessarily an accurate predictor. Like with I.Q.'s, there's a range in which performance expectations can be "normal." "Normal" does not mean "not capable of being exceptional" It simply means that one should have all the same expectations as one would normally have. "Normal" does not mean "mediocre" in this regard.

..Does brain size ultimately affect intelligence?

Yes and know. People have been trying to make assumptions for a very long time. Right now, it goes something like this:

The number of neurons are important.

Surface area is important. (Convolutions contribute to this.)

Relative mass ratio of body to brain is a good general indicator of a species' capacity.

Functionally dedicated regions and their respective ratios to overall brain mass are good indicators of specialization.

Here's something new! SA- Giant neuron found wrapped around an entire mouse brain. Given the prevalence of mouse-brains involved in scientific study, this new revelation should demonstrate we don't always know as much as we think we know... We do generally know what we know, but we're easily capable of missing the mark, too. Could one friggin' neuron be the key to "consciousness?"

...And what even is IQ? All we know is low IQ correlates with violence and lack of success in life, while high IQ correlates with being rich. How do we know it's not trainable when we don't even know what it even is outside of that? Clearly, from the test above, we know that IQ isn't even predictive of programmer capabilities...

In general, and I'm being careful with words, I.Q. (The resulting score of a properly constructed intelligent quotient test) is a good indicator of general intellectual capability. There are certain predictions that can be made if they are stringently defined. But, they are only predictions and human-beings are notorious for falsifying predictions, especially when it comes down to individual performance. However, I.Q.s can be regarded as "true." Keep in mind, the test measures what it measures. It doesn't specifically measure "the future."

Our goal has many more constraints including our "cultures" which, mostly in the West, demand that we provide programs of instruction that enable and empower individuals to pursue their desired paths. We don't have to hand out degrees like a Pez dispenser, but we do have to make such degrees accessible if a student... applies themselves.

...We were just kinda like "woah, this isn't working," and then reversed it. Did things improve? To some degree, yes, but we addressed the symptoms rather than the problem, which is why we're falling right back into the trap that we escaped from.

Ever been in a large organization of humans and then try to get something specific done that doesn't already have a process constructed for it? Good luck.

Ever been in a small group and then try to get something done that doesn't have a specific process constructed for it? Much easier, right?

A tyrant can get things accomplished very quickly. Dictators can do things that would be considered extraordinary. Nations of millions of people can change dramatically in less than a generation if power is concentrated forcefully enough.

In a society which values its individual members, dramatic change comes less frequently, likely in favor of stability. That being said, solutions to presented problems are not always "complete." Allowances are made to avoid destabilizing things, especially when it comes to groups that have concerns. An inclusive society may be "by majority rule" but it must also be "without tyranny." Eventually, we'll have the long-lived stability necessary for our societies to create true "solutions" to what problems we have.

There's the thing: both statements are mutually exclusive. ... In other words, people are going to get a degree, not to learn, or if they are there to learn, they're still not learning. It's cruel to say, but there's little other explanation for what we're seeing.

Which is why I wrote somewhat mutually exclusive statements. Do all programmers excel at this test or do all people who excel at this test excel at programming? What if the former never took this test? What if the latter became an artist, instead? If there were a million dogs taking this test, how many would excel at it? Would they make good programmers? (They're all good dogs...)

To sum: A good course of study in computer programming should yield good computer programmers. That's the goal that has to be achieved. Screening is not desirable since it artificially influences the results regarding the efficacy of the instruction. Evaluation afterward is appropriate, but only in regards to the course of instruction, not how many square pegs a student can make fit into round holes. Ultimate success, whether or not the student excels and attains an outstanding job in the field is likely going to related to more factors than just those presented by the course of instruction. It's also possible such courses could attempt to broaden their instruction to include more of these factors.

I'm beginning to think Morkonan and kohlrak are in a race to create the biggest walls of text...

Lorem ipsum ...

LOL to both quotes. abbletext is babbletext, but it looks pretty.

I'm beginning to think Morkonan and kohlrak are in a race to create the biggest walls of text...

Has to be said, the topic was near immediately derailed into the usual forum ego boosting; tedious. Was about to start catching up but this alerted me to the futility of it, so cheers

The shotguns and hand-grenades effect of all this blathering going on should have presented at least one or five different subjects you can feel free to comment on.

I think it's fairly evident here that some people believe that an educational program has a lot more to accomplish than just "instruction in completing a task." It's also clear that some things that people regard as having predictive value may not be practically applicable.

That's wild enough in subject matter to prompt any number of useful diversions.

[Chips]

The shotguns and hand-grenades effect of all this blathering going on should have presented at least one or five different subjects you can feel free to comment on.

I think it's fairly evident here that some people believe that an educational program has a lot more to accomplish than just "instruction in completing a task." It's also clear that some things that people regard as having predictive value may not be practically applicable.

That's wild enough in subject matter to prompt any number of useful diversions.

Not really. Your idea of discussion has no similarity to an actual discussion...

[kohlrak]

Correct. Do we fear this, though? I believe this "empathy" is what separates us. Animals react when they see us suffer or are in pain, but are they empathic like we are?

Are they "empathic?" Can they correctly interpret the internal states of another member of their species or even outside of it? We can't know for sure. Some appear to be able to. That's really what defines our ability to detect this - Their behaviors. If they behave as if they do, then they "do." Some monkeys and apes exhibit behaviors that indicate a capacity or ability to empathize. Some domesticated dogs do, as well. Most studies along these lines focus on "fairness" or "ethics" using reward systems. For obvious reasons, one of which is the fact that we can't easily communicate with animals, it's difficult to extrapolate exhibited behaviors to truly interpret internal states. Short answer - So far, it appears some species do, in fact, have the ability to "empathize", sometimes even with members outside of its species.

I think it's an ineffective test. Some humans fail to show this capacity, also. Do we analyze them close enough to know if it's empathy and not mere pity based on our sounds and expressions? Most people find it difficult to understand the simple behaviors of cats, such as "gifts" actually being hardcore insults.

...Perspectives usually come from fundementals. I'm referring to other topics altogether, not necessarily this one. For example, the Trump topic...

"Fundamentals" is a really... fundamentally broad term.

That's kind of the point. The rule is broad enough to be applied to other subjects as well.

..This is actually precisely why I wanted to discuss this topic. Notice IQ tests are predictive of futures, and even ability to get hired as a programmer, yet IQ is not reliable to predict one's likelihood of learning? IQ correlates with race, so the race and IQ debate happens, right? We forget that correlation does not imply causation. There could easily be anothe correlating factor that becomes the cause. What i find interesting, though, is the people who get most offended by the correlation are the same people that want everything aside from moral or mental potential to be related to genetics.

I.Q. is a good indicator of many things, but it's not absolute in its predictive value. There appears to be either a fault in predictive value in terms of scaling or there's "something else" going on in some results. Within a ranger of scores, there's good predictive value. Outside of that range, it's a bit more unreliable. Far outside of that range at either end of the spectrum... it gets weird. At the extreme high-end, you end up finding some very weird people. Certainly, more functional than those at the extremely low end of the spectrum, but not always more "successful." It appears, at least in terms of such test scores, that the very highest scores might not be desirable in all cases. ie: There is "something else" going on and we can't seem to really put our fingers on it.

Most certainly. So, we're on the same page. That said, it still needs to be said, simply because the disagreement seems to be the axiom. The axiom needs challenged and put in it's place. There are too many exceptions in too many things that show that the thing that we "can't put our finger on" is a bigger deal than we give it credit. As someone who's "slipped through the cracks," i'm especially annoyed with it.

(Note: I'm not in favor of all these so-called "other forms of intelligence" by the way, like "Social Intelligence" blah blah blah. IMO, they're mostly garbage categories in the way their used, even if there could be a glimmer of truth somewhere. If we want to measure something specific, we can't measure everything.)

IMO, there is a matter here of "what you invest in." Women tend to be "more socially competent," in general (the exceptions suggest it is probably more environmental than genetic, but whatever, can't go against the grain). Clearly they're more invested in the social aspect.

Personally, I think correlation does not imply causation. For example, the "twin studies," do they compensate for automatic culture reassignment based on race? In other words, could IQ be related to culture, as oppossed to race, and the kids that were adopted at a young age merely adopt the culture attributed to their race simply because that was what society expects of them, which leads to the lower IQ (and consequent behavioral issues)?

Love me some twin studies!

They're one of the few ways we can isolate certain variables. Most popularly, they're applied to the "nature vs nurture" debate. In that setting, they seem to be fairly reliable in that "capacity" is a reliable predictor. When it comes to cultural differences in upbringing, that doesn't appear to be a huge issue. However, few twin studies involve radically different cultures. There's one concerning Korean children adopted by Westerners while their twins remained in Korea, IIRC. Also, IIRC, there weren't very many differences in that study's findings than there have been in others. (Will have to look that one up, though, to be sure.)

Well, to narrow it down and be more blunt about what i'm trying to suggest: since both white and black culture is cohabitable (to some degree) in the US, the lower average IQ of blacks in the US seem to suggest to me that the low IQ blacks raised by white people "felt the need" to "feel black," thus adopting the culture, which is easy to do given the accessibility of the culture within the US. If i'm right about culture being the cause, this is worth considering, no? How many white people raised in "black communities" adopt the "black culture" and ultimately end up the exact same way? I think we missed an important control in the experiment. To be fair, it's hard to make a control for. That said, the unpopularity of the topic makes it harder to get more studies done without the control which would help expose the need for said control. This is one of those cases of "if you don't like the results of the studies or experiments, you should let them continue, since they'll end up exposing themselves." This was the basis for the Catholic Church being highly supportive of the scientific method: either they're in agreement, we interpreted something wrong in the scriptures (thus science helps us stay closer to our deity), or we did something wrong in the experiment (thus we need to do it again).

But, specifically regarding "I.Q. Tests" - They're the most accurate predictor of intellectual capacity that we have available. They're not absolute predictors of "success" in whatever one wishes to measure, but they're very good predictors of how one would perform in an I.Q. Test. There's a popular mythology surrounding I.Q. tests that really needs to be dispelled - They're not biased against various "nurture" variables that some would suggest. One's culture, in a properly constructed I.Q. test, and many of them are, will not be biased against.

To be fair, I can see where it comes from. IQ tests are generally pattern recognition, and sometimes the person taking the test isn't all that strong on, say, multiplication (perhaps they didn't use it enough or came from a culture that didn't teach it), and thus can get a false negative because they failed to predict the obvious mathematical pattern. Other than that, though, they don't really contain anything culture dependent. On the other hand, I'd suggest culture affects attitudes, and attitude towards an IQ test really can have heavy effects on the results, just like the presense of female body parts that are more interesting than the test.

All in all, though, we simply just have to measure one's success in anything by how successful one actually is. If we wish to make predictions, we have to temper those predictions with the fact that we're not always correct. We make mistakes and that's a universal truism. But, simply because we are guilty of that, it doesn't mean we're always guilty of that... (A lot of words to simply answer "maybe" to everything.)

That alone would be far more reliable, yet English education today discourages that. Students often get marked down for things such as "i feel that" or "i think that," since everything you say must be a fact, even if it's opinion. This is causing alot of political trouble. That said, people have a hard time judging success when they see it. Who's more successful, a man with a happy wife and kids, but doesn't have enough money to buy a new car, or Robin Williams before he committed suicide?

Furthermore, if it is culture, rather than race, does that not mean that anyone could ultimately learn anything with the proper instruction methods as well as instructee's approach?

First, AFAIK, there's no evidence in modern, properly constructed, intelligence tests that indicate any bias involving culture or race. Could there be? If so, we haven't figured out how to properly detect it, so we can't confirm it.

Is it the test that is biased against culture and/or race, or is it race and/or culture that is biased against the test (or testing in general)? The latter cannot be solved, which is my very prediction for the results that we see.

Proper instruction should be proper... A course is constructed, hopefully, so that someone with a basic intellectual skill-set and capacity can "learn" something. Will they excel at it? Not everyone excels at everything. Some people can even appear to excel at something by just mimicking someone else. Does a programmer have the same understanding of code if they copy/pasted snippets that were actually written by another innovative, highly capable, coder? Obviously not. But, where is the evidence that they... don't? Or, what's to say that they didn't actually learn from that copy/paste job and now have increased their capabilities by making it work? We'll have to wait for further evidence of their own innovations and capabilities.

The test is predictive for a reason: rather than asking you to produce something with the knowledge you've acquired, it tests to see if you've acquired any knowledge. The test suggests knowledge isn't being acquired. To be honest, I don't think there's anything wrong with the test, other than that rather than seeing that something needs fixed in education, it's becoming a method to decide which students should and should not be invested in. I can demonstrate empirically that we should look to the former rather than the latter.

This circles back to programming, and from what I can tell, absolutely. When I see people having trouble, ...

This is important.

The quality of a teacher and their ability to teach is paramount in a student's ability to learn. Exhibiting an intuitive ability to guide a troubled student through a difficult exercise and to tailor that instruction according to the strengths of the student or addressing their weaknesses is, apparently, not something that can easily be taught to teachers. However, that being said, a good teacher who is intimately familiar with the subject being taught can correctly identify where a student is having difficulties and react accordingly by providing them instruction that provides that student with the tools necessary to comprehend the subject.

I used to feel this way, too, until i had people with whom i was able to solve the problem for a while, but then other topics they refused to learn. It seemed more like some people just aren't as interested as they thought. Honestly, overall, i think it's more of a relationship thing: both the teacher and the student must be competent and teaching and learning respectively. If the teacher gives bad instruction (in hopes of accessibility), the student will learn bad habits (we see this with language education all the time). If the student doesn't help the teacher identify what they don't understand, and instead pretends to understand or lies about it being "too much for one day," it's the student's fault that they failed to learn.

The point is - There are multiple ways to achieve the same thing and different sorts of teachers capable of guiding a student to success. Einstein once quipped, paraphrased, that if you can't explain it to a child, you don't know it. Yet, one could also say that if you don't know children, you can't explain something to them. Both are paths to successful instruction. IMO, that's important.

Absolutely.

...However, not only is it inconvenient to do so, certain political groups love to hide in these really conveniant spaces for exceptions...

Here's the thing... What do we wish to accomplish with instruction and teaching methods? Then, that's what we need to do.

There's the rub: I don't think proper instruction is the end goal. I think "saturation" and "covering my rear" are the goal, and they're incompatible, oftentimes, so i'd say they're mutual exclusive as well. So, the ones who focus on saturation tend to "dumb down" their material or "create paths to success" (nothing personal, mrbadger, but you're an example, and your presense adds to the realism of the example). "Covering my rear" tends to mean that we're willing to change our material or the way we present it, in such a way that the proper education is next to impossible. I know it seems impractical, but some times we have students that "don't fit the mold," which are only less likely to succeed because they need a different type of instruction than what is given. The more you attempt to "one size fits all," the more you end up with gifted students being average, and what should be average probably still doesn't even learn. Teach properly to the gifted ones, give extra help to the problem students.

We want to construct a course of study that enables an average human-being to learn a subject well enough that they can successfully practice it in "the wild." Is there some magic dust we can sprinkle on such courses so that they produce exceptionally capable and innovative students? Yes and no. There are improvements that could be made in many courses of instruction, but we can't overload them with such improvements to the point where their original intention is lost. That's what graduate programs are for... Half of those are Amway products, intended to teach students to teach so they can teach other students to teach so they can... /sigh Anyway, the point is - Focus. We can't lose that or we've left the path of wisdom.

But, we did. Saturation seems to be the dominant focus.

Still, there's also the matter of ceilings.

The U.S. Public Education system is outstanding at producing what it was originally intended to produce - Dial watchers and lever pullers who would not become wrench-turning monkeys due to the nature of their work. It's so outstanding at this task that one of the only ways to ensure something grander is for students to step outside of this system. It seems that, while very successful at what it does, public education has limits and often presents an artificial ceiling, sometimes limiting the opportunities for those who could otherwise have greater capacity or who could excel in an environment that wasn't so doggedly focused at "just" preventing people from being drooling mouth-breathing idiots.

Saturation. Someone, somewhere, came up with this idea that some people need "extra help." So they came up with "title one," which actually succeeds at it's goal. The problem is, we didn't notice that it really does apply to everything. Not everyone approaches the same problems the same ways, which is why some students are better at some things than others. We've simply accepted that this is normal and representative of potential, rather than trying to figure out why. Increased educational spending seems to be avoiding this.

...If Chinese people are short, Yao Ming either has some non-chinese blood, a rare mutation occured (where alot of genes mutated just the right way at the same time [realistically, "no"]), or it's not DNA. Do I have the answer? Nope, but I think it's worth looking at. I think one can be close to a solution, but while "close enough" works in some situations, i think we have enough margins of error in enough things that it's catching up to us, especially when it's erupting into violence. For horseshoes is close enough. For hand grenades it's close enough. For thigs that determine peoples' ability to succeed in life and reproduce, I don't think so...

We're really good at having Eureka moments when confronted with what are really simple things. Virtually every "Eureka Moment" is a realization that whatever the idea is, it's actually a relatively simple problem if one approaches it from a certain direction. It's the direction that's unique, not the ultimate solution when viewed appropriately. And, when we view such solutions appropriately, they're often recognized as "beautiful."

Which, i guess, is the justification for ignoring outliers?

Some things are messy and will likely always be messy and non-beautiful. One of those things is likely making predictions about other human beings, their capacity, their likelihood of success in any endeavor, how they truly "feel", what factors were intrinsic to their current success or failure, etc...

But as we improve, should we not reattempt to address certain factors and further simplify this?

A friend of mine and his family came to visit me for a couple of weeks. (Long ago) He has a wife and three children and, as one can imagine, the kids are a handful. But, they're good kids, by-and-large, and aren't, themselves, that difficult. He, however, has a bit of a temper at times and isn't the sort of person that diffuses intense emotions very easily. So, if he gets worked up, it tends to spill over into unrelated things.

Dig much deeper into this guy. My experience with "irrational" anger and explosiveness tells me that it's almost always an underlying issue from the past that went unaddressed. Reminders make you angry. If you don't want to expose what's bothering you, you use little things as an excuse to blow up and let the anger out. We see this alot with couples that think their significant other is cheating.

His young daughter was being a child. He was a bit ticked off at something that had nothing to do with her and, when she did whatever a young child does, he started getting a bit angry with her. This accelerated over the course of a few seconds and, when she responded as a young child, eliciting the expected behavior of a young child in such a situation, he slapped her. In the face...

To me, the behavior is as predictable as the child's behavior. What's sad is, the adult's behavior is correctable, and is the responsibility of the adult. My guess is that it wasn't corrected after the incident.

I am typically a non-violent person. I'm also very traditional in some senses, honoring guest-right like some ancient Greek, but also having certain expectations regarding standards of behavior. I'm also extremely defensive when it comes to children. All of this put together resulted in situation where, propriety be damned, I was about to beat the crap out of my "friend."

Restraining myself, at least physically, if not emotionally and verbally, I condensed everything down to one statement:

"Everything she experiences is the first time she's ever experienced it. What do you want that experience to be for her?"

I hope he took the advice. Unfortunately, I doubt it. Ultimately, it should have been motivation for him to look at the underlying problem, but instead he probably wrote it off as "it's impossible to control oneself in every situation, so go entertain yourself, you pompous false-friend," right?

Why all this?

We have to realize that human beings are complicated and there are no truly simple predictors of anything. One childhood experience could frame the rest of that child's interpretations, sometimes "forever." One experience in our own lives can have a monumental effect on our future ability. Abused children often have troubled adulthoods, adult survivors of trauma often have difficulties they've never encountered before, one illuminating statement can have profound effects on a philosopher or a chemist, and one very forcefully presented point of view can have a unique effect on a parent.

Absolutely, which is why trying to increase understanding in this regard could not only help compensate for issues, but also bring to light why issues are important, to further reduce them.

We're chasing magic. If that's what we're really doing, we're not going to develop anything "perfect." What we can do, however, is to present enough opportunities for that "magic" to occur that it's likely enough to occur for our purposes.

But, at what cost? And what if your attempts at increasing the success numbers end up having the opposite effect (as i mentioned with the issues with "simplifying" programming by avoiding topics that are deemed "difficult')?

Immersing someone in a language - That's always considered to be the "best way to teach a spoken language," right? Obviously. But, in practice, it's not just learning through experiencing the language or by being forced to practice it. There are other qualities present. Non-verbal cues that impart true meaning behind the words, the way a culture impacts the practical use of its spoken languages, daily inspiration and motivation one experiences in truly assuming the role of a native language speaker, no matter how difficult, and finding one's stride, so to speak. Could we get the same results in spoken language instruction if we locked people in a room with a speaker blaring out syllables and the only way they could escape was to learn how to speak that language? No. To do it right, we have to give the opportunity for the magic to happen enough room that it eventually does happen. And, when it does, it could all be due to just one single moment of experience that provides the "breakthrough knowledge" the student needs in order to truly grok the essence of something.

Actually, we definitely understand to a much deeper level. The failure here, and the consistent failure overall, is that we try to increase the number of successful students by trying to eliminate difficulties, rather than trying to find out what makes things difficult and find a way to actually make them easier without avoiding the topics.

Immersion works, and we know it does because it's how we learned (and still learn, because we constantly pick up and invent new words in our langauges). We had no alternative for our first languge. As adults, having an initial language and culture is now a factor. Distractions and "helpful tools" are now also factors. Some things can do more harm than help (for example, almost all JE-EJ dictionaries have a horribly incorrect definition for 面白い ["amusing," but often defined as "interesting"] that easily leads to clashing [an event involving the deat of alot of people can be interesting, but it's seldom amusing]). If one focuses on minimizing the effects of these factors, it's far more likely to work. However, we go with "my 5 minutes a day lessons are easier and better 'cause I believe they are." I've used immersion on others (rather than limiting my samples to myself) and got (albeit, simple) results in less than one hour (more like 10 minutes, i was able to get people to have simple conversations that were still complex enough that the "student" could further their education of the language without using their native language to further their education). Most failed immersion students are glued to their cellphones or depend on their dictionaries rather than trying to accept vocabulary from it's context.

I think we could pull off a certain test that would be way more deserving. Perhaps a sort of "morality test" that could be done in a very, very objective way, politics removed (which is probably why it'll never happen). However, to get there, we have to face the demons that we have been avoiding.

Ah, social mores, do they exist? I believe in "Good" and "Evil." I believe these can be recognized by any human-being. Does that mean that universal social mores exist? Well, most researchers say "No." I think they haven't been paying a lot of attention, but that's just my opinion.

I think they just see what they want to see. Murder is frowned upon universally, except some cultures justify capital punishment. Instead of seeing that we have inconsistent application and/or creat exceptions to the rules, they, who may wish to say morality is entirely relative (for obviously tempting reasons), may see that as a justification to say that some cultures support murder, and thus that cannot be a universal opinion.

... How can we ever get past this stuff if we cannot face it and put it to rest?...

We have a communal instinct to generalize the specific. It's helpful, really. It allows us to take complex social information and apply it to our personal interactions. But, some of these associations can end up being specifically invalid, even if they are helpful in some way in general.

Yep. Always know what level of abstraction you need to be at. Do you need a ball, or do you need a ball that can bounce?

"All fat people are unhealthy."

In general, that's true. But, is it also true that that these people have a lifestyle that is reflective of some undesirable personal value system? No. If someone tells me a Samoan man is coming to visit, I might make sure a sturdy chair is available. There's predictive value in assuming that they may be a large person. That doesn't mean they're fat and, even if they are, that doesn't mean they have an undesirable value system. Does it mean, conversely, that they have an exceptional value system if they aren't fat?

There's alot to be said about that. Or, rather, that alone says alot to the careful observer.

Generalizing makes interacting more easier and more betterer, in general. But, we have developed a habit to point out that generalizing isn't always valid when applied to "specifics," especially when we're discussing individual people who have, for obvious reasons, care about how they're perceived by others.

Sometimes we don't point it out enough. The real issue is that we never seem to maintain the right level of abstraction/specificity.

In short - We can not stay on the path of reason if we generalize everything, especially if we do it to the point where we discover it's not useful. When it comes down to individual people, their behavior, their value-system, their internalized experiences and their individual performance, we can only say that there are a few generalized predictors that tend to break down when applied to individual, personal, experiences. They're truly useful for groups, for general predictions, but less so when it comes down to individual people.

More importantly, we have to recognize this fact. We have to admit that generalized predictions are valid just as much as it is plain that individual achievement can overcome negative general predictions.[/quote]

Absolutely. We need to learn how to appropriately apply the generalizations. Unfortunately, there are no general rules. What would be helpful is to further our understanding of why things don't fit the generalizations, since trying to make things fit the generalizations generally ends up horrible.

...The injustice being that there are three potential reasons for this that were not addressed, and because it's an unpopular topic, the favored report can be used to oppress those like me with diagnosed ADHD..

A diagnosis of ADHD is only that. (Note: "Autism Spectrum Disorders" is just another APA category that will probably be changed in another DSM version... It's been made entirely too broad, IMO.) That diagnosis doesn't appear to have hampered you. The "condition" may present you with some difficulties, but not the diagnoses itself. Though, given our proclivity with generalizations, that diagnoses may give rise to certain assumptions made by others.

The diagnosis itself means nothing. The consequestional results of that diagnosis is a different story. I was, at one point, medicated for it. Let's just say that, on one hand, it removed the symptoms that people in general cared about, but on the other it introduced more problems overall. The assumptions tend to make things worse, as well, especially when there are false assumptions on the method of action. That said, i can't blame that for everything that went wrong in my life, but I sure can blame it for a whole lot.

Things in biology that grow slowly end up with higher complexity on average before it stops growing.

Kind of... Is a cicada a more advanced or complex thing just because it can take decades for it to reach sexual maturity? Heck, I remember reading about a few different bugs that take longer. Some ocean-going animals can take longer, as well, and some never even reach something called "sexual maturity." (Fookin weird reproduction)

What's worth remembering isn't how long it takes for an animal to reach sexual maturity, but that there's, in general , an evolutionary reinforced reason why it takes as long or short a time as it does. That's the key.

I can get behind that.

Why does it take so long for humans to develop to sexual maturity? Females couldn't give birth to a human that was more developed and we couldn't grow up faster than we have. Though, in recent ages, due to increases in the value of our diets (particularly high-value fat and protein), children are "growing up" faster. This is not, yet, an evolutionarily reinforced attribute, but it could be given enough significant impact. Luckily, the same cultures that provide such sustenance also do not reinforce earlier reproductive habits. In fact, birth rates tend to decline in these types of human cultures whereas in "animals" such conditions would probably yield population explosions and shorter lifespans. We have, apparently, developed some evolutionarily reinforced cultural and social behaviors that prevent catastrophic human population problems... in my opinion. (Some learned professionals would start screaming at me at this point, but they're just wrong and mad about being wrong. )

Absolutely. Unfortunately, more animalistic cultures seem to be in danger of taking over, as this is in culture rather than human nature. There is a separation between "pedophilia" and "pedophilia." Milo Yianopolous pointed this out and, in effect, labled himself as a pedophile (ironically, those same people going after Milo won't go after certain other individuals [perhaps because they're on the same side?]). Physically, we're attracted to those who can reproduce. Mentally, we're discouraged from attraction with those whom may be capable, but still aren't ready, to reproduce. Not all cultures accept the mental discouragement, however. This is not just a bad thing for those within their own culture, but it can also be bad to all individuals of a rival culture.

.. In the counter study suggesting ADHD diagnosed children have smaller brains, did they account for medication?

In general, they probably did. (I don't know for sure.) The indignation you may feel when reading that is indicative of the problem - There's a stigma associated with anything having to do with someone's "brain." In terms of individuals, it's not necessarily an accurate predictor. Like with I.Q.'s, there's a range in which performance expectations can be "normal." "Normal" does not mean "not capable of being exceptional" It simply means that one should have all the same expectations as one would normally have. "Normal" does not mean "mediocre" in this regard.

Given the source of the study as well as the purpose, I find it very unlikely that they did account for the medication. Especially because they boasted sample size, which means they most likely included medicated individuals.

..Does brain size ultimately affect intelligence?

Yes and know. People have been trying to make assumptions for a very long time. Right now, it goes something like this:

The number of neurons are important.

Surface area is important. (Convolutions contribute to this.)

Relative mass ratio of body to brain is a good general indicator of a species' capacity.

Functionally dedicated regions and their respective ratios to overall brain mass are good indicators of specialization.

Here's something new! SA- Giant neuron found wrapped around an entire mouse brain. Given the prevalence of mouse-brains involved in scientific study, this new revelation should demonstrate we don't always know as much as we think we know... We do generally know what we know, but we're easily capable of missing the mark, too. Could one friggin' neuron be the key to "consciousness?"

I think we do know things, but we miss the mark because we get over anxious in what we know. I see so many theories and beliefs that are popularized and supported, that are based on things that are based on things that are based on things, and so forth, until you get to something with really shakey ground. I remember one time having a debate with a guy on "young earth" vs "old earth" (my thoughts on the matter today are different, but not as a result of that conversation), and his old earth evidence was based on carbon dating, which his evidence for that was based on old earth theory. Somehow global warming got thrown in the mix. I came to the conclusion that some theories are so ingrained in other theories that we have a few that are based on circular understanding. Don't even get me started on quantum physics. Show me lying on my deathbed, and then i'll believe in your time travel.

...And what even is IQ? All we know is low IQ correlates with violence and lack of success in life, while high IQ correlates with being rich. How do we know it's not trainable when we don't even know what it even is outside of that? Clearly, from the test above, we know that IQ isn't even predictive of programmer capabilities...

In general, and I'm being careful with words, I.Q. (The resulting score of a properly constructed intelligent quotient test) is a good indicator of general intellectual capability. There are certain predictions that can be made if they are stringently defined. But, they are only predictions and human-beings are notorious for falsifying predictions, especially when it comes down to individual performance. However, I.Q.s can be regarded as "true." Keep in mind, the test measures what it measures. It doesn't specifically measure "the future."

But what is "general intellectual capability?" And what if I can break that just like I broke the test in the original post? Albeit, much more ambitious, but i have a strong feeling it's hardly difficult. I think that overcrediting it can easily be protected with "there are exceptions." Could it be, though, that the reason for the exceptions is "you're wrong?" I believe that someone can be close to the truth, but still horribly wrong, due to correlations. Nature vs nurture, if what you eat is such a big risk, why do we then blame genetics for health problems and diet for weight gain, yet simultaneously say they correlate? Is it genes that make people fat, or is it that they inherited their eating habits from their parents' habits rather than genes? This can be solved with "twin studies," but general cultural things are a bit harder to get away from, since the general culture is more accessible.

Our goal has many more constraints including our "cultures" which, mostly in the West, demand that we provide programs of instruction that enable and empower individuals to pursue their desired paths. We don't have to hand out degrees like a Pez dispenser, but we do have to make such degrees accessible if a student... applies themselves.

...We were just kinda like "woah, this isn't working," and then reversed it. Did things improve? To some degree, yes, but we addressed the symptoms rather than the problem, which is why we're falling right back into the trap that we escaped from.

Ever been in a large organization of humans and then try to get something specific done that doesn't already have a process constructed for it? Good luck.

This is most certainly an area we could improve in. I don't think we're ready to tackle this problem, yet, but we inevitably keep trying. This results in tyranny.

Ever been in a small group and then try to get something done that doesn't have a specific process constructed for it? Much easier, right?

Usually i find both difficult enough.

A tyrant can get things accomplished very quickly. Dictators can do things that would be considered extraordinary. Nations of millions of people can change dramatically in less than a generation if power is concentrated forcefully enough.

Which adds to their ego.

In a society which values its individual members, dramatic change comes less frequently, likely in favor of stability. That being said, solutions to presented problems are not always "complete." Allowances are made to avoid destabilizing things, especially when it comes to groups that have concerns. An inclusive society may be "by majority rule" but it must also be "without tyranny." Eventually, we'll have the long-lived stability necessary for our societies to create true "solutions" to what problems we have.

Regression is a concern, however.

There's the thing: both statements are mutually exclusive. ... In other words, people are going to get a degree, not to learn, or if they are there to learn, they're still not learning. It's cruel to say, but there's little other explanation for what we're seeing.

Which is why I wrote somewhat mutually exclusive statements. Do all programmers excel at this test or do all people who excel at this test excel at programming? What if the former never took this test? What if the latter became an artist, instead? If there were a million dogs taking this test, how many would excel at it? Would they make good programmers? (They're all good dogs...)

Well, the test is a basic test of basic programming skills. If you fail the assignement, for example, you don't understand coding. So, presumably, all those who excel at programming excel at this test. The test demonstrates necessary concepts for success (aside from concurrency, seeing as the concept can be avoided for certain projects, even if it shouldn't be). You cannot copy and paste around assignement. In theory, you could around interation/recursion, but that's absolutely impractical. If you do not undertand these two concepts, you cannot succeed. The test highlights that these concepts are not being learned as a result of instruction. To me, the situation is obvious: the instruction is failing to teach necessary concepts. The test adequately evaluates how well one understands the concepts, and yet the lack of change in values shows that instruction is mostly worthless. Yet, we refuse to see it that way.

To sum: A good course of study in computer programming should yield good computer programmers. That's the goal that has to be achieved. Screening is not desirable since it artificially influences the results regarding the efficacy of the instruction. Evaluation afterward is appropriate, but only in regards to the course of instruction, not how many square pegs a student can make fit into round holes. Ultimate success, whether or not the student excels and attains an outstanding job in the field is likely going to related to more factors than just those presented by the course of instruction. It's also possible such courses could attempt to broaden their instruction to include more of these factors.

I agree that screening should not be done. The problem is, the test seems more indicative of the goal not being reached, as opposed to screening being practical. Yet, i think the majority of people seeing the results are a bit offended by the results, so they try to explain it away as "this person has no potential." It's easier to say "this person has no potential, thus i don't have to waste time on them" rather than "i suck at teaching." The best part is, the factors of the test are standard parts of the courses. Usually, assignment is the second or third programming lesson, for example. As such, the numbers regading "assignment" are a pretty big deal to focus on. Without assignment, calculations cannot be done. A programmer with a degree who fails at assignment (which, i kid you not, is happening out there) is akin to an english major who can't spell the word "the." It's not just an embarrasingly simple concept, but it's necessary. Something, here, just isn't working out for us.

And to add insult to injury, I managed to "break the test," (or rather, the common interpretation of the test results) simply by using "the most difficult programming language" to explain this essential topic. The fact that I, someone without a teaching degree, can do this with common people that I find who manage to fail that part of the test, is embarrassing. Employers are reasonably upset that when an applicant is tasked to draw an evergreen tree in a console window in their preferred programing language, they fail, despite having gone through "higher education." They are sick of applicants like this. Personally, i'm sick of applicants like this getting interviews when I don't even get an interview for a lesser position.

I'm beginning to think Morkonan and kohlrak are in a race to create the biggest walls of text...

Lorem ipsum ...

LOL to both quotes. abbletext is babbletext, but it looks pretty.

Not familiar with Lorem Ipsum?

I'm beginning to think Morkonan and kohlrak are in a race to create the biggest walls of text...

Has to be said, the topic was near immediately derailed into the usual forum ego boosting; tedious. Was about to start catching up but this alerted me to the futility of it, so cheers

The shotguns and hand-grenades effect of all this blathering going on should have presented at least one or five different subjects you can feel free to comment on.

I think it's fairly evident here that some people believe that an educational program has a lot more to accomplish than just "instruction in completing a task." It's also clear that some things that people regard as having predictive value may not be practically applicable.

That's wild enough in subject matter to prompt any number of useful diversions.

It's babble and pointless to them, simply because they cannot follow.

[Morkonan]

Not really. Your idea of discussion has no similarity to an actual discussion...

So, you're saying that I'm different? Unique? I'm special? I'm a special person?! YAY! Thanks!

Yes, it's a scattered conversation with bits of discussion in it. But, it's a complex subject, just like most "human" subjects. This is ultimately about predicting behavior and performance of humans in terms of learning and application of learned skills. "Learning" itself is... weird. It's so weird that we have all sorts of different orders and levels we've come up with labels for. Do animals learn? Some obviously do. Others, not so much. We can reliably predict capacity in some cases, but we still get surprised.

On forums, with lots of people adding their thoughts, even if it's only one-liners, there can come a nugget of insight that is truly extraordinary. You might make a particularly intuitive interpretation that changes the tides.. or not. You don't have to participate, but a voice lost is still a voice lost, with no opportunity to provide unique perspective or facilitate change.

I think it's an ineffective test. Some humans fail to show this capacity, also. Do we analyze them close enough to know if it's empathy and not mere pity based on our sounds and expressions? Most people find it difficult to understand the simple behaviors of cats, such as "gifts" actually being hardcore insults.

"Pity" has its foundations in "empathy." "Fairness tests" are deemed to be accurate predictors of empathic ability since, in human terms, they must include the ability of the animal to interpret an internal state of another. Otherwise, the other subject is just an object and it's also assumed that there are no complex ritualized behavior or social standards being applied.

For instance, in a natural setting, a baboon that chooses not to take a juicy bit of fruit in deference to another baboon may not be acting in fairness, but is instead obeying the conventions of social hierarchy in the troop, deferring to a senior member. If they didn't do that, they'd be punished if they were discovered "stealing" this morsel. Is that fairness or an emphatically motivated response? No, it's perhaps something of a much higher and complex order.

Some tests are a bit more difficult to extrapolate to human behaviors and empathy. Contagious yawning, for instance, is often cited as a measure of empathy. But... it's never actually been proven that such observations are any indicator of empathy at all. IOW - Testing the true nature of what goes on inside a particular consciousness, if such a thing exists, is haaard. We have to avoid the pitfalls of our own "empathy" in humanizing animal behaviors.

Most certainly. So, we're on the same page. That said, it still needs to be said, simply because the disagreement seems to be the axiom. The axiom needs challenged and put in it's place. There are too many exceptions in too many things that show that the thing that we "can't put our finger on" is a bigger deal than we give it credit. As someone who's "slipped through the cracks," i'm especially annoyed with it.

We still don't know enough about "intelligence" to make very dependable predictions in regards to capacity or performance. We can say, however, that we can make "fairly reliable" predictions. Even if these are not completely reliable, they're valuable. We can predict, for instance, someone may need special instruction and we could develop a program that, if proven successful, could be of great help for such people.

(Note: We can make much more accurate predictions on capability when we're faced with issues relating to functional, physical, damage to certain regions of the brain that we have good evidence of their primary functions. "Lesion Studies" are really wonderful for exploring such things. For obvious reasons, they are entirely anecdotal in origin, but yield observations that are particularly predictive. (There are very few examples of ethical experimental lesion studies.) Very cool stuffs.)

IMO, there is a matter here of "what you invest in." Women tend to be "more socially competent," in general (the exceptions suggest it is probably more environmental than genetic, but whatever, can't go against the grain). Clearly they're more invested in the social aspect.

Are women more socially competent or are there cultures in which women assume roles that make them more socially competent?

As a young man, I once thought I had "women" figured out. Yup, I felt I had observed all categories of the female species and had managed to develop a set of rules that had predictive value. Of course, that was when I was young and age and true experience hadn't taught me that women are actually an entire different subspecies of humans, with their own unique behaviors that are practically unfathomable by males. This is, of course, by design, since it's women that rule the Earth and not men. If there were no women, our lives would be solitary, nasty, brutish and short, all of us still in the trees, jealously guarding our branches and throwing poo at each other....

Well, to narrow it down and be more blunt about what i'm trying to suggest: since both white and black culture is cohabitable (to some degree) in the US, the lower average IQ of blacks in the US seem to suggest to me that the low IQ blacks raised by white people "felt the need" to "feel black," thus adopting the culture, which is easy to do given the accessibility of the culture within the US. If i'm right about culture being the cause, this is worth considering, no? How many white people raised in "black communities" adopt the "black culture" and ultimately end up the exact same way? I think we missed an important control in the experiment. To be fair, it's hard to make a control for. That said, the unpopularity of the topic makes it harder to get more studies done without the control which would help expose the need for said control. This is one of those cases of "if you don't like the results of the studies or experiments, you should let them continue, since they'll end up exposing themselves." This was the basis for the Catholic Church being highly supportive of the scientific method: either they're in agreement, we interpreted something wrong in the scriptures (thus science helps us stay closer to our deity), or we did something wrong in the experiment (thus we need to do it again).

It should be said that there are differences in "sub-culture" not "culture." At least, in what I think you're referring to. Even so, even if we acknowledge that sub-cultures exist, a properly constructed IQ test will not bias against sub-cultures. Note that I consistently qualify my I.Q. test statements with "properly constructed." (An interesting article)

Any test or measurement must do what it is supposed to do or its invalid, at least partially. What we have to consider is that an I.Q. test can be, at best, a partially valid test... It's not a measure of exact degrees. Instead, it's either cold, hot or lukewarm, always, in terms of predictive value. It has quantitative results that are largely qualitative in predictive value when applied outside the test, itself.

A few things I'd consider fairly accurate:

Cultural differences could have an impact on the results, but aren't destined to always have an impact.

Language skills are generally considered to be a good general indicator of human intelligence. Languages are "cultural" in origin, but often share some similarities. (The verdict is still out on the concept of "Universal Language.)

Genetics does appear to play a strong role.

Socioeconomic status is not a good predictor of intelligence in regards to specific individuals and their performance.

"Race" has a specific definition based in genetics. However, "Race" can sometimes have culturally attributed definitions that are wildly inaccurate.

(Side-note: I think the impact of sexual selection in terms of human evolution has been overlooked until relatively recently. It is very clear that this has played a strong role in human development and that it still represents a strong influence. It's possible that could be applied in discussions regarding socioeconomic, race, subcultural differences, given that genetics still represents a strong indicator of performance in terms of "intelligence." Sexual selection appears to be strongly influenced by culture and social factors.)

...On the other hand, I'd suggest culture affects attitudes, and attitude towards an IQ test really can have heavy effects on the results, just like the presense of female body parts that are more interesting than the test.

An observation - "Attitudes" regarding I.Q. tests can undoubtedly have an effect. The proof for this is easy to see in the acknowledged effects of "test anxiety" (performance anxiety) which is a very real thing. So, in effect, we can certainly say that a subject's perspective regarding the test or the experience of taking it, itself, is a factor. Whether that applies to cultural bias against such tests impacting scores would have to be examined. (I haven't delved deep into these aspects in a long time, so don't know much about any recent discoveries. At the time I did, this sort of thing was acknowledged to have an impact on performance.)

That alone would be far more reliable, yet English education today discourages that. Students often get marked down for things such as "i feel that" or "i think that," since everything you say must be a fact, even if it's opinion. This is causing alot of political trouble. That said, people have a hard time judging success when they see it. Who's more successful, a man with a happy wife and kids, but doesn't have enough money to buy a new car, or Robin Williams before he committed suicide?

Measuring "self-actualization and quality of life" in terms of some sort of quantitative scale will always be futile... We often attempt to measure it in terms of socioeconomic status and professional performance, but those are often extremely poor predictors. There are some general indicators that appear to show economic status as having some predictive value. BUT, as that can be influenced by a great many things, it's not something that can be applied across a wide spectrum. We can't say rich people are always happy and poor people are not nor can we say that people consider themselves "successful" (Self-actualization, in general) based upon their socioeconomic status. We can say "money" does make people happier, the more of it that they have. But, money does not equate to happiness.

Is it the test that is biased against culture and/or race, or is it race and/or culture that is biased against the test (or testing in general)? The latter cannot be solved, which is my very prediction for the results that we see.

It's more about how we define intelligence than anything else. IOW - It's about "Are we truly measuring what we intend to measure." It's always about that.

If we take a properly constructed human I.Q. test developed in the United States and give it to a Sudanese tribesman, he should be able to reliably complete it and his score should have some predictive value. Should. Then again, it's more likely he's going to say "wtf is this $!47" and hand it back to us... It's likely that's a true "cultural" difference that would have to be accounted for. If we give the same test to anyone in the U.S., would their "sub-cultural" differences come into as strong a play? Maybe, maybe not. How extreme are those sub-cultural differences and were they accounted for?

... To be honest, I don't think there's anything wrong with the test, other than that rather than seeing that something needs fixed in education, it's becoming a method to decide which students should and should not be invested in. I can demonstrate empirically that we should look to the former rather than the latter.

I can teach any human, provided they are not severely handicapped in a way that precludes it, to do anything that is within the spectrum of human capability.

All I need is the time to do it coupled with enough voltage...

But, we desire to avoid building giant Skinner boxes and printing "School" on them, right? /sigh Oh well, if we're going to have those sorts of constraints, I might as well not even try.

So, instead, what do we do? We decide to forego voltage and food pellets and, instead, we use "grades" and "expulsion!" It's brilliant!

In truth, it's not a bad system. It works. It has been proven to have value. But, what we say we want is to produce students that are not only capable of earning food-pellets, but are capable of devising ways to escape the box by creating new and innovative things. How much of that can be taught by using our some-ol' box?

If we want to teach innovation and creativity, then we actually have to introduce those things to students in ways that allow them to be innovative and creative. We've been chasing "innovation and creativity" for eons. Why? They're extremely valuable things, of course.

But, innovation and creativity in individuals, as we define such things, seems to appear only a few times, here and there, and often not within the same person. An individual, it seems, can only hope to have one truly innovative and creative moment in their lives. The rest of their life will be spent trying to reproduce it, often without success.

For an individual, teaching them so they can attain that one, singular, moment isn't likely to yield consistent rewards over their life-time. For a society or culture, however, it could have very strong, repeated, positive impacts and that's why we, as cultures that value such things, pursue it.

In short, if there is such a thing, what do we want to accomplish and what do we value in our cultures?

A culture that values independence, freedom, the rights of the individual, and respects individual achievement will, most likely, value teaching innovation, creativity and individual perseverance.

BUT, at least in the US, we have a long tradition of using public schools to turn out the exact opposite of this. We have often relied, entirely, on private institutions and advanced education (colleges and universities) to supply these exceptional... exceptions. Getting a generic student from a public system interested in conformity to a low standard to an institution that prizes individual excellence... has been problematic. Historically, being the intellectually elite, or the opportunities afforded to improve one's intellect, have almost always come to those with the economic capability to take advantage of such things. That is changing in the modern day, but it still lags behind where we have determined we want it to be.

...It seemed more like some people just aren't as interested as they thought...

And, the ranks of hopeful candidates swell for those desiring to become astronauts. Until they realize how difficult it is.

Counseling, always. The college Freshman is typically a young person, with a young-person's understanding, and a young-person's desires. They may not know what they "want." And, if they do, how many actually stay in the same degree programs through to graduation? And... why? Do they want to be there or do they feel they just have no place else to go?

For those who truly want it, inspiration is still possible and they can discover new motivations that are positive and enticing. For those who are hesitant or just don't seem to have enthusiasm for the subject, they could find themselves much more rewarded by another discipline or even an associated discipline outside their current field of study.

It's up to the teacher to be a good counselor and advisor to their students as "students," not just as "prospective practitioners of xx discipline." Counseling and help can't just be limited to a once a semester visit with their faculty advisor or department chair. They're usually young persons, just at the latter stages of adolescents and the adults in the room still have to be good stewards, just like they were when gathered around the campfires in ancient caves. It's their responsibility to offer guidance.

There's the rub: I don't think proper instruction is the end goal. I think "saturation" and "covering my rear" are the goal, and they're incompatible, oftentimes, so i'd say they're mutual exclusive as well. So, the ones who focus on saturation tend to "dumb down" their material or "create paths to success" ... "Covering my rear" tends to mean that we're willing to change our material or the way we present it, in such a way that the proper education is next to impossible....The more you attempt to "one size fits all," the more you end up with gifted students being average, and what should be average probably still doesn't even learn. Teach properly to the gifted ones, give extra help to the problem students.

While this is true, institutions must still have a means to judge the effectiveness of the instruction they provide. And, it's most desirable to do that before any errors could cause too much damage. So... you've got quarterly reports, reviews, lesson-plans, yada yada yada.. How do we judge the efficacy of a program of instruction that isn't standardized or that proposes dynamics that are difficult to track?

Yes, you're completely right, a teach must tailor their instruction for the individual student where necessary. This is why true teaching is hard work. "Fake Teaching" is showing up every day to talk and then to give some tests to some people that keep showing up to listen to you talk...

The solution to the problem of individualized instruction has historically been met with reductions in classroom size and decreased workload. In general, this is effective in preventing failures, but it can't produce exceptional successes by itself.

Here's the evil djinn in the bottle - Should students that are recognized as being truly exceptional by their teachers be treated differently, including being moved into advanced programs of instruction that focus on their individual, exceptional, skills? (Advanced curricula, Advanced placement courses, etc)

Should a student that excelled at the test in the OP be granted access to advanced programming courses if they wish it? Courses that others may not have immediate access to?

A culture that would seem to value producing exceptional individuals would seem to answer "Yes." BUT, then again, cultures value stability, too, else they can't function as "cultures." Dissatisfaction, feelings of alienation or ridicule, being denied opportunities... these things have to be addressed as well. So, what's the answer? Difficult.

But, we did. Saturation seems to be the dominant focus.

That's little more than throwing a bunch of coins in the air and then declaring that the ones that don't fall to the ground are the ones that the other guy can keep... Students aren't sieves. I hate that imagery. But, correctly identifying what anyone really likes or what they truly have an aptitude for is difficult.

Mork's, "The Secret of Women", Rule # 18, states: "If you are trying to determine where your date, girlfriend, or wife wants to go to dinner, don't start by asking her. Instead, suggest a place that you think is likely or desirable and, if faced with a negative response, suggest a place that neither of you have ever gone. At worst, she'll say "No." And, if she does, she'll likely be prompted to suggest a place. Or, you can do the really smart thing and just take her wherever you want, since all she really knows is that she's hungry and doesn't care where the food comes from."

If I gave you everything, where would you put it?

I'm in favor of broad general exposure to a wide variety of subjects. Nobody can decide if they're interested in something if they've never been exposed to it. But, if we're not interested in producing a large number of exceptional generalists, then we have to start specializing at some point ... or we have to extend the period of formal education.

(Note: There are very definite merits associated with producing "exceptional generalists" and multi-discipline degrees. However, that is only if those individuals can sustain themselves long enough to apply those skills and knowledge. And, they have to be in an environment that rewards and welcomes that in order to be successful - Forbes: Charlie Munger )

... Not everyone approaches the same problems the same ways, which is why some students are better at some things than others. We've simply accepted that this is normal and representative of potential, rather than trying to figure out why. Increased educational spending seems to be avoiding this.

We have social constraints and we have desired outcomes. Sometimes, they're not compatible. What we have to have are effective compromise positions and programs. The most effective are those that reduce the failure rates and have an acceptable frequency allowing gifted individuals to excel. At the very least, such programs should prevent "cracks" in which students that would otherwise be promising fall through into academic obscurity or worse.

Throwing money at things tends to help, but it can also artificially reinforce inefficient programs that need to be more tightly focused.

Which, i guess, is the justification for ignoring outliers?

Outliers wouldn't be ignored if we were concerned with normalizing them. We're not. We tend to view "outliers" as desirable in terms of human individuality. If we didn't, then outliers of all sorts would be simply given enough voltage until they were no longer outliers...

We are catching up to the idea that we need to provide more rigorous courses and programs, and by that I mean some sorts of programs with "rigor" and formal structure to them, to students that are exceptional on both ends of the academic spectrum. Keep in mind that "modern" (contemporary) education is a recent development. Not long ago, those at the left end of the spectrum, no matter the reason, would be funneled into "trade" skills ("Shop" Class) or worse, dumped into the shallow-end of the pool to be forgotten and the only ones that had access to higher quality education were only those that could afford to pay for it.

But as we improve, should we not reattempt to address certain factors and further simplify this?

Yes. But, as soon as you say "simple" in terms of a person's behavior, you're gonna have a bad time... I am a special snowflake! (Chips told me so, above! <let's see if he read this>) So, of course, nothing about me is simple.

We need to strive for efficiency, perhaps, more than simplicity. It's usually the same thing, in the end, but establishing the avoidance of complexity as a general rule isn't, usually, the easiest path to creating efficiency. What's the rule? "You can have it fast, good or cheap. Pick two."

Dig much deeper into this guy. ...I hope he took the advice. Unfortunately, I doubt it. Ultimately, it should have been motivation for him to look at the underlying problem, but instead he probably wrote it off as "it's impossible to control oneself in every situation, so go entertain yourself, you pompous false-friend," right?

Pretty much, correct. Obviously. (History of some behavioral issues, difficulty with relationships/interpersonal, general anger-management issues, etc.)

Here, it was somewhat offtopic, but I couldn't help pointing out that one single experience can make a huge difference in a person's life. Just one. Just one instance of something happening can have lifelong consequences. That's true for adults and children, but children especially, since that one instance is always going to be the very first time they've ever encountered it. It could be particularly damaging or it could be tremendously rewarding. In this example, it's obviously the parent's responsibility to make whatever it is a rewarding experience for a child. For teachers at all levels, this is also true - Their students will be encountering subjects for the first time.

A 100-level class doesn't need to drone on about the most boring crap that discipline has to offer... It's not there to shove inane crap into student's heads that nobody in the discipline cares about anymore. By week two, the professor should stand up and announce

"OK, class, I've covered all the boring crap that nobody really gives a crap about, anymore. Read over chapter three, entitled "Crap nobody cares about anymore" to discover more of it and write a three page paper telling me what the most boring bits were about, if you want. If you find this interesting, which is certainly possible, you can sign up for "Interesting Boring Crap About <discipline> lvl 304", advanced studies class. Now, for the rest of this introductory class, we're going to be talking about all the really fookin' cool-as-hot-crap-awesome stuffs this discipline is doing. It's gonna be fookin' cool and, on the overhead projector is the next really fookin' cool mystery this fookin' cool discipline is trying to solve! Tomorrow, we're going to shove half-a-liter of coffee into a research scientist in this field and he's gonna be hosted as a guest lecturer, to tell us about what he's currently studying and why it's so fookin' awesome-cool!"

So, how in the heck is a first-year student supposed to fookin' get interested in a discipline or be inspired to investigate it further if their first exposure to it is the most boring crap anyone in the discipline can think of. So boring, in fact, that any prof or graduate student that has nothing better to do in order to justify their existence can easily sign up to teach it?

We do count on a student to develop an interest in something, right? That's why we encourage "saturation" in some things? Within a discipline, it's hoped that saturation + magic = knowledge.

Actually, we definitely understand to a much deeper level. The failure here, and the consistent failure overall, is that we try to increase the number of successful students by trying to eliminate difficulties, rather than trying to find out what makes things difficult and find a way to actually make them easier without avoiding the topics.

Are you assuming my... uh... level of difficulty with difficulty? !! Some things are actually difficult. So, how do we make them less so? The tendency to making things less difficult for someone to understand or to use is to make them as much "not like" what they are in deference to something "like" something the person already knows. (Allegory) The problem is the further we get away from what something really is, the less we're actually experiencing what it really is. Physicists shake their heads and moan whenever asked to explain a complex thing to a layman not because it's difficult to explain, but that it's difficult to accurately explain to someone who doesn't already possess the knowledge necessary to interpret it.

Reduction is important. Reducing something to its constituent parts helps to avoid the complexity presented in the aggregate. But, how much reduction is useful in practice and what is it that one wishes to produce in terms of a finished, graduated, student?

Does a great chef have to know quantum physics? No. Would that be helpful for them? No. What about chemistry? Well, some form of basic chemistry would be helpful. Are the best chefs chemists? Some are, in a fashion, but grandma cooking the family recipe that tastes delicious probably isn't. It's helpful if they have some knowledge of chemistry, but it isn't completely necessary to produce "A Great Chef." Reduction, here, doesn't work well unless it's being used to make a sauce.

...Most failed immersion students are glued to their cellphones or depend on their dictionaries rather than trying to accept vocabulary from it's context....

Language studies are awesome, especially when dealing with children from multilingual homes. Apparently, such children freely interchange languages in their early years, being comfortable with both.

However, by around 9 or so, IIRC, they generally settle on a preferred language. (There are notable execptions, but they're very rare, IIRC .) For those who aren't continually exposed to this dual environment, their knowledge and use of the secondary language virtually disappears.

"I haven't studied that since my first year at University, so have forgotten it."

That's a common quip and the reason is the same as children forgetting most of what they knew of a second language, even in multilingual homes - Without continuing working, practical, exposure to some knowledge, we tend to lose proficiency. That's not a bad thing, really.

So, for assembly programmers and language developers, they "know" assembly and have a working knowledge of it. For certain software developers, they may have a conceptual knowledge of it. Programmers and general code-monkeys may have less knowledge, but could have some knowledge more focused on certain areas - Partial expertise. Some web developer or even a very specialized engineer may be so far from "assembly" that they don't even have a conceptual knowledge of it.

What do we wish to produce? What is necessary to do that? How do we do that efficiently? How do we make the knowledge and practical skills less difficult to absorb?

Each of those questions have to be answered in order to make an efficient program of instruction that is beneficial for the individual and, because it has to do with it, society as well. Some things may, indeed, include a foray into Assembly while some may only include requirements for the most basic expertise.

...I think they just see what they want to see. Murder is frowned upon universally, except some cultures justify capital punishment. Instead of seeing that we have inconsistent application and/or creat exceptions to the rules, they, who may wish to say morality is entirely relative (for obviously tempting reasons), may see that as a justification to say that some cultures support murder, and thus that cannot be a universal opinion...

Murder = Unlawful killing Aaaand, when we go further than that, the whole definition breaks down. I'm against "killing" as a general rule, no matter if the State reserves that right or not. The differences between human cultures is that each defines "lawful" according to its own conventions. But, they all define it in some way.

Yep. Always know what level of abstraction you need to be at. Do you need a ball, or do you need a ball that can bounce?

Stealing this... Stolded it.

...There's alot to be said about that. Or, rather, that alone says alot to the careful observer...

"Don't be deceived by the cover" someone once said. Yet, as humans, we are very attuned to the initial impressions of anything. That includes fatties, ugly people, dirty people, "other" people, blah blah blah...

We can apply that directly to this topic, though!

If a student's initial exposure to a new discipline is "bad", what's their opinion of that discipline likely to be?

I remember the days of eager students sitting in the "Student Activity Center" talking about particularly exciting things in their first year or so, sometimes later. They'd jabber on about "cool stuff" they'd just found out about a particular subject. They'd argue, with good intentions, and bring out coursebooks to reinforce their point. Seriously, this stuff happened. (Of course, we were allowed to smoke back then, so the whole place would be filled with it and some students probably didn't go there...)

The students that seemed to discuss their newfound knowledge the most, with the most enthusiasm, were always taking classes from the most well-liked teachers on the campus.

They weren't excited about taking classes from the easiest professors. They didn't care at all about professors and the classes that were notoriously boring renditions of "and then this happens."

IMO, one can't teach much to a student that lacks the internal motivation to learn it, no matter how a course is designed. If one wishes to truly chase the lighting in the bottle, then that is going to involve motivating students. And that means getting them excited about the discipline and interested in it as a meaningful, living, breathing, dynamic thing.



Do you want them to learn assembly? OK, then tell them they're going to create a spaceship capable of finding its way to Mars and that they are going to help make it happen by practically applying "Assembly." Or, a drone capable of navigating around a room, by itself.

Sometimes we don't point it out enough. The real issue is that we never seem to maintain the right level of abstraction/specificity.

Completely accurate statement. How much is "just enough" and is "just enough" ever actually "enough?" That applies directly to how much saturation, how much immersion, one thinks may be required. It also applies to how far an instructor can go and how much they need to motivate their students in terms of self-study. Or, motivation including practical self-study, which is always more complex than it initially appears - "This is Assembly. What do you want to do with it? OK, do that and I'll help you along the way." To the novice of any discipline, taking early knowledge and making practical use of it in that discipline always, always, involves stumbling across related knowledge in that discipline.

Absolutely. We need to learn how to appropriately apply the generalizations. Unfortunately, there are no general rules. What would be helpful is to further our understanding of why things don't fit the generalizations, since trying to make things fit the generalizations generally ends up horrible.

We are purpose-built, from the ground up, to generalize all experiences and knowledge. Every spider is poisonous, every snake a danger, every shark is... It's a fookin' shark, wtf?

It's a darned useful attribute. It can be used to learn very complex things, as well. But, only to a point.

Is the allegory or imagery of building some functional contraption out of Legos applicable to Assembly, for instance? (I have no idea, it's a serious question.) What about teaching students how an abacus works?

The point is that there could be ways that could identify students that can easily grasp the fundamental structure of something, even if what they show promise in isn't directly related.

I know a bunch of darn AD&D, 3'rd Edition, players that would make the most cutthroat attorney's you ever regretted seeing in a courtroom. But, should they have all gone to law school? The majority of them went into computer-science related disciplines, by the way. Does that say something about their basic interests or more about badgering me with sea-lawyering up nonsense to get around whatever problem I had just presented them with? Or, perhaps, outlets for creative expression? Remember, you said programming was an art form, right? Right.

The diagnosis itself means nothing. The consequestional results of that diagnosis is a different story. I was, at one point, medicated for it. Let's just say that, on one hand, it removed the symptoms that people in general cared about, but on the other it introduced more problems overall. The assumptions tend to make things worse, as well, especially when there are false assumptions on the method of action. That said, i can't blame that for everything that went wrong in my life, but I sure can blame it for a whole lot.

You'd be right, on all accounts. "Medicine" is really poison, just a beneficial sort of poison. Good medicine alleviates symptoms without causing reactions that are worse. A sort of positively-balanced poison...

I have very strong issues with how people who have any sort of neurological problem are treated by society-at-large. That includes those, like yourself, that may have diagnoses that really have nothing at all to do with people other than yourself. You've been diagnosed with ADHD. So, that might mean you need some tailored instruction or maybe even, at worse, some medication. It doesn't mean you're going to murder someone with an axe or are unsafe around their pets. I've got friends similarly diagnosed and I never knew that until they told me. Then again, I had a live-in girlfriend who was diagnosed with that and she tried to kill me with a piece of glass... wtf? Somehow, I don't think that was related.

The point is that we have a really big problem in our societies with dealing with this issue and it's one that should be fairly easy to solve. BUT, that whole "don't judge a book by its cover" thing and people instantly making generalizations that anyone who has some sort of issue like that is supposed to be treated just like they'd just stepped out of "Silence of the Lambs" and invited them to "dinner."

I'd also like to point out that the APA and many other such entities in other countries have a penchant for redefining things as knowledge, or political and social trends, dictate. What is "ADHD" today may not be the "ADHD" of tomorrow. It's extremely frustrating for all concerned, but that's "progress."

As a non-professional, unlicensed, non-practicing, degree holder with old knowledge and no structured continuing education in the matter and who is not attempting to provide any form of diagnosis, I don't think you fit the classic ADHD model that I was instructed under the DSM-III, back in the day. Then again, that model for diagnoses has changed, expanded, contracted and gone sideways. We're still learning. (IMO, we should gravitate towards more functional diagnoses dependent on neurological exam, FMRI, chemical testing, etc, as such knowledge improves so as to yield more useful diagnoses that aren't strictly behaviorally based.)

...Absolutely. Unfortunately, more animalistic cultures seem to be in danger of taking over, as this is in culture rather than human nature. There is a separation between "pedophilia" and "pedophilia." Milo Yianopolous pointed this out and, in effect, labled himself as a pedophile (ironically, those same people going after Milo won't go after certain other individuals [perhaps because they're on the same side?]). Physically, we're attracted to those who can reproduce. Mentally, we're discouraged from attraction with those whom may be capable, but still aren't ready, to reproduce. Not all cultures accept the mental discouragement, however. This is not just a bad thing for those within their own culture, but it can also be bad to all individuals of a rival culture...

This is directly applicable to the concept of social mores, specifically reproductive and "marriage" conventions as well as defining "incest." I realize this is a controversial subject for laymen, but these are real things in the subject of universal social mores and reproductive rights. Most exposure to the subject comes in Anthropology, the study of human cultures, but can also be found in Psychology and in Sociology.

The point being is that we construct definitions for things in human behavior that may also include intra-human behavior. "How a person interacts with others" or "how a person acts in society" are important to behavioral definitions. ie: Psychology, the study of human behavior. It also relates directly to concepts of "Sexuality" and how that is defined.

In short, which anyone reading this will be thankful for, there are obvious cultural influences regarding what are supposedly "human behaviors." If these behaviors are considered to be "abnormal" then they are considered as being a diagnosable "problem." Some diagnosable issues are only ever considered to be truly a diagnosable issue unless, and only, if that issue prevents someone from "functioning normally in society."

Seriously. "Does this behavior prevent this individual from functioning normally in society" is a guideline, or was back in the days of the DSM-III in studying Psychology in the U.S.

I can give a host of historical examples where otherwise formal, serious, "scientific" studies have impacted cultural and social bias and political policy. I'm not going to do that unless prompted, though.

The point is that social norms, cultural "rules", often dictate what is considered to be "rational" behavior. This is not always consistent and, obviously, when social convention changes, these supposedly "scientific" diagnoses get changed, too. They're actually considered "soft-science" for a good reason, but that term tends to make people think they're all somewhat invalid and that's not the case.

Cultural values and social norms impact definitions of "deviant" behavior. What amounts to a "headman" in Anthropological parlance, in some Middle Eastern cultures would be considered to be exhibiting perfectly acceptable behavior if they kept as a dancer and bedwarmer a young effeminate boy. But, if that was a girl? They'd be lynched by the tribe... WTF? In the US, in either case, they'd likely be diagnosed as being a pedophile, even if their sexual proclivity wasn't exclusive, was socially forced (There is competition to see who can attain the most attractive, "desirable", ones amongst various clan chiefs/leaders as a mark of social status), and was socially acceptable behavior in their own region.

There are elements of human behavior that are most certainly defined as being deviant or problematic based upon cultural norms. Some of these are changing as our culture changes, too.

(Note: I had never heard of Milo Yannawhatsits, so looked him up. There's something interesting to point out, here. He attended a "school for boys." There has been some discussion of a positive correlation with pedophilia, specifically same-sex, with early childhood experiences in same-sex institutions like "boy's schools." This was brought about during the uproar surrounding pedophilic priests and the notion that many may have attended monastic Catholic schools where there were no girls present during early puberty, etc. Some priests diagnosed, self or not, have also claimed this as an origin for their fixation/problem. Because "girl's schools" are very limited, usually to "troubled teens" defined by widely inaccurate means, I don't know if these as-of-yet-unproven assumptions can hold true. However, the frequency-rate between sexes is generally weighted towards men. The reason is not yet known, AFAIK. It has been awhile since I studied human sexuality in-depth, other than just whatever makes the newspaper. These days, one doesn't just start Googling about pedophilia. <Cris Hansen Meme Here>)

Given the source of the study as well as the purpose, I find it very unlikely that they did account for the medication. Especially because they boasted sample size, which means they most likely included medicated individuals.

I'd have to see the actual paper/study to be able to make any determination. I would hope that if they did, it would have been invalidated by now if that was a significant enough factor.

But, "brain size" is not really a significant determiner of human intelligence, by itself. There are specific cases where it is, but these are generally due to malformations, injury, otherwise already known severe circumstances.

I think we do know things, but we miss the mark because we get over anxious in what we know. I see so many theories and beliefs that are popularized and supported, that are based on things that are based on things that are based on things, and so forth, until you get to something with really shakey ground. .... Don't even get me started on quantum physics. Show me lying on my deathbed, and then i'll believe in your time travel.

There are hard sciences and soft sciences and whenever they meet, there's troubled sciences. Pschology is a "soft science" despite its use of lots of maths and experimental rigor. Psychiatry is a "harder science." They are not the same, despite having the same root, but they are directly related and study much the same thing.

Keep in mind the mystique of "human behavior" and the barriers that we are presented whenever we must attempt to pursue true knowledge regarding it - We can't peek into someone's head. Until we can peek, we are going to come up with all sorts of ideas regarding what "normal" is for human thinking "behavior." Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging is a very, very, new tool that is helping to pave the way for more accurate dignoses of neurological conditions. However, how closely those impact behavior issues can't easily be established. We can't, for instance, point at evidenced behaviors as being directly attributable to some pattern we see in an fMRI. We most certainly can't point out "deviant thoughts" in an fMRI, either.

<I do see your train of thought, there, just edited quote for page-space.>

Is time-travel possible? Absolutely, as we're doing it now, right? Is it possible to alter the rate? Sure, it's easily possible to alter the "relative rate." Is it possible to alter the direction? Yes, it is, depending up on what set of physical rules are actually "true" and what actual limits in terms of energy density exist. But, where and when will you actually end up? That's still open for debate, depending upon who's idea of a Universe one is dealing with.

But what is "general intellectual capability?"

And now, the Rabbit Hole.

We define what normal intellectual ability is. Our culture defines that. Exhibited behaviors define that.

The most brilliant chimp at the zoo has figured out how to open its cage and visit a friend in another building.

There is no absolute standard that we can find for "intelligence." There are only relative standards. We can't sample the entire human population in order to establish a true "mean." We can, however, develop a test that we have evidence of practical validity and then gauge performance in regards to that test. That test yields basic, serviceable, results that have predictive value up to a point. It has useful value and we can benefit from knowing the results. We can, for instance, identify students that may have problems in school and help them trough specialized education. We can also identify those with exceptional performance and, perhaps, be more comfortable with accelerating their exposure to more complex subject matter.

In the end, though, it's only a rough predictive indicator of intellectual performance, if not outright ability. It's about predicting behavior that can be evidenced by performance, that's all it is. Whatever else goes on, the quality of someone's thoughts, their internal states, unique and valuable insights, all of that - Those can't be measured unless they are in evidence, right in front us in plain view in some observable way.

...Is it genes that make people fat, or is it that they inherited their eating habits from their parents' habits rather than genes? This can be solved with "twin studies," but general cultural things are a bit harder to get away from, since the general culture is more accessible.

Food makes people fat. I know this because if we take away food, people become less fat. Well, up to a point. There comes a point where frightfully obese people can die from "starvation" even with huge "fat reserves." Deny them enough of an important nutrient and systems will break down and cause death... it's that simple, no matter how fat they are.

We can't forget that it is we who come up with definitions for things. We don't come across their entries in some Universal Lexicon and then transcribe them into a usable format. Because of this, definitions for all sorts of things change. Also because of this, some things claim more validity than others when based upon a language other than "words." (Mathematics, I'm looking at you.) "Precision" in the communication of ideas is very difficult without the right language.

We have yet to invent the practice "Psychohistory" and psychology has yet to have found its Hari Seldon.

Regression is a concern, however.

Regression is only relative and we can't strictly apply some sort of qualitative state to it. What are our desired, if taken collectively, results? What do we want? If we decide what we want is "regression" then achieving that is "progress" isn't it?

Damn, I love words. They're so interesting.

... The test highlights that these concepts are not being learned as a result of instruction. To me, the situation is obvious: the instruction is failing to teach necessary concepts. The test adequately evaluates how well one understands the concepts, and yet the lack of change in values shows that instruction is mostly worthless. Yet, we refuse to see it that way.

If enough graduating student wear blue shirts, we may assume that the only students worthy of graduating are those who wear blue shirts.

There is a unique fallibility in a screening test. The more specific the test in its complexity and coverage of the screened for subject or ability, the less valid it is and the more like a diagnostic tool it becomes. Its purpose is to detect general indicators that may have positive correlations with a screened for attribute. If you want to know how excellent any particular student will be at learning "computer", you should give them a more appropriate test, like..."learning computer."

How well does such a test correlate with all instances of "learning computer?" Does failure preclude a student from being considered able to learn to program? Remarkable, if true! AFAIK, there are very few anythings in any discipline that can lay claim to predicting "truth." A "fact" may be that the student failed the test, but only the results of a course of study can prove the truth of its prognosis in that the student will be incapable of exhibiting the behavior of having learned.

Voltage and time... that's all that's needed to "teach." Or, maybe, a tailored program of study for someone who otherwise possesses the basic tools needed. They may not be outstanding programmers, but they'll at least be able to write code.

...It's easier to say "this person has no potential, thus i don't have to waste time on them" rather than "i suck at teaching."..

"I only want the easiest students to teach. Heck, just give me fookin' students that know all this crap, already... "

...It's not just an embarrasingly simple concept, but it's necessary. Something, here, just isn't working out for us.

What is "assignment?" What's the contextual explanation? OK, how does that function translate to something the person has experience understanding?

There are several infamous examples of this issue being brought up as cultural bias in IQ tests. "If Johnny drives a car to Jane's house..." WTF is a "car?" How in the heck does this woman own a house? What is "drive" and what are the functions that includes? Etc... So, then everyone goes overboard and says "Let's just use symbols and boxes and squares, yay" and entire cultures are dumped by the wayside because they see these symbols as representing something entirely different.

I am dubious as to the predictive value of a "Computer Programming I.Q. Test." I could see logic skills be significant. I could see that someone needs to understand how relationships can be assigned and formed. I can see how one need to understand how to apply a set of rigorous rules towards achieving desired goal. But, an entire "IQ Test" for computer programming aptitude? It's in the realm of "maybe" in terms of some predictive value, but it's far outside of "absolute."

...They are sick of applicants like this. Personally, i'm sick of applicants like this getting interviews when I don't even get an interview for a lesser position...

Jobs are a social thing, rarely awarded simply on merit and certainly not retained only due to individual performance. In today's markets, everything is remote, with little opportunity for personal interaction. But, it's not impossible to use social skills to retain employment if one has the necessary minimum qualifications already established.

Not familiar with Lorem Ipsum?

I've seen it before, just not fully quoted in a forum post.

It's babble and pointless to them, simply because they cannot follow.

I don't think so. I think that it's more likely that you and I aren't deterred by engaging in a discussion in such a way. There isn't any member here that I know of that couldn't understand any of this. Whether or not they're willing to read through it in order to make direct replies is another matter.

For myself, and perhaps I should have been diagnosed with ADHD, I can follow along exactly as you have intended, easily able to see how your statements relate to each other and where the inspiration has come from for what others may see as deviations from the topic. To me, it's plain.

Then again, my reputation is for exactly the same sorts of posts and rambling discourse, which many don't seem to favor. It's fine, I don't mind. The thing is, many topics that lay claim to being "focused" involve very complex things that are very "not focused" at all, but are widely influenced by things that don't often get considered, IMO.

(Mammoth post, sure to irritate many. /bracing for complaints)