Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MurderByEgoDeath t1_ira2nof wrote

The arrogance is astounding. The vast majority of people you're talking about have absolutely no interest in studying in those fields. Those that try and fail, were unable to create/learn the inexplicit knowledge required to understand everything. That does NOT mean they cannot, in principle, create/learn that requisite knowledge, merely that they failed to do so. When someone makes an error, we never assume they are doomed to forever make that error. We can correct our errors. There is absolutely no difference between a simple error correction, and an extremely large complex error correction, except for scale. If someone can understand explanations for one thing, there is nothing, in principle, stopping them from understanding anything else. You're essentially advocating for supernatural thinking. That there is some special magical thing about complex explanations that means only certain people with special intelligence can understand. That is just not true. We are universal intelligences, and given enough time, anyone can understand anything. I readily admit that some people are quicker and more efficient at understanding, whether it be because of the inexplicit knowledge they create as young children, or because their memory and processing power is higher. But taking much longer to understand something is very very different from being in principle unable to ever understand something. Unless someone is severely disabled, they are universal in their ability to understand.

2

beachmike t1_irq06qy wrote

The naivete is astounding. The detachment from reality is astounding. The reality is that individuals have vastly different levels of ability and intelligence in different fields. You said "We are universal intelligences, and given enough time, anyone can understand anything." ***That's absolute nonsense*** You believe, given enough time, someone with an IQ of 85 (about 1 standard deviation below the mean) can understand Advanced Calculus or Advance Physical Chemistry. That's absurd.

0

MurderByEgoDeath t1_irqxkca wrote

IQ is a completely useless measure for this particular job. It measures acquired knowledge, explicit and inexplicit, memory, and processing power. Not universality. If someone is disabled to the point of lacking universality, then no, they couldn't learn Advanced Calculus. But yes, given enough time, and most importantly, actual interest, there's no reason someone couldn't learn it. The fact is, people like that have very very very little focus for things like that, because it's much more difficult for them and no fun at all. But if they for some reason became extremely interested in it and unlimited time, then yes, they could learn Advanced Calculus. There is nothing, in principle, stopping them.

1

beachmike t1_irr0ks4 wrote

You're missing the forest for the trees. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Someone with a below average IQ CANNOT do well in advanced science and math classes at MIT. It doesn't matter how much they desire to do well, study, or memorize.

0