I said that recently (not in my student years) they have had a few multiple choice (find the correct or describe something as true or false etc) but the majority is still real problems that require creative solutions often or other more straightforward solutions (all doable with proper training but where still the better/brighter students have higher chance). They also have some theory questions that essentially require to recreate classic proofs from their official books to show they understand them.


Putin is only a recent thing. Putin is an ahole but he hasnt initiated wars in which hundreds of thousands died and trillions in debt were generated. Plus the European leftist problems i was talking about go a lot further in the past. Greece for example is very correctly pissed at the US for allowing the Turkish invasion (and overall aggression for decades) in northern Cyprus and doing nothing about it. US assisted the military Junta in Greece in late 60s and early 70s that divided society further (made leftist heroes and turned the right conservative politicians in Greece into villains and easy targets for populist socialist parties later in 80s and 90s ) and is the root of the economic mess of today (those socialist populist governments and the inability of brief conservative governments in between to stand up to the left that eternally resisted any change and permanently embraced strikes and friction). Look, Greek politics of past 50 years is ugly but US made it much uglier, not better, you can be sure of it.

Soviets may have been far worse internationally but in terms of influence to Greek politics they have had little direct impact to effectively none. That allowed leftists in Greece to see US as the permanent enemy/bully and exploiter of poor countries. Something which by the way is not entirely false/untrue if you go back and see the dirty politics and CIA games played for decades in many countries worldwide.

There is a reason US is hated/disliked by many worldwide. If it had designed its own behavior better and in a more fair/transparent manner that respected local people's rights and sacrifices and their will to change and didnt interfere with nasty politics and military juntas on the wrong side of politics (for example see how corrupt were many conservative governments the US supported over the decades worldwide, making then easy targets for communists and socialists or Islamic radicals etc, which of course then took things to even worse directions). How about Iraq, Afghanistan in the 80s. How about Latin America. How about Vietnam, Iran, a ton of places the US foreign policy was simplistic and even at times criminally negligent and unethical.

There is only one worse thing that communism (in last 60-70 years)! To make it look good in the eyes of naive idiots. To give these idiots the argument they need against the west for decades, enabling them to have such divisive, cheap, populist messages, that made it impossible for true proper (healthier more socially responsible) capitalism progress to take place where needed. To make local conservatives look ugly and perfect targets is something the US has perfected over the decades.



PS: on Greek test if you want a translation ask which part you want. Eg κυρτή=convex, γνησίως αύξουσα = monotonically increasing

I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation. I will not write a scathing review of the intelligence of the current conversation.

I find his commentary rebarbative and tendentious.

And I see pots and kettles arguing.

If pots and kettles were arguing, one would have to be call the other something analogous to "black". We were simply discussing populations. That's the type of precise analogy that 2 guys with a combined IQ well in excess of 300 would make, while those rushing to catch the short bus would make an analogy that fails to make fine distinctions. This leads to fuzzy thinking and an incorrect assessment of situations, and often pretentiousness stands in for actual intelligence. See how that works? Perhaps not.

The astute will realize that I was parodying masque's use of the word "dominate" to describe Lendl's record over McEnroe of 21-15 by saying that we dominate Greece in IQ 100-99.4. To me, "dominate" means you mop the floor with the guy every time you see him. At any rate, the IQ studies examined, crude as they are, don't support the assertion that there is a significant difference in the IQs of the 2 nations in question. Perhaps these studies tell us more about the intellects of psychologists who study IQ. We could probably learn far more from the brainstorming of 2 smart guys from other fields, even if the process of the sausage being made may appear ugly.

What I want to see is a Cannibalism Channel on TV. With the hundreds of channels now available, I see no reason this niche should not be exploited. Perhaps it already has - I haven't done any search/research on this. I am too busy fixing up my farm and meth lab, inventorying insects, and reading books. And drinking good beer. And shooting my guns. And meeting new neighbors. And smoking cigars. And laughing.

British celebrity chef Hugh Fearnly-Whittingstall, known for his series of River Cottage programmes, notoriously cooked and ate a woman's placenta on one of his programmes.

-wiki

I find it interesting that you have this opinion of Standford undergrads considering how few applicants they accept. I can think of some reasons for this. Stanford may look at where their applicants are coming from, taking into account that some may come from poorer schools, so many of them may not have the background that I might expect. Someone accepted from a quality high school would often be valedictorian and have 1600 SAT scores just for starters, and such a person would have taken AP courses placing them out of calculus and first year physics. But Stanford looks at more than just achievement. The interview is often very important.

I didn't apply to Stanford, but I was accepted to Yale which dominates Stanford. I turned them down. The interviewer told me someone expressed the opinion that Huckleberry Finn was the greatest novel ever written in the English language, and he asked me if I agreed. I told him that I hadn't read every novel ever written in the English language, so I couldn't agree with this opinion. That seemed to really impress him. He also seemed to appreciate that I was able to navigate the complexities of a metropolitan area well enough to find my way to his office on time while everyone else apparently got lost or something. Anyway, you might not have thought much of my work at that age. The current me doesn't think much of my work at that age. The reasons for this include maturity, perspective, priorities, and course load. Simply taking more advanced classes before college doesn't really address these. Proper guidance at an early age would. That's why it's so important make this guidance available to everyone, and not just those perceived to be prodigies. There are late bloomers, medium bloomers, and early bloomers in addition to the extremely early bloomers. Focusing only on the extremely early bloomers may produce a tiny number individuals who make major contributions while ignoring a much larger number who could make very large contributions. Many of the prodigies never make much of themselves anyway. They burn out early.

Another reason for what you observed may be that Stanford is so hard to get into that once in, the students feel they can take it easy. It's like graduate school with grade inflation where everyone gets a B or an A, and just having Stanford on your resume will open a lot of doors to grad schools and careers, so why should they bust their ass right? I understand there's even an element of that at MIT which dominates both Stanford and Yale. Of course you would expect that many students would continue the same work ethic that got them there.

Well, that's a start!

Bon appetite!

I actually saw on TV people in South America I believe dining on this as a delicacy. It was the most disgusting thing I ever witnessed, and that's saying something.

Les Stroud went on an excursion with some cannibals in New Guinea or someplace like that where he suspected they were going to catch one of their enemies and cook them and eat them. There seemed to be some secrecy about it, but I'm not sure they actually ate anybody that time.

I would say it is more like watching two blind guys with a combined IQ of 300 arguing over whether to paint the bathroom walls cheeseburger or ironing board.

I said nothing about either one of you saying that the other was black. I am not even sure how you could jump to such a conclusion. It clearly didn't follow from what I said. To clarify, you and masque arguing about things that neither of you has even an iota of education or expertise on is exactly as enlightening as watching any two random kitchen implements arguing. The kitchen implements are at least polite enough to maintain their silence.

I'll try to type slower so you can keep up. The expression is "that's like the pot calling the kettle black", so if the people arguing are pots and kettles, then one must be calling the other black (though you would only have 1 pot and 1 kettle rather than pots and kettles plural as a minor side issue with your generally failing analogy).


I correctly cited the published results of a study, and as a joke. Masque correctly pointed out some shortcomings of that study and the conclusions which I (jokingly) was trying to infer. It doesn't take any specialized knowledge to do these things. If the people who do these studies have such specialized knowledge, it is generally for naught because they generally lack the statistical ability and general intelligence to make their studies anything other than lol. Progress in these areas will be made by smart people from other areas if it is to be made at all. If you have something useful to add, then add it. Otherwise maintain your own silence rather than bluffing that you have information that you don't have as you always do.

I said that I saw pots and kettles arguing. I said nothing about the expression. I said "pots and kettles" so as to ensure (by using the plural forms) that only those who make the broadest sorts of incorrect assumptions could misunderstand.

I would cite what I made as nearly the perfect analogy for the argument that you and masque are having. To perfect it, I'd have to invoke an aardvark that was recently hit by a meteorite in southern Oklahoma and a plucked chicken who plays the ukulele as the arguers.

I liked the bit where you were making a joke.

The assumption that I made was not broad at all, but the most specific interpretation of the sort made by those who get perfect scores on analogy tests. If you're as knowledgeable as you portray, you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about. Only someone who is not well-versed in the proper construction and interpretation of analogies would use "pots and kettles" to refer to something other than the well known expression, rather than to use some other kitchen appliances. I believe that you were influenced by this expression and simply failed to interpret it accurately, and now you're trying to cover up this fact as if you're arguing with some idiot who can't see through that ruse. If not, then the only mistake I made was giving you too much credit for constructing a proper analogy. The plural thing was simply attributed to a mistake on your part which was the most credible model to explain the observations.


Oh dear.

I don't think you are getting it. I am saying that you and masque arguing is like the following if we can subtract out the melody and rhythm (and random hot girls wiggling in interesting ways):

The pot calling the kettle black.

Population differences on psychometric measures actually does count as something that I have a bit of education and experience with, but I would add that I am also an expert on recognizing when two people are arguing about things that neither has the necessary knowledge base.

So, in this case, this would be the pot calling the rose red.

That's right lastcardcharlie. He has made himself the pot in this discussion. Among other things. He criticizes noise and lack of knowledge while contributing nothing but noise and demonstrating no knowledge of his own.

[X] Silly post with same sentence repeated.

[X] Bad, misleading, or cryptic analogy.

[X] Claims about people's education that he knows nothing about.

[X] Music video.

[ ] Meaningful contribution to the discussion demonstrating any education, expertise or thought whatsoever.


Number 3 is provably false BTW. Masque and I clearly have at least an iota of education on the subject. Both my points and his counter points were stated in the paper that he referenced, and as such, they clearly form the starting point for an intelligent discussion. Did you even read it? Or do you not need to because you're so conversant with the effects of media penetration and population movements on the rural/urban heterogeneity of IQ in Greece? If so, please enlighten masque on the errors that he made. I'll sit back and watch as you get owned just like you got owned by Tom Cowley. Not Tom Collins who you thought you were arguing with. Tom Cowley - the smartest guy in 10 states.

I get the music video. That's what all adult discussions sound like to a 2 year old. Like the kids in the Peanuts cartoon. "wa wa, wa wa wa wa".

Is this what you do? You come in here to wave around your psychological dick in an attempt to embarrass me and my friend here? Do you have any original thoughts on your own you'd like to share? Or are you just going to continue bluffing to make people think you have expertise that you don't? Some day you're going to wake up and realize you could have gotten your education for a buck fifty in late fees at the public library. But if want to tell me what I don't know about statistical sampling, come find me at Gold's gym in Venice in a few weeks. Wrestlers generally beat boxers, especially wrestlers who can box.

Enthusiastically excoriating excruciatingly enigmatic egomaniacal extrovert,
Bruce

Important facts

1. Lendl was no 1 without winning any Majors

2, If Lendl's volleying had been even as good as mine was he would have won Wimbledon a lot

3. McEnroe got enthusiastic about learning to play guitar and married singer/songwriter Patty Smyth. One day McEnroe was playing about with the guitar when David Bowie wanders into the room ' hey John we're having a bit of a party downstairs come and join us .... leave the guitar'

Some associate of garage door guy woke up up at 3 AM with a motorcycle. It went on and on until I finally got up to go yell at him when it went off by itself. So I went back to bed, and then someone starts ringing my doorbell repeatedly. I open it, and this super hot chick literally falls into my house. I had to catch her. Hispanic, raven black hair, tight black dress, creamy white breasts, little black ankle high boots, the works. She was obviously drunk, and she asks if she can use my bathroom while simultaneously just inviting herself in. I say, "No you can't use my bathroom. Why the hell are you ringing my doorbell at 4 in the morning? Do you belong to the dickhead with the motorcycle?". She snorted no in a way that indicated this absurd suggestion would be well beneath her station. I said, "If you ring random doorbells at 4 AM in this neighborhood, you're likely to get raped and they'll find your body parts strewn over half of Cook County!". At that point she can't get out of my house fast enough as she struggles with my tricky latch that temporarily imprisons her. As it gives way and she's running down my walk, I start to feel bad, so I step onto my patio in my boxer shorts and yell something like, "Wait, I was just trying to scare you!".

We've had on this fine forum many a discussion about population differences on IQ tests. There is absolutely nothing new to add.

The errors he made?

Working in reverse order:

1) Sampling error in gathering data about Stanford students by examining those who had to go to office hours. 2) Sampling error in gathering data for comparative sample of Greek students. The net effect of 1) and 2) is that the results of his informal study using anecdotal data would be similarly flawed as if I were to make broad statements about the mental health of my graduate school based on a sample of undergrads who came to clinic hours compared to myself and those who I knew as an undergrad. The conclusion is that undergrads where I went to graduate school were seriously ****ed up individuals of course.

3) His review of the geopolitical landscape is naïve. We act broadly (and occasionally effectively) in our own self-interest just like all sovereign nations. That is all that we are ever going to do. I'm not sure why he would think that Cyprus would be a concern of ours. It fits fairly neatly into the category of "not our problem."

4) He made the mistake of being gullible in his reading of the paper he cited. The paper he cited was a literature review that engaged in idle speculation and used very questionable data to arrive at its speculative conclusions. It even starts out calling the CTP3 a "culturally fair" test, which it isn't despite humorously having the phrase "culture fair" in the name. If it were a culturally fair measure of innate cognitive ability, then you would expect that goat herders would score similarly to urban folk and that the goat herders moving to the city would drive down urban test scores. Even more entertainingly the CTP3 has a laughably low (high for psychological test) correlation with the more widely accepted measures of cognitive ability.

5) He missed the opportunity upon reading the paper he cited to say "wow, psychological research on stuff like this is appallingly bad. How can you infer anything from such poorly designed studies?"

That was good.

How is this embarrassing? You two might as well be arguing the finer points of macramé. There are things that you ought not waste your time studying. Where Greece is on a map and population differences on measures of academic readiness are two examples.

See above.

Don't nearly all half-way intelligent people realize that other than practicum and lab work and needing someone to mark up their work that this is true?

I highly approve of visiting Venice Beach. It has gone downhill in recent years, but it is still entertaining.

I think that you already know that I would never ever engage in a fair fight.

Angering acutely argumentative adamantine antagonists arbitrarily and alliteratively, Brian.

Charming as always, Bruce. I once walked into a residence uninvited, believing it to be a convenience store. Similar reaction from the ex-convict owner. Don't think he was playin though.

Brian are you trying to pi$$ me off or what? Happy facking weekend to you too!

Are you taking the strategy lets find errors in some guy's posts by applying even worse errors in selecting and identifying, even constructing them to fit the attack? Am i a moron to judge students by who comes for homework help? Or even if that was all i had am i not capable to extrapolate even from only this what i need and compensate for the conditional situation? But dont i also have the exams, the results of these exams from all the class, the quality and hardness of the problems and the teaching books? I facking deal with Bayesian projects here in other posts so often and i will fall victim to trivial crap like that? Really? Have i not maybe seen SAT tests for fun when i was younger as student? Do you think i dont in general respect and appreciate the work ethic of Stanford students?

Didnt i specify these kids are not physics or math majors already? Didnt i also say that in Greece even those that go for medicine or architecture or you name it non hardcore math intense topics are tested in serious Chemistry and Physics and Math sometimes that is far superior to the material taught first year to say pre-med students here of similar to 6 months higher age? Its a different system thats all. It doesnt fail in the end to produce at undergrad level in my opinion good students in both systems (when you consider those in both systems that cared for their studies). But i am super confident that the avg Greek student that successfully enters the university in science related fields has acquired a more advanced material already at respectable efficiency level. Thats all. Later Stanford in the next 4-5 years takes care of business and makes it right. But do not delude yourself that the finished undergrad at Stanford eg in Physics has seen better Physics topics than the Athens Physics department one. You will surprised even there at the 2 levels. You really need to go higher to see the difference. And even there do not comfortably assume its a ridiculous comparison in the end anymore for those that like what they do in both systems.

My international politics position is naive? You think the US has behaved in reality to its best interest in past 60 years? Dont we bloody judge a country by the quality of life metrics of its citizens? If i look around a little bit i will come to the conclusion that US has behaved against its interest...There is a bloody smart way to be superpower and have friends and get them to do what you want and be happy with you and be respected and work together with them to do great things and then we have what actually happened.

You think i am not a friend of US? Could it be that i am more friend to US than many Americans are to their country? Could it be that i think higher about its promise and responsibility? Or do you think i will still fall to the stupid propaganda of leftist socialist populist morons worldwide after having already lived so many years here? Could it be that it takes a lot of things i already appreciate about a system to risk staying it it so long away from my family and fortune and that it is because i see the potential that i say what i do? Do you really know who the best friend is? Have you really appreciated what the US experiment represents for the planet in general? Is it just another big selfish country really? Is that even the best strategy if true for a superpower to remain one? Could it be something more important in fact? Could it be that it deserves to be that much more important thing given how many people with skills it attracts from other countries that could have stayed there and improved the local situation?

If US thinks for example Turkey or Israel are its great friends and allies in that area (the bias is evident often) oh man i have news for you about who is really the most creatively selfish in this game and it wont be the US. Are you sure you get as much as you give from your allies? Are you sure a more fair, more balanced, more scientifically designed approach across the entire world wouldnt have yielded better results? Shall we examine the energy policy, the war on terrorism, the efforts against international communism/pseudo socialism and expansion of theocratic regimes and other radicals? Shall we examine the dept, the economy for the middle class, the average quality of life of citizens? Doesnt a superpower that leads the planet deserve a little bit more in all those areas? Is that naive to expect?

LOL, that was great. I just stepped out of the way, and let the tree fall on Brian. I could probably make a pretty good borderline since I have the splitting behavior down. That was a psychological joke. I don't know how funny it was since obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about.


If he were vulnerable on this front, do you really think I'd miss the opportunity to lambast him for it? He said he was a TA that graded exams.


He lived among the comparable Greek students.


His point was that we didn't even act in our own best interest. However, I considered making a similar statement to yours, and add that if he expects the US to act in Greece's best interest, they should stop screwing around over there and become a US state already instead of a de facto US protectorate.


That was a reference to the name rather than an adjective. Kind of like an unbreakable comb.


I seriously doubt it.


He implied as much, and so did I.


Carefully correcting coy captious cad's querulous comments concerning country's cultural cognition correlations,
Bruce