91–100 of 756 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do I need experience teaching calculus in order to suggest that it's got more to do with environment and situation than it does intellectual capability? To suggest it? No. To be taken seriously though?
What a strange world we'd live in, if only calculus teachers could talk about how people learn in ways that might also apply to calculus teaching.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's clear to me that this belief has wormed its way into your identity somehow, and you're unable to discuss it in a detached and curious way. I'm sad for you that such is the case, but I am now more empathetic towards your colleagues who have to deal with your false assertion that some people are too stupid to learn the math you teach. Also not for nothing, but "retarded" hasn't been a medical term for some time no…
It’s easier to type retarded than intellectually disabled on an iPad. I wrote the modern version in my original comments. Clearly I have been discussing this topic in a detached way. You’ve formed an image in your mind about me that isn’t supported by the evidence. I’ll read whatever response you have but won’t comment further. I wish you well. Keep up the good fight!
I think you, and everyone who thinks like you, need to take a very hard look at what you've done to eliminate the environmental factors related to your viewpoint that some people aren't smart enough to learn something, because its extremely easy to trick yourself into thinking someone is incapable when in reality other factors abound.
As the article explains, if society refused to educate/feed/raise/nourish red-headed children, there would be a genetic correlation between red-headedness and intelligence.
How absolutely confident are you that you've accounted for every explanation besides the genetic one in determining why some people can't learn algebra?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do I require evidence to not believe something you've stated? Or do you require evidence to assert something you've stated? I don't think the onus is on me to prove you wrong, so much as the onus is on you to prove that your experience is scientifically rigorous and representative of more than just your personal experience. And to be clear, I don't doubt that many people "can't" learn calculus in the same way I "can'…
> And to be clear, I don't doubt that many people "can't" learn calculus in the same way I "can't" run a marathon; we don't have the desire, discipline, and free time necessary to do the work required. This does not speak in any way towards our capacities to do so, only our desire. Your VO2max, max heart rate, and other factors appear to be significantly determined by genetics, and will absolutely contribute to your…
All healthy people can learn calculus and run marathons, with varying degrees of success and effort, due to genetics and environmental factors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a strange world we'd live in, if only calculus teachers could talk about how people learn in ways that might also apply to calculus teaching.
Are you seriously surprised that zero experience translates to a hit on credibility?
I could be living in a ditch down by the river, or I could be the leading researcher into how people learn calculus and it wouldn't make a difference with regard to my argument (though, practically speaking if I were the lead researcher on how people learn calculus, I'd be more likely to back my argument up with objective research, and that would strengthen my argument).
The left often accuses the right of being anti-science -- e.g. on climate change, and now vaccines -- with good reason. But it's true that the left has its own troubles with being opposed to science, and genetic effects on behavior is one example. Being egalitarian-minded, many progressives are inherently hostile to the idea that our personalities and behaviors may be hardwired on some level...except that they don't…
That's probably the only example that I can think of. Do you have any more?
The right has tons of examples: evolution, climate change, vaccines, etc.
Does the left have any except genetics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s easier to type retarded than intellectually disabled on an iPad. I wrote the modern version in my original comments. Clearly I have been discussing this topic in a detached way. You’ve formed an image in your mind about me that isn’t supported by the evidence. I’ll read whatever response you have but won’t comment further. I wish you well. Keep up the good fight!
You can use "cognitively impaired" as a more neutral and factual descriptor than either (and "cognitive impairment" as the generic term). It's also more broadly applicable. (I.e. If you got whacked in the head once too many while playing rugby, that might not count as "intellectual disability" according to some since it's not developmental. But it might interfere with learning math, so it's pretty indistinguishable i…
Why are people jumping from environment straight to genetics? There's so much in-between.
Like what? Serious question, not trying to be snarky. My understanding of these “nature vs nurture” discussions is that environment commonly refers to anything other than genetics - effects not “in-built” that could be caused by upbringing, society, nutrition, etc.
Also we limit with one brain. It will be interesting if you looked at genetics of groups, or even the genetics of people in history who influence others from what they wrote and built and left behind.
A lot of work. Progressive is defined here as what they are not. Not church. Not military. How about what they are? No rules. Endless ambition. Utilitarianism. Empiricism. Wouldn't it be easier to say that there are rules, as in, it's never okay to burn down your own city and bin Laden doesn't get a vote?
Know this. The true heart of progressives isn't nice and tolerant. It's power telling you that you're not allowed to leave prison until you convince me you are going to do everything you can not to end up back here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And to be clear, I don't doubt that many people "can't" learn calculus in the same way I "can't" run a marathon; we don't have the desire, discipline, and free time necessary to do the work required. This does not speak in any way towards our capacities to do so, only our desire. Your VO2max, max heart rate, and other factors appear to be significantly determined by genetics, and will absolutely contribute to your…
I don't think any of those things contribute to whether or not I could complete a marathon, though they do contribute to how pleasant the experience would be. The same holds for learning calculus, or doing anything intellectually taxing. It's differing in difficulty for people, however it's not unachievable for anyone who isn't experiencing some kind of mental (or physical, in this marathon example) impairment. All h…
I also don't think "healthy" and (presumably) "not healthy" are useful categorizations. There are many people in that fuzzy in between area between "healthy" and "not healthy", for both physical and mental health.
Is it really worth so vigorously arguing the semantics of "some people are incapable of learning algebra" and "it requires an impractically large amount of effort for some people to learn algebra"?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you seriously surprised that zero experience translates to a hit on credibility?
Yes, because I'd expect HN readers to understand an ad hominem when they see one. I could be living in a ditch down by the river, or I could be the leading researcher into how people learn calculus and it wouldn't make a difference with regard to my argument (though, practically speaking if I were the lead researcher on how people learn calculus, I'd be more likely to back my argument up with objective research, and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously there are people who couldn't learn a given topic under one type of educational regime but who could under a different regime. But that doesn't eliminate the obvious: Some people can't learn a given topic at all, under any circumstances. OP's example of the mentally retarded (which I learned recently is a valid medical descriptor) is just an extreme example. It's so funny watching people scramble to avoid a…
Look, there's a "valid medical descriptor" for grandpa who is in a nursing home with Alzheimer's disease, but this kind of thing is totally immaterial to people who are in school today. There's no way that they'd have that level of cognitive impairment. Saying that "some people just can't learn" so-called "advanced" math such as college algebra and calculus, or programming for that matter, is just pointless speculati…
What about the anecdotes of millions of people who self-profess that despite very much effort, they just can't wrap their head around some advanced math concepts? That doesn't count as evidence?