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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Asher,
I write "the period is sufficient to the method" but not necessary,

and you're reading
"you seem to be confusing Classics with analytical method"

Three possibilities. Firstly, you're extremely dumb and thus inclined to make that kind of error. Secondly, you're deliberately strawmanning because you cant argue straight. Thirdly, you get a kick out of making a **** of yourself on the internet.

Jury's out ladies and gentlemen.

The fourth possibility, and the correct one, is I'm talking about studying Classics -- a study of a very specific time period, by definition -- and you're talking about how it has nothing to do with the time period.

I don't need to enumerate the reason for this, because it should be obvious to everyone else laughing along at this.

Translation: "I risk being pwned, better break out the ad hominems"

You mean this:

you're extremely dumb and thus inclined to make that kind of error

and this:

Agathon, what I find so amusing is that he's gone from your MS vs. Apple debates to targetting you, and then philosophers, and then "lefties" (because your average conservative would just love him ). You should be flattered! His disdain for a computer company is so strong, it's enough to make him hate everything he thinks you stand for! Check there's no rummaging in the bushes before you go to bed tonight .

Because certainly a dismissal of your arguments of being vacuous is not an ad hominem, by definition.

Too easy, whaleboy...you're too easy.

[Whaleboy]

TCO: I do not have sufficient evidence, nor expertise in this field to be able to say that one is true. I can only evaluate the evidence that I have to hand, which favours the cultural hypothesis, but does not definitively prove it.

I consider the cultural hypothesis to be better holistically since it relies on fewer assumptions. Whether or not that has any bearing on the truth of the matter depends on whether or not those extra assumptions are relevant. We'd need to study these selection pressures to be able to ascertain that.

It's for that reason I might seem a bit skewed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well, one could do the usual thing and do the separated twins experiment. But it would need to pass a high bar of empirical evidence for such a controversial thesis.

Only with a large number of separated twins. It's incredibly difficult to statistically separate factors like these, especially for relatively small populations.

[Barnabas]

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap
There is a difference between sexuals selection and natural selection. A male peacocks feathers do not help him in any way to survive. Probably make it harder if anything by making it more conspicious. BUt they atract peahens for mating, and since peahens chose the males with the most garish designs, they perpetuate garish designs in the next generation.

The notion would be that the same can be true for humans, that the females in some gourp might find some characteristic more attractive than another for nothing more than social reasons, and over time, assuming that the social more does not change radically, this difference would bring about some significant genetic difference.

This may be striking you as a brainstorm, but it's not particularly novel or perplexing. Who cares really which mechanism sexual or survival or even sexual as noting survival or whatever, drives the differentiation. You seemed to want to find a possible mechanism and here are TWO. Great. Either will work. If you'd found none, then that would be a problem for the concept. But two causes, well who cares. Sure, might make for a little puzzle as to which drove the selection, but it doesn't make the hypothesis less likely. Makes it more likely (you got TWO!).

BTW, survival versus sexual success: you are making a bit of an odd differentiation here. If you want to, fine. I'll let you have any semantic definition you want. But an evolutionary biologist would not be perplexed or think that sexual success was somehow less than survival. The goal is to make more DNA. Anything that supports that, is a natural selection option. Could be having more babies, could be less, could be pair-bonding, harems, etc. And different conditions will favor different strategies. Actually I see the survival strategies as a bit subordinate to the sexual ones. The survival stuff just gets you into the game. Then you play the game.

Now...maybe your point is about the interaction of a cultural issue (love of intellect) with sexual success. Ok. Still doesn't detract from the idea of seleciton. It's just an external control. I mean forced mating for intelligence breeding would be an even more extreme form of the same thing (from perspective of the DNA).

[Whaleboy]

The fourth possibility, and the correct one, is I'm talking about studying Classics -- a study of a very specific time period, by definition -- and you're talking about how it has nothing to do with the time period.

What's this, the fourth time you've repeated yourself despite several clear and simple explanations to the contrary?

you're too easy

If childish posturing is what you do when you're getting raped, you might find a more productive use of your time in responding to the points being made, rather than just repeating yourself in the hope that I'll just get bored and go away, so you can tell yourself that you've been victorious.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
TCO: I do not have sufficient evidence, nor expertise in this field to be able to say that one is true. I can only evaluate the evidence that I have to hand, which favours the cultural hypothesis, but does not definitively prove it.

I consider the cultural hypothesis to be better holistically since it relies on fewer assumptions. Whether or not that has any bearing on the truth of the matter depends on whether or not those extra assumptions are relevant. We'd need to study these selection pressures to be able to ascertain that.

It's for that reason I might seem a bit skewed.

Read about it. Think about how one could settle such a question. How could one do a direct experiment? How could one gather evidence from happenstance if direct experiment is not possible. Consider it dispassionately. Be like Feynman and think about how you could be right or wrong. And don't be emotionally attached to one result.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
What's this, the fourth time you've repeated yourself despite several clear and simple explanations to the contrary?

Your explanations are simply invalid. You're squirming around uncontrollably arguing semantics like the typical Liberal Arts major.

Classics refers to a specific study of a specific time period and nothing more. This is by definition. This is what I am talking about.

An argument saying time period is not integral to studying the Classics, which is an invalid argument on the definition of Classics alone, is a bad one no matter how many times you try to justify or explain it. Effort doesn't get you a passing grade in anything but the Liberal Arts, Whaleboy.

If childish posturing is what you do when you're getting raped

The only person getting raped here is the boy who keeps ignoring the definition of Classics and confusing the idea with smoke and mirrors.

[Barnabas]

I read a few weeks ago an article which said ashkenazi jews had underwent a special selection in the past centuries which explains their very high average iq.
When most of the population of europe was made of peasants all jews lived in cities and dedicated themselves to professions such us banking, so there may have been a selection for people who had talent with numbers for example.

Sounds unlikely to me, but thought it was interesting to share.

This depends obviously on intelligence being biological + inheritable

[Kuciwalker]

IQ is about 50% genetic, IIRC.

edit: nvm, it's just 50% inheritable

[Whaleboy]

Read about it. Think about how one could settle such a question. How could one do a direct experiment? How could one gather evidence from happenstance if direct experiment is not possible. Consider it dispassionately. Be like Feynman and think about how you could be right or wrong. And don't be emotionally attached to one result.

I'm not emotionally attached. It's not my field, I can't say that I particularly care one way or the other. You would experiment as Agathon said, on genetically identical individuals, or a large number of people from the same population, separated at birth and raised in different cultures, against a control group from a different population, and compare average intelligences (gathered from a combination of IQ tests, academic results, net income at a given age etc), and see which has an effect, or which has a greater effect.

What would you predict?

[Whaleboy]

An argument saying time period is not integral to studying the Classics, which is an invalid argument on the definition of Classics alone, is a bad one no matter how many times you try to justify or explain it

I'm saying the time period is integral to classics, but not integral to the method, or anything anyone would ever take out of the course, and thus, not integral to the application, use and relevance of the course. That classics is based upon the Graeco-Roman period doesn't mean it's irrelevant today.

I dont know how I can possibly make it any easier for you to comprehend.

Effort doesn't get you a passing grade in anything but the Liberal Arts, Whaleboy.

What qualifications do you think I have then Asher?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

I'm saying the time period is integral to classics, but not integral to the method

And why do I care about the method? The method can be learned in many other more practical fields.

My beef is with Classics, not the methods.

What qualifications do you think I have then Asher?

I don't care about qualifications, especially in subjective areas like the liberal arts.

I care about the content and ideas.

[Whaleboy]

My beef is with Classics, not the methods.

As a means of learning the method? You would presumably claim that classics is not the ideal way of learning that method. Asides from the fact that such a statement would make you look like a complete idiot if you were to make it, you'd need to have some understanding of classics to be able to make such a comment.

You dont have that understanding, you're working on prejudice and a loose, ill-reasoned desire to hurt Agathon, because his preference for Apple computers hurts you, cuts deep like a brushed stainless-steel knife straight through your heart.

I don't care about qualifications, especially in subjective areas like the liberal arts.

Wow, teh hatred

You say I wouldn't have a passing grade in anything but the liberal arts, that implies an interest in qualifications does it not? So I would again invite you to estimate what fields I have a "passing grade" at?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
As a means of learning the method?

If this discussion is now degenerating to this vacuous term "the method", I think you've accomplished your goal of degenerating a real discussion into that of academic masturbation once again.

You dont have that understanding, you're working on prejudice and a loose, ill-reasoned desire to hurt Agathon, because his preference for Apple computers hurts you, cuts deep like a brushed stainless-steel knife straight through your heart.

Are these the ad hominems you spoke of? I don't hate Agathon because he likes Apple computers, and I don't hate Apple really (I own an iPod myself). I hate Agathon because he's a tool. And you are starting to act like his protege.

Wow, teh hatred

You say I wouldn't have a passing grade in anything but the liberal arts, that implies an interest in qualifications does it not? So I would again invite you to estimate what fields I have a "passing grade" at?

How come so many Liberal Arts people simply can't think?

I said Liberal Arts can pass people for effort, not that you can't pass anything but liberal arts.

Based on your actions here, I'd say you wouldn't pass any reasonably high-level mathematics university course or problem solving courses.