Is it good policy to give financial aid to liberal arts majors?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, assuming he was talking about the Jewish subthread, that's actually a decent area of inquiry...

Jewish people talk about themselves way too much. They're almost as bad as gays in that regard.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
at Asher.

Try to multi-task here.

I multi-task very well -- I'm no civil servent.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

I find many things intensely interesting, like pornography. I don't think we should have the public paying for pornography either.

Who cares what you think?

Last time I checked, public policy is not shaped by what Asher thinks.

If you want to change social policy, write to the editor, get elected, whatever. Whining in an internet forum ain't going to do squat.

[Kuciwalker]

Either that was Asher's original reason, or he just completely misidentified what GePap said and is rapidly backtracking.

Hm.

xpost

x2 actually

[TCO]

Originally posted by Asher

Jewish people talk about themselves way too much. They're almost as bad as gays in that regard.

Mr. Fun talks about himself as gay a lot.

[CrONoS]

You're right about scarf... and emo glasse!!!

I know many girls who fund in love with their profs (and even some who were really in love) (in college and university) because he was teaching and seems to have knowledge or wisdom.

My ex girlfriend said to me many times: " I'll never be *uck by a guy who dont know art, philosophy, history, etc..." So when I heard this I moved to classical study:lol...

And many girls said this to me or something like this. But this is a minority of girl I do suppose.

ok i just threadjack this thread... and I do not add anything to the "debate" so i'll go threadjack another thread.

Originally posted by Asher

Some of us don't need to attract new people by learning nonsense that people think makes them sound intellectual.

Nothing makes me laugh like passing by the liberal arts kids at the coffee shop on campus having "deep" conversations about such trivial things. The emo glasses so many of them wear, and the scarfs -- so good!

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Who cares what you think?

Who cares what you think?

That's an excellent point. Why do we care what you and your ilk think about subjective issues? Why do we pay for it?

Who cares what you think...

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
Re: TCO

You could argue that social norms influence sexual selection within communities, thus creating an "intelligence differential" based on the view of intelligence in a partner. Of course, then you have to stack this up with just random mutatiuons and 'natural' selection to see how influential one is against another in a population.

Flesh that out a little more. Then we can discuss it. Not sure exactly what you are describing or are vexed by, but will engage after you restate.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Who cares what you think?

That's an excellent point. Why do we care what you and your ilk think about subjective issues? Why do we pay for it?

Who cares what you think...

I don't care if no one does care. At the same time, I have seen how public policy is made and changed (you know, its great being a civil servant) and I can say that people with your attitude don't go very far in changing things. Too inflexible, dogmatic in the wrong way (some types of dogmatism may help).

[Whaleboy]

I understand what's being said, you're up to the typical Liberal Arts **** by overcomplicating the simple and then spending the rest of the time arguing semantics.

For the life of me I can't see how you can say that and then say the time period is not integral.

I'm explaining a very simple, even childishly simple idea to you, that you seem to be trying very, very hard not to understand. Classics is the application of a certain analytical method to an arbitrary point in time. This point in time is chosen because of its interest; and that is what defines the name "classics" but it remains arbitrary.

If I write a computer program that contains the variable "Colour", and the colour happens to be "Blue", and I call the program "The Blue Progam", that is precisely what is happening here.

If we judged the nature of a field merely by its name, that wouldn't get us very far now would it?

If it's something you can apply anywhere, why is it restricted to a single time period?

Because some would argue that's a particularly rich period in history to be studying. The method is not restricted, but the name is.

Well...since we are in a thread talking about logic and such, we should not make the fallacy of ruling out possible causes because of a plausible explanation of a single other cause. (I've never had formal logic, so hope that is clear...)

I would disagree because the burden of proof favours the simplest explanation. I'd need to see more evidence before I seriously look at the hypothesis that Jews are more succesful because of their genes and not their upbringing.

The cultural explanation is a memetic one; it just identifies the specific attribute that makes them more inclined to learn, which is a bigger assumption than that fact that it is a cultural attribute.

Then if you're saying its just a case of cultural evolution I'd agree with you.

So. Do you have a specific experiment that proves the time required to select for intelligence? The onus is on you if you are going to make an assertion and laugh about it. Please be logical, if that is what your LA training has taught you. Do a clear issue analysis.

No, it was said that 1000 years is enough time for a difference to make itself seen. I question and doubt that, the burden is on the person making the proposition to provide evidence to back up his assertion. A couple of references would help.

Oh...and dogs have been bred for different intelligence over very short periods of time.

Very strong selection pressure, approximately 8 times the turnover of generations to that of humans, it's not surprising. We're yet to establish that there is or has been a definite positive selection pressure on Jewish populations... the idea is assumed but someone is going to need to do an awful lot more work to make that argument.

Who cares what you think?

People like GePap are trying to make some serious points and obviously have sufficient self-respect to make them want to be taken seriously. You, on the other hand, do your level best to not be taken seriously. No-one here cares what you think, I think people just poke you to get a reaction to relieve the bordom of reading your posts that are completely devoid of anything insightful, interesting or thought-out.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
I don't care if no one does care.

You evidently missed the connection.

What you're doing is saying "who cares" to a subjective opinion -- like the Liberal Arts, for example. I completely agree. Everyone has different opinions when all you're doing is making sh*t up all the time like the Liberal Arts do.

It shouldn't be paid for with public money. And yes, I get your point that my whining about it here isn't going to change anything, but nothing anyone ever talks about here will change anything.

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO


Flesh that out a little more. Then we can discuss it. Not sure exactly what you are describing or are vexed by, but will engage after you restate.

Well, if you want to argue that European jews are genetically smarter for some reason, given that all humans come from the same population, you would have to explain when the difference appeared, and how it was perpetuated within this one population.

You could argue that it occured simply by random mutation, and given that this community was forced to breed amongst themselves, that new difference was maintained and multiplied in the population.

Or you could argue that given the pressures on the population form the outside, it was the smarter ones who lived, and hence its more an issue of 'natural' selection.

Or, if we go on Agathons point, if there is social respect given to those who are studious, academic, then perhaps there is a sort of sexual selection within the population that favors the more intelliegent, hence they have more offspring, and the statistically significant genetic difference in intelliegence is born this way

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'm explaining a very simple, even childishly simple idea to you, that you seem to be trying very, very hard not to understand. Classics is the application of a certain analytical method to an arbitrary point in time.

Arbitrary point in time, like 1995?

The point in time is not arbitrary, it's very specific.

Because some would argue that's a particularly rich period in history to be studying. The method is not restricted, but the name is.

So why are you giving me sh*t? I'm referring to Classics and you're off and talking about generic analytical method? Get real. You can learn analytical methods outside of the Classics, what I'm referring to are the Classics. By name. Specifically.

People like GePap are trying to make some serious points and obviously have sufficient self-respect to make them want to be taken seriously. You, on the other hand, do your level best to not be taken seriously.

The difference between people like me, and people like you and GePap is both of you strive for respect and acceptance on the internet. You word your arguments academically with a tinge of condescension and think that entitles them to be taken seriously.

I look at an argument's merit. For example, while your arguments are nicely worded and structured, they're fundamentally frickin' stupid. Like arguing time period is not integral to "Classics", then squirming around semantics for many posts later defending that. I don't put up with that and I call it out when I see it, I don't keep up the dance like someone like GePap will.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

You evidently missed the connection.

What you're doing is saying "who cares" to a subjective opinion -- like the Liberal Arts, for example. I completely agree. Everyone has different opinions when all you're doing is making sh*t up all the time like the Liberal Arts do.

It shouldn't be paid for with public money. And yes, I get your point that my whining about it here isn't going to change anything, but nothing anyone ever talks about here will change anything.

No, I did not miss the connection. I though the connection was not worth bothering about. There is a difference between minunderstading and contempt.

As for your later point, the question becomes, if this view of yours is serious, given you profess to know that posting here means nothing, what are you doing in actuality to change this, since you profess to care so deeply about your tax dollars.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

I look at an argument's merit. For example, while your arguments are nicely worded and structured, they're fundamentally frickin' stupid. Like arguing time period is not integral to "Classics", then squirming around semantics for many posts later defending that. I don't put up with that and I call it out when I see it, I don't keep up the dance like someone like GePap will.

And you miss half the fun, boring old you.