American posters are stupider, throw rocks at them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't know about Seal, but he'd make a good frogman.

Seal is British.

[SlowwHand]

http://www.navyseals.com/community/main.cfm

[Spec]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Le position de cette personne, cest merde, je suis d'accorde. Cest personne habite un pays qui parles deux langues, et il a l'occasion pour le immersion en anglais. Pour les autres qui habites les pays que ne parlent pas anglais, ils utiltizer le "internet", un environment ou la langue anglais est tres important, et souvent ils ont beacoup d'autres occasions pour utilliser le langue anglais. Les gens en le "anglosphere", en les Etats Unis, en Angleterre, en le "rest of Canada", souvent ils ont pas de besoin pour utiliser les langs autre d'anglais. Ce n'est pas evidence contra l'intelligence de ces gens.

La position de cette personne est merdique, je suis d'accord. Ces personnes habitent un pays qui parle deux langue, et ils ont l'occasion d'immersion anglaise. Pour ceux qui n'habitent pas un pays anglophone, ils utilisent l'internet, un environement oû l'anglais est tres important, et souvent, ils ont beaucoup d'autres occasions d'utiliser l'anglais. Les anglophones des États-Unis, d'Angleterre et le reste du Canada, n'ont pas besoin d'utiliser autre chose que l'anglais. Rien à voir avec l'intelligence des gens.

Fixed.

LOTM

Spec.

[Eli]

I agree with Boris. Israelis are clearly smarter.

[Richelieu]

Hmmm. The Marines may be more appropriate for Spiffor actually. Jarheads.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Eli
I agree with Boris. Israelis are clearly smarter.

Sure. I mean putting that giant world conspiracy together isn't easy....

[Barnabas]

I think it is only the ashkenazi jews who are very smart, the other are average

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
http://www.navyseals.com/community/main.cfm

Thanks, but Seal is still british.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I think it is only the ashkenazi jews who are very smart, the other are average

I had a sepharric cantor who was Argentinian (of Syrian origin), and was fluent in Spanish, English, and Hebrew, and who was at least passable in Ladino. By Fake Boris' standards, he was much smarter than I am.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
1/10

Boris, you despicable pile of merde : If you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to hear some sense, you would understand that there is more to intelligence than multi-lingualism. Your association between education levels and intelligence reeks of the worst kind of bourgeois snobbery - itself an intensely dumb, ignorant, and ignoble vice.

You are prime contender for most stupid poster on here for posting such contemptible nonsense.

Well - beyond your obnoxiousness, you raise a valid concern about intelligence - which, though valid, does not address the point.

Take, for instance, a tall and muscular man who trains regularly, and a small woman with a black belt in martial arts. In pure quantitative terms, the man is "stronger" than the woman. However, in a real life situation, where the complexity of the phenomenons in play entails the impossibility of applying a working, quantitative model to describe an event, you are forced to use qualitative terms (common language) to assess the situation correctly. So even though the man is "stronger", he gets beaten in a fight. This clearly shows the inherent limitations in words that refer to human qualities, whether it be strength, endurance, intelligence, etc.

This is the problem of IQ tests, and, in general, of any attempt at assessing intelligence from one's ability at accomplishing a certain intellectual task in a certain, closed, context. Solving mathematical equations, mastering languages, writing a critical essay, are all specific tasks that, it is generally agreed upon, rely on your intellectual faculties. Taken as such, these do not allow to create a foolproof reading of one's intelligence in the sense of a general attribute. However, it does raise the valid and rational expectation that someone who is generally competent at accomplishing them is more likely to be succesfull when faced with a real-life problem that requires thinking - even though, ultimately, the complexity of the world shows that there is an irreductible wealth of circumstances that can influence the outcome of a "problem".

Thus, there is a tension between the "essentialist" tendency of assigning purely intelligible qualities to a person (i.e. its "essence") that restrict the very domain of its potential as an agent, and the vast complexity of the world, which ultimately shows that what matters is what happens in actuality. And of course, what happens really is scarcely a function of abilities derived from a closed context.

Just chill a bit and ponder that an appropriate use of the word "intelligence" should not aim to establish the inherent value of a person, especially wrt to it being part of an "essence". Your own hysterical reaction, and that of other posters too, however, shows that the tendency to take this unacceptable shortcut is well established in your ways of thinking. Otherwise, how would you - and others - feel so personally insulted, to the point you would have to hurl back the accusation of stupidity at me?

This said, despite the limitations to a proper definition of intelligence I have pointed out, I do rest my case that specific intellectual abilities do relate to intelligence, if only in a nominalist way (as opposed to a positivist approach), and that mastering one or several second languages count amongst them.

Defining intelligence this way sure isn't foolproof, but there must be, somewhere, an headstart, as imperfect as it may be. The correlation between closed assesments and real world situations may be small, but I'm wetting my toe that somewhat, it's there. "To what extent?" is a question to be left to the cognitive sciences; and "how should that determine the value of a person?" is a question to be left to ethics.

[KrazyHorse]

9/10

well done

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I had a sepharric cantor who was Argentinian (of Syrian origin), and was fluent in Spanish, English, and Hebrew, and who was at least passable in Ladino. By Fake Boris' standards, he was much smarter than I am.

Ladino is pretty much spanish as spoken in the XV century

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: American posters are stupider, throw rocks at them.

Originally posted by Lorizael
Fake Boris, leave the grammar issue alone.
Your sentence beginning with 'which' is, in fact, not a sentence; it's a fragment.

Oh please, I am well versed in syntax. I know perfectly of this rule, that you invoke when teaching kids how to write, because they don't master the language enough to be allowed fancier stylistics. Once you understand the basic structure of a conventional sentence though, it's acceptable to bypass it. Ever heard of relative pronouns?

Higher should be preceded by an 'a' as the 'h' in higher is most definitely pronounced.

I stand corrected.

If you'd like I can continue to point out grammatical errors as you make them - you've already made others in this thread - or you can drop this part of your argument.

I've never argued on grammar, the issue was brought to me.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
9/10

well done

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: American posters are stupider, throw rocks at them.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I know perfectly of this rule, that you invoke when teaching kids how to write, because they don't master the language enough to be allowed fancier stylistics.

comma splice