scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) (01/16/89)
Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions that control it. American children are hounded by mindless educrats pushing "self-esteem" and "skills acquisition" and precious little else from the time they're 4 until they're 24. It takes its toll as any trip to the local Taco Bell will clearly demonstrate. But this is just nuture. It is additionally interesting to wonder if non-Indian Americans come up short in the nature department too. Were there any filters in place that might have sent a disproportionate number of dullards to the New World? If I had to bet ... I mean if I *HAD* to bet ... I'd bet there were. Australia, on the other hand, got more than its share of smart ones. Cheers, Scott +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+**+*+ "Education, which was at first made universal in order that all might be able to read and write, has been found capable of serving quite other purposes. By instilling nonsense, it unifies populations and generates collective enthusiasm." Bertrand Russell +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+**+*+
kolb@handel.colostate.edu. (Denny Kolb) (01/17/89)
In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The >answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This >is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public >education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions ^^^^^^ I don't think that it is quite this extreeme; sure, there is a tendency towards the protection of ones job, but you make it sound as if there had been a concious decision made to "SCREW THE KIDS, let's just keep our jobs secure." >that control it. American children are hounded by mindless educrats >pushing "self-esteem" and "skills acquisition" and precious little >else from the time they're 4 until they're 24. It takes its toll >as any trip to the local Taco Bell will clearly demonstrate. > >But this is just nuture. It is additionally interesting to wonder >if non-Indian Americans come up short in the nature department too. >Were there any filters in place that might have sent a disproportionate >number of dullards to the New World? If I had to bet ... I mean if >I *HAD* to bet ... I'd bet there were. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You would lose. Think about it, it takes quite a lot to be willing to give up everything one has, and immigrate to another country where there is *NO* guarantee that the situation will be any better than the one that you just left. For a nation with a "disproportionate number of dullards", we seem to have done rather well. Also, your little comment about going to Taco Bell tells me that you like so many other "self professed intellectuals"* make the mistake of equating IGNORANCE with STUPIDITY. They are not the same at all. Ignorance can be cured, Stupidity cannot. * - Any truly intelligent person, should have enough confidence in his- or her-self, to not require the continual denigration of those whose abilities are preceived to be less than ones own. >Australia, on the other hand, >got more than its share of smart ones. How do you infer this? If I remember my history correctly, the original settlers of Aussieland were deported criminals from England. Do you mean to imply that the average convicted criminal has a higher I.Q. than the average voluntary immigrant? (No slams intended against any Aussie's reading this :-) ) > > Cheers, Scott > Regards, Denny
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (01/17/89)
Someone has made the comment that Americans might be intellectually
inferior because our ancestors were selected for stupidity. (something
like that anyhow). There are two outrageously silly parts to this.
First, the role of heredity in intelligence is hotly contested. It
seems reasonably safe to say that selecting a single generation of
people who are marginally less intelligent than the average and deporting
them will *not* result in a substantially stupider population in
the colony than in the mother country. This would be so even if intelligence
were strictly determined by genetics (read up on regression to the mean
if you doubt this). Since nutrition and upbringing can be expected to
blur any genetic determinism in any society that is not a strict
meritocracy ( read "any society" for that) this makes nonsense of
the original assertion.
Second, large numbers of Americans ended up here for reasons having
nothing to do with intelligence. Africans enslaved by their peers,
or by Arab and European invaders, were not particular stupid, just unlucky.
Jews who fled from the shtetls of Russia (or from the holocaust) were,
if anything, demonstrating more smarts than those who stayed. Obviously
that list can be extended.
It is possible that American society is anti-intellectual in the sense
that professions that require extensive, disciplined training are not
encouraged or rewarded and that society as a whole is hostile to those
who claim to know more than the average person. I see some signs of this.
It's interesting to note that a large proportion of American academia is
recruited from immigrants or the children of immigrants.
For what it's worth, my Australian friends claim that Australia is much
more anti-intellectual than the US. I've never been there.
--
I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas
I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan
there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
- Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
These must be my opinions. Who else would bother?bga@raspail.UUCP (Bruce Albrecht) (01/17/89)
In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: > Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The > answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This > is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public > education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions > that control it. American children are hounded by mindless educrats > pushing "self-esteem" and "skills acquisition" and precious little > else from the time they're 4 until they're 24. It takes its toll > as any trip to the local Taco Bell will clearly demonstrate. I've often wondered about the quality of our elementary school teachers, at least as far as mathematics is concerned. Nearly everyone that I knew in college who had planned to teach elementary school were women with "math anxiety". When the people who teach math dislike it and barely understand it, it's no wonder most Americans are pretty poor at it. I don't know whether it's the teachers or the school boards who are to blame for the degradation of the curriculum, but I don't think that it's because the students couldn't handle it.
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (01/17/89)
In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. *Ahem*. I didn't say this. I said that *when I was in 3rd grade* I wondered whether Americans were intellectually inferior. -Bret
johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) (01/17/89)
In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: > Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The > answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This > is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public > education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions > that control it. If unions and public schools are to blame, then how come kids in other countries seem to be smarter? The US isn't the only nation with public schools and teachers' unions. Indeed, in some countries, private schools tend to turn out lesser quality students than the public system; they're regarded as academies for rich thick kids. Why blame teachers and unions for a system which allows kids to leave school without sitting some standard national or state-wide exams? If every local school district gets to set its own curriculum and rules, then of course some kids are going to be short-changed. No school or teacher wants to seem incompetent, and hance they'll "grade on a curve", so to speak. Centralize the curriculum, exams, grading, and so on, and then see who's good and bad. - John Murray (My own opinions, etc.)
nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/17/89)
In article <997@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, kolb@handel.colostate.edu. (Denny Kolb) writes: > If I remember my history correctly, the > original settlers of Aussieland were deported criminals from > England. Do you mean to imply that the average convicted > criminal has a higher I.Q. than the average voluntary immigrant? The deportees were called "criminals" at the time, in accordance with a social theory that identified a "criminal class" -- and predicted crime would disappear if this class were sent elsewhere en masse. Most of the "crimes" were theft of food or small property -- what we call petite theft today. Almost all were poor, and had to live by their wits. Presumably they took their wits along when they were deported. I doubt Australians would stack up any better than Americans on an IQ test -- unless they wrote the test ... -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/18/89)
In article <9504@ut-emx.UUCP> ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >Someone has made the comment that Americans might be intellectually >inferior because our ancestors were selected for stupidity. (something >like that anyhow). There are two outrageously silly parts to this. As Ethan put forth, this is preposterous. The vast majority of the people who came here did so for extremely intellectual reasons: to better their life. Of course, there were those who did not, but the majority did. Just think about what it took to uproot and move across the vast ocean to a new and unkown land. Many people have trouble leaving the towns in which they grew up in! >It is possible that American society is anti-intellectual in the sense >that professions that require extensive, disciplined training are not >encouraged or rewarded and that society as a whole is hostile to those >who claim to know more than the average person. I see some signs of this. Yes, and institutions such as unions encourage this. Rather than trying to improve themselves certain people would rather knock those who do make such attempts. Why? Because to improve oneself requires lots of hard work and dedication. Many would rather camp out in a bar all night. The lure of easy money is too great in this society. How many poor kids make it out of the getto by hard work as compared to the number who profit from illegal activities? You figure it out. If you were in their shoes what would you do? >For what it's worth, my Australian friends claim that Australia is much >more anti-intellectual than the US. I've never been there. From what I recall, didn't Australian start out as a penal colony? In fact, didn't Georgia start off that way as well? Most of the original American Colonies either started as a haven for religious groups or for some sort of economical benefit for the mother country. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) (01/18/89)
In article <efs.558soC1010kfWhQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >> Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. The >> answer is a resounding "Really!" ... translation: Yes. This >> is first and foremost a result of being subjected to a public >> education system that is run solely for the benefit of the unions >> that control it. > >If unions and public schools are to blame, then how come kids in other >countries seem to be smarter? The US isn't the only nation with public >schools and teachers' unions. #define SOAPBOX TRUE Actually, the teachers and Unions are not to blame so much for the schooling that children recieve in the States. I would have to say the lack of respect for educators is partially responsible for this low education. Why Should I, who makes over 30K a year, go teach at a school where I would probably make half that. I was lucky. I had parents who taught me to think, and to ask questions. I also had a physics teacher in high school who loved what he was doing. He loved to show his students how physics worked in real life! My "elders", so to speak, were not the type to get in the way of my learning (even if they had to put the vacuum cleaner back together) and I learned a lot. However, I also learned to dis-respect the schooling system in the US. The US seems to believe the saying "Those who can't, teach". They are not willing to make it worth my while to teach people in subjects that I have an active interest in. I would like to say this, I will probably get my teaching credentials and start teaching children. I enjoy watching and helping people learn about their surroundings. I will not do this for the money, I will do it because I believe I can make a difference. But, in order to get children to really learn, a system has to be set up to allow people to not hurt themselves financially in order to make this difference. #define SOAPBOX FALSE Oh well, enough spouting off. brian moffet -- Brian Moffet {uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucscc}!sco!brianm -or- ...sco!alar!brian "I was everything you wanted me to be. You were afraid, I was frightening." My fish and company have policies. I have opinions.
charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer) (01/19/89)
Americans are intellectually inferior because they learn everything they know from TV.
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (01/19/89)
In article <efs.558soC1010kfWhQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >> Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. People keep quoting this and are now cross-posting this to various other groups like sci.math & sci.physics. So I want to repeat yet again that *I did not say this*. I said (in the course of an anecdote in comp.edu) that *when I was in third grade* I wondered whether Americans were intellectually inferior. Thank you. -Bret
ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) (01/19/89)
In article <348@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes: > In article <efs.558soC1010kfWhQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: > >In article <14.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, scott@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: > >> Bret Jolly wonders if Americans are intellectually inferior. > > People keep quoting this and are now cross-posting this to various other > groups like sci.math & sci.physics. So I want to repeat yet again that > *I did not say this*. I said (in the course of an anecdote in comp.edu) > that *when I was in third grade* I wondered whether Americans were > intellectually inferior. Thank you. Perhaps the fact that people assume that Bret's opinions have remained unchanged since the third grade proves he was right in the first place. :-) -- I'm not afraid of dying Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy, Univ. of Texas I just don't want to be {charm,ut-sally,ut-emx,noao}!utastro!ethan there when it happens. (arpanet) ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU - Woody Allen (bitnet) ethan%astro.as.utexas.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU These must be my opinions. Who else would bother?
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (01/20/89)
troly@math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes:
- [ ... ]
-*I did not say this*. I said (in the course of an anecdote in comp.edu)
-that *when I was in third grade* I wondered whether Americans were
-intellectually inferior. Thank you.
--Bret
I suppose you've stopped wondering by now? :-)nather@ut-emx.UUCP (Ed Nather) (01/21/89)
In article <5393@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > From what I recall, didn't Australian start out as a penal colony? > In fact, didn't Georgia start off that way as well? Most of the original > American Colonies either started as a haven for religious groups or for > some sort of economical benefit for the mother country. > Largo, FL USA 34649-2826 The American colonies were used as a dumping ground for "criminals" exported from England until the American revolution discouraged the practice. Australia was then chosen as an alternative. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin