Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They did not have modern equations, tests, etc. and what not back then to prove they where.
They could have solved problems differently then the others, created things more efficiently, etc.
Oh, reely? Then, what are you talking about when you reference third world countries? What characteristic of a third world country would not manifest itself as large numbers of poor people?
As far as I know, 'third world' is defined pretty narrowly in terms of its globally-marketable economic wealth and how it is distributed to the bulk of its people.
If you define 'poor people' as those who, for economic reasons, lack adequate shelter, nutrition, education and health care, you have to consider Cuba to be perhaps the only country that does not have large numbers of poor people, in spite of the country as a whole having a place in the global economy that would qualify it as 'third world'. And we've all been indoctrinated to think of that as a bad thing, and that the people do not deserve their food, shelter, education and health care, and have obtained it through some nefarirous means.
Many third world countries do have large numbers of poor people. Some developed countries do as well. China is a good example. China is clearly a developed country and yet has a large number of poor people.
No it wouldn't. When was the last time you saw an intellectual doing anything besides bickering with another intellectual? Our species would probably be doomed. When Starbucks ran out of coffee, McDonalds was out of burgers, the grocery store ran out of food, they'd start arguing about who was responsible and what new government program should be proposed... and starve to death debating it. I think, in a general sort of way, it's those 'low IQ' folks that keep you belly full. They actually tend to do useful things.
BTW, the OP perfectly show boats the high and mighty attitude of many United Statsians that I loathe so much.
I sat at my desk one day and listened to two teachers who were working at the front desk of the library discussing which one was to do something. The conversation went on for over 30 minutes. I almost got up and did it for them so they would hush. The chore would have taken less than 10 minutes. The weather was bad outside and neither wanted to empty the book drop.
I told my sister-in-law, who also worked around teachers, about it and asked her if she had witnessed anything like this with the teachers she worked around. She said she got so flustered one day that she asked a couple of them, "If I get a degree, can I be an idiot too."
Now ask me what I think is the reason the test scores on SAT have gone down over the years.
O. K. now for the subject of I. Q. I read somewhere that is raises the I. Q. of a child if he has to entertain himself. I doubt many of the third world countries has a Walmart or K Mart to go to for the latest toy. If they knew how to read, their I.Q. test might show an I. Q. higher than our children who seem to be born with a silver spoon in their mouths. I doubt most of our children could survive if they had to live in the conditions these children live in.
I come from a third world country and I was two grades ahead of the other kids in school when it came to math and reading comprehension but I was held back because of my age and they used the fact that I didn't speak english as the official reason.
I.Q. has nothing to do with it. You have to keep in mind that we're talking about places where the people who run and own everything keep everyone else down. They don't care how smart you are, they just don't want a fair distribution of the wealth.
Remember that we live in a country where, idealy, the harder you work, the more you can achieve. But explain the plight of black people and immigrants in this system throughout our history. Same thing that goes on in other countries except that you have a little something called the constitution that allows for the citizens of this country (even those who are considered second class citizens by other members of society) to claim their rights and even when they have done so, there have been casualties.
Now imagine living in a place where there is no such protection and where, no matter how many uprisings there are, the poor are still shut down every time without fail. It's not that they are not smart, it's that they are poor. Guns cost money, bullets cost money, training costs money and, unless they have something to barter with (like oil), other countries will not come to their aid.
Where I come from (El Salvador), the U.S. actually supplied the government with guns and training because the rebels were fighting for a socialist regime and America can't have that so close to its borders, can it?
While the American government allowed its youth (once enough of them were white) to openly protest in the 60s and 70s against a war and for civil rights, they backed a government that killed many of its citizens simply for being teachers and living in areas where rebels were suspected of hiding.
There are other factors, like culture, religion and education but, when you look deep enough; keeping the poor poor is always political.
Liked your post, my son has a good friend from a third world country,
sharp as a tack, 6 figure income.
Weekend Traveler
Typical Weekend Traveler thread, If screen names weren't listed under
titles, I'd still have known it was yours.
You never miss an opportunity for your backhanded statements.
Last edited by virgode; 07-29-2009 at 04:39 PM..
Reason: typo
O. K. now for the subject of I. Q. I read somewhere that is raises the I. Q. of a child if he has to entertain himself. I doubt many of the third world countries has a Walmart or K Mart to go to for the latest toy. If they knew how to read, their I.Q. test might show an I. Q. higher than our children who seem to be born with a silver spoon in their mouths. I doubt most of our children could survive if they had to live in the conditions these children live in.
Remember when you were in school, and the dumb kinds hated tests and the smart ones sometimes actually enjoyed them? If a kid gets enough inspiration in his life that he feels good about his intellect, he will look forward to doing a test and actually try to do as well as possible. A kid who regards thinking as a dangerous chore, will approach the test with a great deal less enthusiasm, and not do as well on it as he could have.
Some kids are actually taught by their parents (even in my own neighborhood) to hold intellect in contempt, and these kids would certainly score lower on an IQ test than if they had a positive view of learning and tried to score well.
So, it is quite possible, in an enriching environment, to raise the IQ test score of a kid, without raising his intelligence----only his desire to do well on the test.
O. K. now for the subject of I. Q. I read somewhere that is raises the I. Q. of a child if he has to entertain himself. I doubt many of the third world countries has a Walmart or K Mart to go to for the latest toy. If they knew how to read, their I.Q. test might show an I. Q. higher than our children who seem to be born with a silver spoon in their mouths. I doubt most of our children could survive if they had to live in the conditions these children live in.
That is hardly an argument. You're defining "entertaining yourself" as having the latest gewgaw from Wal-Mart. But wouldn't you think it's possible that an intelligent child could find other ways to entertain him- or herself without access to a convenience store? (I'm only inspired to ask this because I have the strange belief that such things haven't always existed in the history of mankind--though if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected).
Did you ever watch Planet of Apes?
In that movie, Dr. Zaius, an ape, subjected Charlton Heston to a I.Q Test.
Dr. Zaius concluded that the Human astronaut was a borderline because he couldn't answer his questions about Ape History and Ape Bible or the Ape Commandments.
Those I.Q tests are totally biased.
Did you ever watch Planet of Apes?
In that movie, Dr. Zaius, an ape, subjected Charlton Heston to a I.Q Test.
Dr. Zaius concluded that the Human astronaut was a borderline because he couldn't answer his questions about Ape History and Ape Bible or the Ape Commandments.
Those I.Q tests are totally biased.
That's not true. Intelligence has nothing to do with how much one knows. Intelligence is the ability to learn. There are IQ tests that do not require any knowledge whatsoever.
Don't take something that you learn in a movie and present it as fact. Especially a movie that is so obviously fiction.
- Reel
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, I can relate to this!
