'Maths Question'

Post by Toby
Andy of Nottingham, as I shall call you, I know you've talked about
this before, but without actually doing a maths degree, how does one
know if one is 'good' at 'maths'? I'll leave it at that, if you need
specifics, I'm sure you'll say so :P

Generally if you are getting As or A*s at GCSE/A-level without straining
yourself too much, you can call yourself good at maths.

It's all very relative tho.

At school/college I was good at maths.

Even in my first year at uni I was good at maths.

Now I suck at maths.

So, good is very relative. Pick someone else to compare this "one" to and
then you can say whether they are good at maths.

Or if you wish to compare "one" to the population as a whole, then, I dunno,
I guess A*/A/B/C at GCSE in maths will mean you are better than most.

cc

Toby

2004-10-04 17:55:24 UTC

Generally if you are getting As or A*s at GCSE/A-level without straining
yourself too much, you can call yourself good at maths.
It's all very relative tho.
At school/college I was good at maths.
Even in my first year at uni I was good at maths.
Now I suck at maths.
So, good is very relative. Pick someone else to compare this "one" to and
then you can say whether they are good at maths.
Or if you wish to compare "one" to the population as a whole, then, I dunno,
I guess A*/A/B/C at GCSE in maths will mean you are better than most.
cc

Yes, I am shocked that you are no longer Maths Boy :P I wonder what
would have happened if you'd gone to the other place?!

I know you're pretty good if you get an A at A Level maths, but it
still seems a bit general...Bleugh

jess

2004-10-04 20:23:11 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Generally if you are getting As or A*s at GCSE/A-level without
straining yourself too much, you can call yourself good at maths.

i disagree.

i did the above, but would not say i am good at maths.

Toby

2004-10-04 20:36:19 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Generally if you are getting As or A*s at GCSE/A-level without
straining yourself too much, you can call yourself good at maths.

i disagree.
i did the above, but would not say i am good at maths.

Yeah, I agree, it's not enough.

cowboy carl

2004-10-04 23:21:18 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Generally if you are getting As or A*s at GCSE/A-level without
straining yourself too much, you can call yourself good at maths.

i disagree.
i did the above, but would not say i am good at maths.

relative to me you probably aren't.

but relative to the entire world, you probably are.

you are one of the most well educated people on the planet.

but, you may happen to be surrounded by people who are more educated than
you, hence you don't *feel* that clever.

but if you went to, say, redhill, you'd feel really clever.

cc

jess

2004-10-05 16:27:16 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Generally if you are getting As or A*s at GCSE/A-level without
straining yourself too much, you can call yourself good at maths.

i disagree.
i did the above, but would not say i am good at maths.

relative to me you probably aren't.
but relative to the entire world, you probably are.
you are one of the most well educated people on the planet.
but, you may happen to be surrounded by people who are more educated
than you, hence you don't *feel* that clever.
but if you went to, say, redhill, you'd feel really clever.

hmmm.

although i am better at maths than the general public, i do not agree that i
am good at maths.

dys?

Toby

2004-10-05 17:09:28 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Generally if you are getting As or A*s at GCSE/A-level without
straining yourself too much, you can call yourself good at maths.

i disagree.
i did the above, but would not say i am good at maths.

relative to me you probably aren't.
but relative to the entire world, you probably are.
you are one of the most well educated people on the planet.
but, you may happen to be surrounded by people who are more educated
than you, hence you don't *feel* that clever.
but if you went to, say, redhill, you'd feel really clever.

hmmm.
although i am better at maths than the general public, i do not agree that i
am good at maths.
dys?

hehe that 'dys' thing is soooooo stoopid :P

cowboy carl

2004-10-05 22:07:30 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Generally if you are getting As or A*s at GCSE/A-level without
straining yourself too much, you can call yourself good at maths.

i disagree.
i did the above, but would not say i am good at maths.

relative to me you probably aren't.
but relative to the entire world, you probably are.
you are one of the most well educated people on the planet.
but, you may happen to be surrounded by people who are more educated
than you, hence you don't *feel* that clever.
but if you went to, say, redhill, you'd feel really clever.

hmmm.
although i am better at maths than the general public, i do not agree that i
am good at maths.
dys?

yes but you have to define 'good' in relative terms.

the default being "better than average" in my opinion.

cc

Samsonknight

2004-10-04 17:18:54 UTC

A good grade at A-level maths? As to even pass it , I am sure that you have
to be very good at problem solving which is essential to being good at
maths....

....anyway back to doing more maths :(

John Porcella

2004-10-04 20:20:24 UTC

Post by Toby
Andy of Nottingham, as I shall call you, I know you've talked

!!

about

Post by Toby
this before, but without actually doing a maths degree, how does one
know if one is 'good' at 'maths'? I'll leave it at that, if you need
specifics, I'm sure you'll say so :P
Cheers

Whilst you wait, would a good 'A' level grade do the trick?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Toby

2004-10-04 20:36:07 UTC

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:20:24 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Andy of Nottingham, as I shall call you, I know you've talked

!!
about

Post by Toby
this before, but without actually doing a maths degree, how does one
know if one is 'good' at 'maths'? I'll leave it at that, if you need
specifics, I'm sure you'll say so :P
Cheers

Whilst you wait, would a good 'A' level grade do the trick?

Not on its own, no, for too many people get them...

cowboy carl

2004-10-04 23:22:16 UTC

Post by Toby
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:20:24 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Andy of Nottingham, as I shall call you, I know you've talked

!!
about

Post by Toby
this before, but without actually doing a maths degree, how does one
know if one is 'good' at 'maths'? I'll leave it at that, if you need
specifics, I'm sure you'll say so :P
Cheers

Whilst you wait, would a good 'A' level grade do the trick?

Not on its own, no, for too many people get them...

So you want to know what counts as "good" amoungst the already "good"
people?

In that case, you'd be looking at STEP papers or IQ scores (since IQ tests
generally measure mathematical intelligence).

cc

Toby

2004-10-05 11:25:15 UTC

Post by Toby
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:20:24 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella

Post by Toby
Andy of Nottingham, as I shall call you, I know you've talked

!!
about

Post by Toby
this before, but without actually doing a maths degree, how does one
know if one is 'good' at 'maths'? I'll leave it at that, if you need
specifics, I'm sure you'll say so :P
Cheers

Whilst you wait, would a good 'A' level grade do the trick?

Not on its own, no, for too many people get them...

So you want to know what counts as "good" amoungst the already "good"
people?
In that case, you'd be looking at STEP papers or IQ scores (since IQ tests
generally measure mathematical intelligence).
cc

Hmm so SS on STEP then ,eh? I know they say only the top 1-2% of
people can hadle STEP, so that's a good indicator, it's a pity
(generally) only people going on to compsci or maths at
Camb./Warwick/(Oxford people for 'fun') do them!

As to IQ tests, they test other stuff too, though I agree if you're
mathematically inclined you generally get a higher score...

jess

2004-10-05 16:28:37 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.

iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

cowboy carl

2004-10-05 22:10:31 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.
iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

no, that's like saying "men who wear top hats don't get ill as much as the
average people"

which may be true, but it doesn't mean it's caused by the top hat.

post hoc ergo propter hoc.

IQ tests measure mathematical ability (generally speaking)

white middle class folks are generally better at maths because they have
access to a better education than non-white "lower" class folk.

ergo, white middle class folk are better at IQ tests.

cc

[in case you were wondering, wearing top hats is a sign of wealth (i.e. only
stupidly rich people wear top hats, e.g. at ascot) and so they can afford
better healthcare ... okay, so that was more applicable during victorian
times, but it's an analogy i like using]

Toby

2004-10-05 22:47:18 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.
iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

no, that's like saying "men who wear top hats don't get ill as much as the
average people"
which may be true, but it doesn't mean it's caused by the top hat.
post hoc ergo propter hoc.
IQ tests measure mathematical ability (generally speaking)
white middle class folks are generally better at maths because they have
access to a better education than non-white "lower" class folk.
ergo, white middle class folk are better at IQ tests.
cc
[in case you were wondering, wearing top hats is a sign of wealth (i.e. only
stupidly rich people wear top hats, e.g. at ascot) and so they can afford
better healthcare ... okay, so that was more applicable during victorian
times, but it's an analogy i like using]

hehe I think we should have a thread about crazy analogies!

Matthew Huntbach

2004-10-06 08:57:03 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.
iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

Are you really suggesting that black and working class people have greater
difficulty with abstract problem solving?

I do believe practice at these things can improve one's ability at them,
and I guess those who have been through some sort of formal education
will have more practice at it. Also I would guess success at these tests
depends on motivation - if you come from a background where exams and tests
are seen as important you're more likely to sit down and work at an IQ
test, whereas if you don't if may be the case that you could do it but you
don't feel under any pressure to do it when sat down in front of one.

However, your reply is coming dangerously close to racist - do you really
think black people are intrinsically less able at abstract logic problems
than white people?

Matthew Huntbach

John Porcella

2004-10-07 22:05:18 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.
iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

Are you really suggesting that black and working class people have greater
difficulty with abstract problem solving?

I have never read it, but was this not the subject of a controversial book?
I cannot remember the title but it had a picture of a bell shaped curve on
the cover. I am pretty sure it was an American book and tried to show
through statistics that black folk were not as intelligent as white folk!

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

cowboy carl

2004-10-07 22:09:40 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.
iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

Are you really suggesting that black and working class people have greater
difficulty with abstract problem solving?
I do believe practice at these things can improve one's ability at them,
and I guess those who have been through some sort of formal education
will have more practice at it. Also I would guess success at these tests
depends on motivation - if you come from a background where exams and tests
are seen as important you're more likely to sit down and work at an IQ
test, whereas if you don't if may be the case that you could do it but you
don't feel under any pressure to do it when sat down in front of one.
However, your reply is coming dangerously close to racist - do you really
think black people are intrinsically less able at abstract logic problems
than white people?

Jess isn't racist.

She's anti-racist.

She thinks black people are better/cooler than white people, especially
those gangster types with the guns and the drive by shootings and the rap
music.

cc

Robert de Vincy

2004-10-07 22:35:57 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Jess isn't racist.
She's anti-racist.
She thinks black people are better/cooler than white people,
especially those gangster types with the guns and the drive by
shootings and the rap music.

That's racist against white people!

--
BdeV

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-08 20:43:07 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Jess isn't racist.

I assume that, you assume (or may know forsure) that, Matthew assumes
that I think.

Read *carefully* what was written, especially by Matthew.

If you want my interpretation then ask for it.

Ian

jess

2004-10-10 11:35:40 UTC

no i don't.

you think you know me so well. :p

John Porcella

2004-10-23 20:45:10 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Jess isn't racist.
She's anti-racist.
She thinks black people are better/cooler than white people,

And that is NOT a racist thought?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Mr Power

2004-10-08 16:26:18 UTC

Post by Matthew Huntbach
However, your reply is coming dangerously close to racist - do you really
think black people are intrinsically less able at abstract logic problems
than white people?

Why is it racist to say that black people are intrinsically less able at
something (like maths), yet it isn't racist to say that white people are
intrinsically less able at say, sprinting?

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-08 17:56:38 UTC

Post by Mr Power
Why is it racist to say that black people are intrinsically less able at
something (like maths), yet it isn't racist to say that white people are
intrinsically less able at say, sprinting?

It is.

Ian

Mr Power

2004-10-08 18:04:55 UTC

It is.

So even if something is true, it is still racist to actually say it.

I better shut up now, since I'm probably also becoming
"dangerously close to racist" according to M.Huntbach.

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-08 20:22:25 UTC

It is.

So even if something is true, it is still racist to actually say it.

Is it "true" that "white people" are *intriniscally* less able at
sprinting than other ethnic groups?

That would seem to be rather close to ethnically deterministic, which
I would certainly question. I seem to recall some rather good
sprinters who were not afro-caribbean in origin as far as I am aware -
at least the last two women's olympic gold medallists for example.
That would certainly appear, on the surface, to condradict such a
claim.

Of course, it's entirely possible that you didn't mean to suggest this
at all, but that something else that you might say might be construed
as potentially concerning.

Ian

Mr Power

2004-10-09 14:03:16 UTC

Post by Mr Power
So even if something is true, it is still racist to actually say it.

Is it "true" that "white people" are *intriniscally* less able at
sprinting than other ethnic groups?

Yes.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
That would seem to be rather close to ethnically deterministic, which
I would certainly question. I seem to recall some rather good
sprinters who were not afro-caribbean in origin as far as I am aware -
at least the last two women's olympic gold medallists for example.
That would certainly appear, on the surface, to condradict such a
claim.

Black people have better fast twitch fibres, and a higher testosterone
level, by way of genetics, which make them "intrinsically" better sprinters.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Of course, it's entirely possible that you didn't mean to suggest this
at all, but that something else that you might say might be construed
as potentially concerning.

I take it your on the same PC high horse as Matthew then?

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-09 16:17:46 UTC

Post by Mr Power
So even if something is true, it is still racist to actually say it.

Is it "true" that "white people" are *intriniscally* less able at
sprinting than other ethnic groups?

Yes.

Black people have better fast twitch fibres, and a higher testosterone
level, by way of genetics, which make them "intrinsically" better sprinters.

This raises several interesting questions, such as:

- So how do you explain the last two female 100m champions?
- How do you define "black"?
- Why, if I have high testosterone levels (which I do, as it happens)
haven't I been able to sprint at any point in my life?

I'd, of course, be fascinated in the research sources. That's not
meant sarcastically. I can appreciate, for example, that North-East
Africans have dominated distance running events, but the implications
of various research in that case seems to suggest that this is due to
nurture rather than nature - although anyone born at altitude will
have some of the same bio-physical advantages. It's not down to
genetically inherited genes based on ethnic heritage though.

If it were then I should expect to see Nordic skiing dominated by
North-east Africans - but it isn't, of course, due to nurture rather
than nature.

I'm not yet convinced. I could be, of course.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Of course, it's entirely possible that you didn't mean to suggest this
at all, but that something else that you might say might be construed
as potentially concerning.

I take it your on the same PC high horse as Matthew then?

Why do you assume that? I'm interested in what you have to say. If I
happen to be politically correct that's my business, although, to be
fair, I'm not quite sure where I'm being politically correct here,
simply questioning. Quite what political correctness means in this
context I'm really not sure about either. What is correct; what isnt?

Ian

Mr Power

2004-10-10 17:32:03 UTC

Post by Mr Power
Black people have better fast twitch fibres, and a higher testosterone
level, by way of genetics, which make them "intrinsically" better sprinters.

- So how do you explain the last two female 100m champions?

The advantages are more acute in males.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
- How do you define "black"?

In this context it is used to refer to persons
of African origin.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
- Why, if I have high testosterone levels (which I do, as it happens)
haven't I been able to sprint at any point in my life?

You were born without any legs?

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
I'd, of course, be fascinated in the research sources. That's not
meant sarcastically. I can appreciate, for example, that North-East
Africans have dominated distance running events, but the implications
of various research in that case seems to suggest that this is due to
nurture rather than nature - although anyone born at altitude will
have some of the same bio-physical advantages. It's not down to
genetically inherited genes based on ethnic heritage though.

Maybe not in the case of Kenyan long distance runners, but
in the case of sprinters (and probably some other sports),
blacks are definitely at an advantage because of their genetics.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
If it were then I should expect to see Nordic skiing dominated by
North-east Africans - but it isn't, of course, due to nurture rather
than nature.
I'm not yet convinced. I could be, of course.

Well your entitled to your opinion, if you are really interested
in the subject just do a google search for "black sprinters".

The first result is about the genetics aspect to their
overwhelming dominance.

Post by Mr Power
I take it your on the same PC high horse as Matthew then?

I can't help but feel patronised when you refer to my views as
"dangerous" or "concerning". Political correctness in this context
is saying that it is "racist" to state that there are genetic differences
between people of black and white origin, which probably go
further than the colour of the skin.

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-10 19:20:26 UTC

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
- So how do you explain the last two female 100m champions?

The advantages are more acute in males.

Why? It's odd, isn't it? If the suggestion is that this is
genetically dependent upon racial factors, shouldn't this be similar
in both men and women? Or not? I'm not sure.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
- How do you define "black"?

In this context it is used to refer to persons
of African origin.

Thanks for confirming what I *thought* you meant.

Isn't it odd the, given it's large youthful population that there
haven't been more African sprinters of global repute? If it's genetic
based upon ethinic background then shouldn't there have been? In
fact, other than Frankie Fredricks, the only other male African
sprinters I can actually think of off the top of my head are white
South Africans! I might have missed someone though.

I appreciate what you're syaing is African origin and that this will
incldue the majority of Caribbean, Amercian and Western European
sprinters, but tveen so, isn't it odd that there have been fewer
African sprinters if speed is due to genetic ability?

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
- Why, if I have high testosterone levels (which I do, as it happens)
haven't I been able to sprint at any point in my life?

You were born without any legs?

No.

I'll try and take a look at the research and also talk to people who
probably know more about this than I do.

Post by Mr Power
I can't help but feel patronised when you refer to my views as
"dangerous" or "concerning". Political correctness in this context
is saying that it is "racist" to state that there are genetic differences
between people of black and white origin, which probably go
further than the colour of the skin.

Now, this is where you go back and read what I've written. Nowhere
that I can find (please correct me if Im wrong, in which cae an
apology canbe taken as read) have I said that your views are either

Post by Mr Power
Of course, it's entirely possible that you didn't mean to suggest this
at all, but that something else that you might say might be construed
as potentially concerning.

That's not the same thing at all.

Back to PC - I don't really see how whether I'm going to argue a
particular opinionis anythignto attack me over. If it's considered
politically correct then sobeit - I'm politically correct on this one.
There are many other views that I might hold which probbaly wouldn't
be seen as politically correct. Quit labelling with such poitically
correct nonsense (yes, *joke*) and start to consider my opinions as
mine rather than as anything qhich deserves a label.

Ian

Mr Power

2004-10-12 16:57:10 UTC

Post by Mr Power
The advantages are more acute in males.

Why? It's odd, isn't it? If the suggestion is that this is
genetically dependent upon racial factors, shouldn't this be similar
in both men and women? Or not? I'm not sure.

No.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Isn't it odd the, given it's large youthful population that there
haven't been more African sprinters of global repute?

More than what? You do realise that over 200 black
/ african-american people have officially run 100m
in less than 10 seconds? Not one single white person
has achieved this same feat.

And you seriously think this is all because of nurture as
opposed to nature / genetics?

You honestly believe that there are white people out there
with the potential to run 100m in 10 seconds but they haven't
simply because white people aren't encouraged to run fast
in the same way that black people are?

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
If it's genetic
based upon ethinic background then shouldn't there have been? In
fact, other than Frankie Fredricks, the only other male African
sprinters I can actually think of off the top of my head are white
South Africans! I might have missed someone though.

Obviously I include "african-americans" in the definition of
what I call "black persons" (of african origin).

African-americans are probably going to be the dominant
over people who perhaps live in africa as well as originated
there since they have access to all the training and food that
they have in the states.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
I appreciate what you're syaing is African origin and that this will
incldue the majority of Caribbean, Amercian and Western European
sprinters, but tveen so, isn't it odd that there have been fewer
African sprinters if speed is due to genetic ability?

See point above.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
No.
I'll try and take a look at the research and also talk to people who
probably know more about this than I do.

Know more about it that you do?
Do such people exist?

Post by Mr Power
Of course, it's entirely possible that you didn't mean to suggest this
at all, but that something else that you might say might be construed
as potentially concerning.

That's not the same thing at all.

I think you're potentially concerning.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Back to PC - I don't really see how whether I'm going to argue a
particular opinionis anythignto attack me over. If it's considered
politically correct then sobeit - I'm politically correct on this one.
There are many other views that I might hold which probbaly wouldn't
be seen as politically correct. Quit labelling with such poitically
correct nonsense (yes, *joke*) and start to consider my opinions as
mine rather than as anything qhich deserves a label.

Quit labelling me "potentially concerning" and I'll quit labelling you
"politically correct" if it makes you happy. :-)

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-10 19:45:08 UTC

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
I'm not yet convinced. I could be, of course.

Well your entitled to your opinion, if you are really interested
in the subject just do a google search for "black sprinters".
The first result is about the genetics aspect to their
overwhelming dominance.

Whoa there old chap - now go backand read the articles you'll find
there again. I see *nothing* in the seven or eight that I read to
suggest that there is overwhleming evidence. In fact, I see a lot of
opinion that there are a whole range of factors, som eof which may be
genetic in nature. There certainly isn't anything like the
overwhelming evidence you infer.

It seems off, given the points about NE African distance runners, that
one study should apparantly prove that they are faster due to genetics
- that they need to use less energy to swing their arms. Eh? Nothing
to do with culture, geography or altitude then?

Nah, sorry. Don't buy that and I'm not convinced. Your opion to
which you're entitled to,but it's opinion. There is no agreed evidnce
that I find - and no scientific source I can find easily either.

Ian

Mr Power

2004-10-12 17:25:51 UTC

Post by Mr Power
The first result is about the genetics aspect to their
overwhelming dominance.

I said overwhelming dominance, *not* overwhelming evidence.

If you like there is overwhelming evidence of their overwhelming
dominance, so then it comes down to explaining why they have
overwhelming dominance. Which you are saying is purely
based on environmental factors, i.e. they are brought up
to want it more.

Next you'll be arguing that the reason black men have larger
penises, smell different, and have frizzy hair is also due to
environmental factors as well.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
It seems off, given the points about NE African distance runners, that
one study should apparantly prove that they are faster due to genetics
- that they need to use less energy to swing their arms. Eh? Nothing
to do with culture, geography or altitude then?

I agree with you that with the East Africans, their dominance is probably
as a result of environmental factors, perhaps as well as genetic factors.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Nah, sorry. Don't buy that and I'm not convinced. Your opion to
which you're entitled to,but it's opinion.

Thank you for so strongly implying that my opinion is incorrect.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
There is no agreed evidnce
that I find - and no scientific source I can find easily either.

What is agreed evidence anyway. The fact that black men
have more fast twitch fibres in their muscles has been discussed
a lot by leading geneticists, and I don't think their has been
much evidence to refute this. Obviously some people are
going to disagree as is always the case with any theory.

Luke Elson

2004-10-10 21:41:17 UTC

"Ian/Cath Ford" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
<snip?

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
- So how do you explain the last two female 100m champions?

Statistical rules don't decide anything about individual cases. Look at it
this way: it is "sexually deterministic" (and correct) to claim that women
ususally live longer than men, due to their innate characteristics amongst
other things. You would correctly be laughed out of town if you pointed to
two really old men as evidence against the claim.

<snip>

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
- Why, if I have high testosterone levels (which I do, as it happens)
haven't I been able to sprint at any point in my life?

Same reason - there's lots of factors and you're an individual case. Whilst
you might have more testosterone, and thus have that in your favour, in your
case other factors might be dominant (laziness, lack of food, lack of legs,
living in the wrong environment, being raised in a family that sneered at
sport).

Forgive me if I'm underestimating you here, but this fact about statistical
rules really is a fundamental part of modern thought, and essential to
understanding things as diverse as racial charateristics and the MMR
controversy. I am constantly surprised that so many people fail to grasp it,
especially as it is so intuitively obvious (though I am a mathmo).

Yours,
Luke Elson
***@hotmail.com

Robert de Vincy

2004-10-10 21:50:53 UTC

Luke Elson did write:

[snip!]

Post by Luke Elson
(though I am a mathmo).

Another one?!? Is it something they put in the water these days?

--
BdeV

cowboy carl

2004-10-15 00:00:28 UTC

Black people have better fast twitch fibres, and a higher testosterone
level, by way of genetics, which make them "intrinsically" better sprinters.

- So how do you explain the last two female 100m champions?
- How do you define "black"?
- Why, if I have high testosterone levels (which I do, as it happens)
haven't I been able to sprint at any point in my life?
I'd, of course, be fascinated in the research sources. That's not
meant sarcastically. I can appreciate, for example, that North-East
Africans have dominated distance running events, but the implications
of various research in that case seems to suggest that this is due to
nurture rather than nature - although anyone born at altitude will
have some of the same bio-physical advantages. It's not down to
genetically inherited genes based on ethnic heritage though.
If it were then I should expect to see Nordic skiing dominated by
North-east Africans - but it isn't, of course, due to nurture rather
than nature.
I'm not yet convinced. I could be, of course.

What I don't understand is why, in the rest of the animal world, so much
more is down to nature ... if you want to get dogs which make good hunters,
or horses which run faster, you breed them from good dogs or fast horses,
same with cows and every other animal on the planet.

Except humans. Human kids are completely random, you can have two really
good looking fit and healthy and highly intelligent parents and they give
birth to a child who is ugly and morbidly obese and dense as two short
planks.

And anyone who takes a second to suggest that maybe some things (such as
intelligence, healthyness, attractivity etc.) *are* heriditary (as they are
in the rest of the animal world) are immediately condemed as being
hitler-esque.

cc

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-16 09:35:40 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
And anyone who takes a second to suggest that maybe some things (such as
intelligence, healthyness, attractivity etc.) *are* heriditary (as they are
in the rest of the animal world) are immediately condemed as being
hitler-esque.

I don't think anyone would doubt that some things are heriditary would
they? I have a mole on my neck that is very similar to one that my
father and brother have. People say my oldest son looks like me (poor
sod). You only have to be a teacher to see similarities betwene
siblings in many cases (not just physical).

One of the articles I read when searching for "black athletes" quoted
Colin Jackson. He suggested that his speed was due at least
partically to genetics - the genes he inherited from his parents.
That will, certainly, go part way to explaing why he was fast, of
course it will. All that I'm arguing is that there is no evidence
that I see which says that Jackson is fast ***because** he is of
African-Caribbean origin*.

I just don't see the evidence to suggest that there is heriditary
genetic transfer between all people of African origin which makes them
more likely to be good sprinters. To extend that argument, as has
been done in this thread (not by you), and suggest that black men have
larger penises is, to be quite honest, distasteful and suggest to me
that the mullato myth is alive and kicking and playing in some rock
and roll band somewhere.

Of course, the "black men have better physical attributes" argument is
an old one. It's been used in all sorts of places to justify all
sorts of things. It appears, iirc, in Birth of a Nation for example -
and to be quite honest with you I'd rather not go back to those
attitudes in the 21st century. The (generally) unwritten extension of
the hypothesis is "that's why black people are less intelligent and
should therefore be subservient to white people".

That, imo, is perhaps worth describing as hitler-esque: not the belief
that some things can be heriditary, but that whole racial groups have
the same traits.

Ian

Robert de Vincy

2004-10-19 07:53:49 UTC

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
I don't think anyone would doubt that some things are heriditary would
they? I have a mole on my neck that is very similar to one that my
father and brother have. People say my oldest son looks like me (poor
sod). You only have to be a teacher to see similarities betwene
siblings in many cases (not just physical).
One of the articles I read when searching for "black athletes" quoted
Colin Jackson. He suggested that his speed was due at least
partically to genetics - the genes he inherited from his parents.
That will, certainly, go part way to explaing why he was fast, of
course it will. All that I'm arguing is that there is no evidence
that I see which says that Jackson is fast ***because** he is of
African-Caribbean origin*.
I just don't see the evidence to suggest that there is heriditary
genetic transfer between all people of African origin which makes them
more likely to be good sprinters. To extend that argument, as has
been done in this thread (not by you), and suggest that black men have
larger penises is, to be quite honest, distasteful and suggest to me
that the mullato myth is alive and kicking and playing in some rock
and roll band somewhere.
Of course, the "black men have better physical attributes" argument is
an old one. It's been used in all sorts of places to justify all
sorts of things. It appears, iirc, in Birth of a Nation for example -
and to be quite honest with you I'd rather not go back to those
attitudes in the 21st century. The (generally) unwritten extension of
the hypothesis is "that's why black people are less intelligent and
should therefore be subservient to white people".
That, imo, is perhaps worth describing as hitler-esque: not the belief
that some things can be heriditary, but that whole racial groups have
the same traits.

There's a thread appeared on sci.bio.evolution that, if anyone replies
to it, will be highly relevant to the original question about black
sprinters.
(It's a moderated group and messages only appear a batch at a time, so if
there are any replies then they'll appear sometime later today or tonight.)

--
BdeV

Mr Power

2004-10-21 09:37:49 UTC

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Of course, the "black men have better physical attributes" argument is
an old one. It's been used in all sorts of places to justify all
sorts of things. It appears, iirc, in Birth of a Nation for example -
and to be quite honest with you I'd rather not go back to those
attitudes in the 21st century. The (generally) unwritten extension of
the hypothesis is "that's why black people are less intelligent and
should therefore be subservient to white people".
That, imo, is perhaps worth describing as hitler-esque: not the belief
that some things can be heriditary, but that whole racial groups have
the same traits.

Have you ever heard of something called Godwin's Law?

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-22 17:39:56 UTC

Post by Mr Power
Have you ever heard of something called Godwin's Law?

Wasn't me - previous poster.

Ian
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

w***@search26.com

2004-12-07 12:11:40 UTC

http://www.zared.com/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Society_and_Culture/Ethnicity/Afro-Caribbean/

jess

2004-10-10 11:34:48 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.
iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

Are you really suggesting that black and working class people have
greater difficulty with abstract problem solving?

black and working class people do significantly worse on iq tests than
white, middle class people.

i'm suggesting that this is to do with the structure/make up of the test,
rather than the fact that they are intrisically more stupid.

Matthew Huntbach

2004-10-11 12:12:46 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.
iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

Are you really suggesting that black and working class people have
greater difficulty with abstract problem solving?

black and working class people do significantly worse on iq tests than
white, middle class people.
i'm suggesting that this is to do with the structure/make up of the test,
rather than the fact that they are intrisically more stupid.

Black and working class people doing significantly worse on the tests is not
the same as the tests being so biased that the only thing they measure
is how white and middle class you are. My point was that in raising the
possibility of bias you went way over the top, to the point where I
think in attempting to be anti-racist you did in fact make a statement
that was unintentionally racist.

IQ tests that I have seen contain mainly abstract problem solving questions,
which is why I question your assertion that they are instrinsically biased
against black and working class people. I accept that some "intelligence"
tests contain - and more did so in the past - questions where one's cultural
background may have put one at a disadvantage. However, this is less so now.
If the bias is still observed, one explanation may indeed be an instrinsic
difference in abstract intelligence. But there are at least two other
explanations, which I raised. One is that the idea of "IQ" as being some
fixed measure that is instrinsic to individuals is wrong - practice at
abstract problem solving makes one better at it, so the likelihood is that
one's cultural background may have given one more or less practice at it.
The other is that motivation is also a factor in these test results,
and that one's cultural background may affect one's motivation.

Actually, I think motivation is an extremely important factor here. The
assumption with these tests is that people will complete them to the best
of their ability. But what is to say people will? If I was sat down to do
some abstract puzzle solving and had no idea what it was about and how
important it was going to be, I might well decide that I just couldn't
be bothered to work at it and instead just daydream and doodle. So I
might score low, but that wouldn't mean the same as if I had worked like
mad at it and still scored low. I suspect people who have come from a
background where passing exams and tests is regarded as a highly important
and prestigious thing to do will be more motivated and score more highly
than people who have come from a background where tests and exams are
unfamiliar or not regarded as an important thing.

Matthew Huntbach

Malcolm

2004-11-11 11:38:42 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.
iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

Are you really suggesting that black and working class people have
greater difficulty with abstract problem solving?

black and working class people do significantly worse on iq tests than
white, middle class people.
i'm suggesting that this is to do with the structure/make up of the test,
rather than the fact that they are intrisically more stupid.

Black and working class people doing significantly worse on the tests is not
the same as the tests being so biased that the only thing they measure
is how white and middle class you are.

I'm from a working class background and always did well on IQ tests.
You could argue I became middle class when I went to university, but I
did well on IQ tests when totally immersed in my working class
culture. The statement "black and working class people do
significantly worse on IQ tests than white, middle class people." is
racist and classist becuase it attributes a supposed deficiency (doing
badly on IQ tests) to a whole culture. I am proof that this statement
is wrong - I am (was) working class and did better on IQ tests than
most people of middle class origin.

I do think IQ tests are a boring waste of time, and an activity
pursued by bourgeoise, uncool anoraks. My excuse was I wanted to beat
the 'posh boys' at their own game - and because it was easy, and I had
to do it (school policy), I did. Most working class and black kids
probably have a better attitude - **** your IQ test! Maybe the lack of
involvement with advanced culture (the physics of Feynman, the history
of Francisco da Mosto...) found in working class culture is because
middle-class teachers are often imbued with an IQ test mentality and
are not truly cultured themselves - the working class kids then (quite
rightly) revolt, at least working class culture has some "go".

Richard Feynman, also working class, got 128 on an IQ test - less than
me - which shows there is definitely something wrong with the scale -
someone like him should define the scale not appear in a mediocre
position on a scale defined by a hack psychologist.

Forget IQ tests, go and read one of Richard Feynman's books instead.

Toby

2004-11-11 13:23:32 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
since IQ
tests generally measure mathematical intelligence

no.
iq tests measure how white and middle class you are.

Are you really suggesting that black and working class people have
greater difficulty with abstract problem solving?

black and working class people do significantly worse on iq tests than
white, middle class people.
i'm suggesting that this is to do with the structure/make up of the test,
rather than the fact that they are intrisically more stupid.

Black and working class people doing significantly worse on the tests is not
the same as the tests being so biased that the only thing they measure
is how white and middle class you are.

I'm from a working class background and always did well on IQ tests.
You could argue I became middle class when I went to university, but I
did well on IQ tests when totally immersed in my working class
culture. The statement "black and working class people do
significantly worse on IQ tests than white, middle class people." is
racist and classist becuase it attributes a supposed deficiency (doing
badly on IQ tests) to a whole culture. I am proof that this statement
is wrong - I am (was) working class and did better on IQ tests than
most people of middle class origin.
I do think IQ tests are a boring waste of time, and an activity
pursued by bourgeoise, uncool anoraks. My excuse was I wanted to beat
the 'posh boys' at their own game - and because it was easy, and I had
to do it (school policy), I did. Most working class and black kids
probably have a better attitude - **** your IQ test! Maybe the lack of
involvement with advanced culture (the physics of Feynman, the history
of Francisco da Mosto...) found in working class culture is because
middle-class teachers are often imbued with an IQ test mentality and
are not truly cultured themselves - the working class kids then (quite
rightly) revolt, at least working class culture has some "go".
Richard Feynman, also working class, got 128 on an IQ test - less than
me - which shows there is definitely something wrong with the scale -
someone like him should define the scale not appear in a mediocre
position on a scale defined by a hack psychologist.
Forget IQ tests, go and read one of Richard Feynman's books instead.

Hear, hear!

Mr Power

2004-11-12 16:53:05 UTC

Post by jess
black and working class people do significantly worse on iq tests than
white, middle class people.
i'm suggesting that this is to do with the structure/make up of the test,
rather than the fact that they are intrisically more stupid.

Black and working class people doing significantly worse on the tests is not
the same as the tests being so biased that the only thing they measure
is how white and middle class you are.

I'm from a working class background and always did well on IQ tests.
You could argue I became middle class when I went to university, but I
did well on IQ tests when totally immersed in my working class
culture. The statement "black and working class people do
significantly worse on IQ tests than white, middle class people." is
racist and classist becuase it attributes a supposed deficiency (doing
badly on IQ tests) to a whole culture. I am proof that this statement
is wrong - I am (was) working class and did better on IQ tests than
most people of middle class origin.
I do think IQ tests are a boring waste of time, and an activity
pursued by bourgeoise, uncool anoraks. My excuse was I wanted to beat
the 'posh boys' at their own game - and because it was easy, and I had
to do it (school policy), I did. Most working class and black kids
probably have a better attitude - **** your IQ test! Maybe the lack of
involvement with advanced culture (the physics of Feynman, the history
of Francisco da Mosto...) found in working class culture is because
middle-class teachers are often imbued with an IQ test mentality and
are not truly cultured themselves - the working class kids then (quite
rightly) revolt, at least working class culture has some "go".
Richard Feynman, also working class, got 128 on an IQ test - less than
me - which shows there is definitely something wrong with the scale -
someone like him should define the scale not appear in a mediocre
position on a scale defined by a hack psychologist.
Forget IQ tests, go and read one of Richard Feynman's books instead.

The words chip and shoulder spring to mind.

Malcolm

2004-11-13 23:48:50 UTC

Black and working class people doing significantly worse on the tests is not
the same as the tests being so biased that the only thing they measure
is how white and middle class you are.

I'm from a working class background and always did well on IQ tests.
You could argue I became middle class when I went to university, but I
did well on IQ tests when totally immersed in my working class
culture. The statement "black and working class people do
significantly worse on IQ tests than white, middle class people." is
racist and classist becuase it attributes a supposed deficiency (doing
badly on IQ tests) to a whole culture. I am proof that this statement
is wrong - I am (was) working class and did better on IQ tests than
most people of middle class origin.
I do think IQ tests are a boring waste of time, and an activity
pursued by bourgeoise, uncool anoraks. My excuse was I wanted to beat
the 'posh boys' at their own game - and because it was easy, and I had
to do it (school policy), I did. Most working class and black kids
probably have a better attitude - **** your IQ test! Maybe the lack of
involvement with advanced culture (the physics of Feynman, the history
of Francisco da Mosto...) found in working class culture is because
middle-class teachers are often imbued with an IQ test mentality and
are not truly cultured themselves - the working class kids then (quite
rightly) revolt, at least working class culture has some "go".
Richard Feynman, also working class, got 128 on an IQ test - less than
me - which shows there is definitely something wrong with the scale -
someone like him should define the scale not appear in a mediocre
position on a scale defined by a hack psychologist.
Forget IQ tests, go and read one of Richard Feynman's books instead.

The words chip and shoulder spring to mind.

It's a sign that someone is losing an argument when they indulge in ad
hominem and irrelevant attacks.

Mr Power

2004-11-14 19:38:01 UTC

Post by Malcolm
Richard Feynman, also working class, got 128 on an IQ test - less than
me - which shows there is definitely something wrong with the scale -
someone like him should define the scale not appear in a mediocre
position on a scale defined by a hack psychologist.
Forget IQ tests, go and read one of Richard Feynman's books instead.

The words chip and shoulder spring to mind.

It's a sign that someone is losing an argument when they indulge in ad
hominem and irrelevant attacks.

It's a sign of idiocy when someone doesn't know when and
when not they are having an argument with someone.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying,
my comment was an observation about the way
in which you expressed your views. There's a lot
of anger there which I think you need to deal with.

No one was advocating IQ tests as an ultimate
test of "intelligence" as you seem to have interpreted.

John Porcella

2004-11-28 10:29:09 UTC

100 is the mean, so 128 is hardly "mediocre".

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-04 20:47:42 UTC

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:02:58 +0100, Toby

Interesting question. What makes you genuinly "good" at anything?

I'm probably quite good at geography. I like it. I see it all round
me (OK, that's easier with geography perhaps). I find it easy - for
some strange reason I pretty much always have. I think about it
without thinking that I'm thinking. It's just there - in an odd sort
of abstract non place specific way.

I've taught people who do the same sorts of things - you just see it
in them and know that they are good geographers. The best way that I
know to descrbe it s to say that they have internalised the subject
area. It's within them rather than something they do.

I taught, quite a long time ago now, with a very good mathmo. He'd
only have to look at numbers and would see things - sometimes even the
answer we were looking for. I think he thought about them in similar
ways to how I think about geography.

Maybe that's it. I don't think everybody has something like this - I
*know* that the majoriy of people I teach with haven't, although they
may "love" their subject.

Maybe it's not though. I'm sure Andy will have interesting things to
say about it - he always interests me when he gets into this sort of
stuff, so thanks for asking the question. I'll look forward to readng
what he has to say :-)

Ian

Toby

2004-10-04 21:26:43 UTC

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:02:58 +0100, Toby

Interesting question. What makes you genuinly "good" at anything?
I'm probably quite good at geography. I like it. I see it all round
me (OK, that's easier with geography perhaps). I find it easy - for
some strange reason I pretty much always have. I think about it
without thinking that I'm thinking. It's just there - in an odd sort
of abstract non place specific way.
I've taught people who do the same sorts of things - you just see it
in them and know that they are good geographers. The best way that I
know to descrbe it s to say that they have internalised the subject
area. It's within them rather than something they do.
I taught, quite a long time ago now, with a very good mathmo. He'd
only have to look at numbers and would see things - sometimes even the
answer we were looking for. I think he thought about them in similar
ways to how I think about geography.
Maybe that's it. I don't think everybody has something like this - I
*know* that the majoriy of people I teach with haven't, although they
may "love" their subject.
Maybe it's not though. I'm sure Andy will have interesting things to
say about it - he always interests me when he gets into this sort of
stuff, so thanks for asking the question. I'll look forward to readng
what he has to say :-)
Ian

Yup, I like his explanations, sometimes at least, too :)

And I think I agree with you about having an 'internal' expression of
a skill, rather than being good with learning something...Or
something...

Dr A. N. Walker

2004-10-05 17:31:53 UTC

Post by Toby
Andy of Nottingham, as I shall call you, I know you've talked about
this before, but without actually doing a maths degree, how does one
know if one is 'good' at 'maths'? [...]

As others have commented, this has little to do with
getting A's at GCSE/A-level. Those display a competency, at
that level, but not the sort of thing that Ian was talking
about -- an "internalisation", a deeper understanding, of what
is going on. *Liking* maths is a very good start. Again,
that has little to do with mathematical technique, it's much
more to do with a "hunger" to understand abstract structures.

This can be manifested at a very early age, as small
children get to grips with counting, and later with negative
numbers, rationals/decimals, infinity, the whole relation
between things and what they are called, and so on. That is
why it is a *disaster* for a budding mathematician, who wants
to understand such things, to learn maths [whether in primary
school, at GCSE or at A-level] from non-mathematician teachers
-- whether or not "competent". If you want to know things
about the largest possible number, and get fobbed off with
half-truths and untruths, then you get either a dislocated
view of what infinity is about, or a dislocated view of what
maths is about. Most children don't *want* to know about
infinity, and most of those who do will accept the fobs [just
another mystery in a subject full of mysteries]; but the
small minority deserve and *need* better.

Get hold of books like the puzzle books of Dudeney or
Gardner, or Rouse Ball's "Mathematical Recreations and Essays",
or Korner's book on "Counting", or similar. If these interest
you, if you read them for pleasure, you are a mathematician;
if they don't, then you aren't. If you understand them as well,
then you are good at maths.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk

Ian/Cath Ford

2004-10-05 18:56:45 UTC

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
As others have commented, this has little to do with
getting A's at GCSE/A-level. Those display a competency, at
that level, but not the sort of thing that Ian was talking
about -- an "internalisation", a deeper understanding, of what
is going on.

Does that mean I was in the right ballpark? (Of course, I know which
ballpark I'd like to be the most, but that's another story)

Oh, you mentioned abstract stuff, but I've cut it already and can't be
arsed to go back. Yes, the abstract idea makes sense - I can see how
Mathmos would get that. Geographers don't get abstract in the same
sort of way to start with - we get round to that after we've done all
the funky glacial features first :-)

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
-- whether or not "competent". If you want to know things
about the largest possible number, and get fobbed off with
half-truths and untruths, then you get either a dislocated
view of what infinity is about, or a dislocated view of what
maths is about. Most children don't *want* to know about
infinity, and most of those who do will accept the fobs [just
another mystery in a subject full of mysteries]; but the
small minority deserve and *need* better.

OK, I always fall for these. What is the largest possible answer?
And how do I talk about it to a nearly 4 year old? (he sort of got the
why do we have 4 thing I think), although he has much more interest in
power tools and cars than anything abstract

Ian

Dr A. N. Walker

2004-10-06 11:59:03 UTC