Free verse № 134970
Bri's Room (not done)
A little girl named Bri
had an awful lot of stuff
she saved and saved it
but it wasn't enough.
She put it in a closet
and stacked it on the floor
But even when her room was filled
She wanted more and more.
One day while playing
She wanted her special pen to draw her favorite doll.
But after looking everywhere,
she couldn't find them at all.
73 comments
Look at the first word of every line. Do you see anything monotonous?
...Bush Policy?
...The dog-eat-dog mentality embraced by said men?
"The principal cause of disparities in the fortunes of men is intelligence." he asserts, (by the fact that he stated it or quoted it.) He does not go on to state how said intellegence creates said disparity...perhpas his assumption is that intellegent men have less fortune? I would be most amused if one day he threw out a thought, such as this one, and then backed it up with a thought or analysis of his own.
Al, you haven't seen the rest of the world. With a few exceptions, we're the intellectual powerhouses.
LilMsLady, I've asserted nothing. Quotes are never, ever, necessarily assertions. As it happens, I believe one of the main differences between people with good fortunes and people with bad fortunes is intelligence. There. Now I've asserted something. But good fortune is obviously the cause of intelligence, not the other way around. (I'm comfortable saying that, despite being a broke unemployed kid with a Masters; I did go to private school most of my childhood, after all.)
And what kind of intelligence? I can think of three or four kinds mostly unrelated to knowing the capital of North Dakota or stepping into the street in front of a bus.
Obviously, you should now ask me to back up "good fortune is the cause of intelligence".
(If you mean good fortune to mean fate, genes..then yes...as in: "I have had the good fortune to be born into an intellgent family.") That staement would apply.
Bad fortune is the cause, means, and ways to gaining experience and intellegence. When one fails, stumbles, and questions, then one learns something new. (The exception being those who literally live in a survivalist mode, as they have no time for thought past the food or need they must procure for themselves for the day.)
Good fortune (ie: money, wealth) pays for EDUCATION (the generically produced, propoganda-laden one sponsored by the collective forces that be), but money can not buy, nor breed intellgence!
Comfort, via good fortune, does not compell one to investigation, experimentation, innovation, invention...etc.
When all is said and done, genes play the bigger part in intellegence than any other one marker. And anyone who is inherantly intellegent will be driven to educate one's self.That drive and curiousity, being a distinct marker of that intellegence.
I am of the firm belief that educating a man past his intellegence level is a dangerous thing. It creates monsters, who know they are given the position of power that surpasses their inborn capacity and intellectual worth, they know that those under them many times are actually above them....not a good thing...they become caustic, to themselves, and to anyone around them who hold the real power of intellgence. Ever read Fountain Head, or Atlas Shrugged? Point made.
It is, however, easily proveable that
(1) on average, people from wealthier backgrounds score higher IQs than people from poorer backgrounds,
(2) education has a direct influence on IQ scores, even though IQ is supposed to test some natural intelligence separate from mere learned information or skills.
That's not a particularly pleasant (or even useful) thing to say. But it's true.
I see no basis for saying bad fortune causes intelligence. I've lived among all kinds of poor, middle-class, and upper-class people, and not seen any extra intelligence on the parts of poorer peoples. From personal experience I can tell you the only thing keeping 90% of Arabs alive right now is stubborn adherence to traditional ways of doing things - ways modern Arabs have no intelligence, or understanding, about. Anyway, I've seen the studies. The differences continue right across the board.
I think we can agree we're not talking about KNOWLEDGE (ie, long division, or the elusive capital of North Dakota); we're talking about intelligence, which *should* be (and mostly is) a measure of problem-solving, critical-thinking, and pattern-finding abilities, among other things distinct from knowledge. These shouldn't be affected by standardized education, but they are. Wealthier people have greater access to education; ergo, higher IQ on average.
Comfort is the greatest promoter of innovation. Otherwise, how is America (and, specifically, moderately well-off America) the leader in every kind of innovation, while NO poor country or culture has innovated anything of note since fire? Yes, America has more resources and opener social norms pushing for innovation, but how did America get those resources and norms. Mostly by innovation. On another track, I bet you'd be hard-pressed to name 5 political, artistic, or technological innovators who weren't from well-off backgrounds, if not well-off at the time of their innovations.
I don't have the figures with me, but if I were forced to guess (at gunpoint, natch,) I'd say the statistical difference between various income levels' IQs is greater than the difference across genetic lines. Otherwise, how do you explain that America (ie, the most diverse genetic pool ever) is more intelligent by every measure than, say, Japan (ie, a more-or-less homogenous group proven to be genetically inclined toward intelligence)?
I don't agree with any of the rest of your comment, for reasons which should be obvious. Making a point with Ayn Rand? That's shaky. Very shaky.
I think you'll find as life teaches you over the years that the average number of rich dumb people to rich poor people is about the same as it is with poor or middle class folks. Ther are so many factors that go into intelligence that to make any big deal out of just one of them as if it's a major factor is just silly.
Lincoln, Einstein, Da Vinci, Poe and even Edison were from poor or middle class at best origins. If anything the most influencial people in the world tended to be born middle class.
Most likely because they had access to education but weren't spoiled into complacency.
Darwin can tell you why Americans appear to be smarter than the Japanese. That and most of the smartest Japenese people move to America and become Americans thus increasing our IQ.
Don't get me wrong. Money certainly is an important factor and motivation for knowledge but it's like saying you're less of a man when you don't have a wife when you say your poor so you're likely to be dumb.
SOME CHICK USER: Testing and measuring is SO white, Western male!
ZODIAC: Yes, but without empiricism things tend to get sort of squishy around here.
SOME CHICK USER: We like squishy!
ZODIAC: That's fine. But the moment you thought you could handle a systematic argument on the matter, you chucked your hat in the ring of empiricism. You can't get out now. No, wait, you can. And should. Just say, Out, out, and rub your hands with an obsessive scrubbing motion.
Well done is better than well said. - Benjamin Franklin
He is rich or poor according to what he is, not according to what he has. - Henry Ward Beecher
It's easy to make a buck. It's tougher to make a difference. - Tom Brokaw
Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. - Ayn Rand
and my personal favorite:
The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time. - George Bernard Shaw
You didn't know who de Tocqueville was. Most poemranker users probably still don't. So what's the difference?
and what is the difference, indeed.
ps. Not seeing the point of Ayn Rand? That's shaky. Very shaky.
I love Ayn Rand, and daresay I've read more of her, and more thoroughly, than you have. But I've come to see most of her ideas as kinda silly and simplistic, or at the very best limited to an antiquated "captains of industry" view of things.
Incidentally, Ayn Rand never said anything like that. What she states is that each individual should strive to create the best he could to the best of his ability. "Over-education for the un-intelligent" necessarily places bounds on the limits which a person can achieve, and is therefore diametrically opposed to what Ayn Rand is stating.
P.S. And it's "intelligent", with two 'i's.
And LawnMower Man..whew...it's wild. I like them both...though i am not sure how they relate to this topic...I don't see the connection to educating past inteligence level....?
Crap...I ALWAYS mispell it...that, and carress...caress...see?!
Mispelling things speaks to lack of education or motivation to be careful,it does not indicate lack of intelligence. (I admit I had to go back, take out the E again, and put in the I!)
I believe the statement is more about educating someone beyond their capacity to understand the responsibility one should assume, when one has risen in power and position because of the education he has been afforded. With great knowledge comes great responsibility. Intelligence refers to the innate ability to process and use the education one gains in a way that benefits one's slef and others. Educating a person beyond his ability to understand the responsibility that comes with increated knowledge leads to people of power who do not deserve to be in power, who do not know how to apply the knowledge they have, and who often do more harm to themselves and others than they would have had they not risen beyond a level they could fully undertstand.
(The current president kinda exemplifies my point.)
I have read, some several times: Fountain Head, Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Expanded 2nd. Edition, and am currently waiting on a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, so that I may have a copy for my library, and to read again....thank you very much.
She wrote from her perspective and time...one must always take that into account when reading authors from a different time period than one lives in. There was nothing simplistic about her. She was very concrete, and not very compassionate. I think if she lived in our time, and had had the gift of time, she would have grown and expanded her philosophy to better reflect what could be learned from the time of her death until now.
That aside...she was an owesome writer, who did what no one else had done: formed heroic characters, and formulated a new philosophy to base her characters on. She was astoundingly intellegent...and one can embrace certain of her principles, without embracing them to a fanatical degree.
At the risk of putting this conversation even further off track, I'll tell you what I don't like about Ayn Rand's ideas: Her books often overwhelmingly measure success (in life, as an egoist, etc) by characters' contributions to INDUSTRY only. I'm not ignoring her books' positively portrayed writers, artists, and even regular businesspeople, but I wish they'd gotten more play (not to mention, come off better in the end). Personally, I consider myself living a satisfactorily Randian life under the radar with my wife and my normal job, without having to measure my greatness by the size of my skyscraper.
Okay, you said her IDEAS were simplistic. I stand corrected. ( I made the assumption one would think her simplistic, if her ideas were seen as simplistic.)
and continuing off topic...yes, I agree that she did not value non-industrialists as much as I would have liked her to. She did give value to the 'little' things people do, in Atlas Shrugged, when the great characters grew food,etc. in their hidden place.
(2) That said, it's obvious I've been talking about the best available knowledge on the subject, while you've been talking about what you wish was true. Consider this: If new evidence came out on the matter, I'd revise my opinions accordingly. Yet no amount of evidence, I'd wager, could make you change your opinions on this subject. Does that sound like a very strong position to be coming from?
I am done with this conversation.
If I said, thousands of studies prove the average dog is brown, you'd answer, I've seen two white dogs myself.
I'm glad this conversation's over. I haven't heard you say anything except what you WISH was true. As all those things are what I wish was true, too, I don't feel that I've learned anything new.
Yes, there are thousands of stories about poor children exceeding their circumstances. NO ONE HAS SAID THIS IS NOT THE CASE. THE CASE IS THAT FOR EVERY DISADVANTAGED STUDENT WHO'S "ACADEMICALLY GIFTED", THREE ADVANTAGED STUDENTS ARE. You cannot disprove that.
So, to make sure we're on the same page:
1) Many poor people have high IQs.
2) Many rich people have low IQs.
3) You don't understand what averages mean.
4) You cannot "find a study somewhere" to support any given assumption. For example, YOU, LilMsLadyPoet, cannot find a study to support your assumptions. QED. One assumption you should try finding a study to support is the assumption, "If you start with an assumption, then you can find a study somewhere to support your statement." Good luck.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/
Perhaps you did not read clearly? Sees you are taking things out of context.
1. American democracy is moving from idealism.
2. It's moving closer to socialism.
3. Money buys power and presidents.
4. People think democracy means owing people handouts.
5. But it doesn't.
6. Corrupt [and bought] government takes your property to give it as handouts.
7. But that's socialism.
Is this not the gist of your aboveposted comment?
PS-This is all very swell for one apparently raised on welfare.
I am old enough to know better, and young enough to still chance it.
I am an ancient soul as old as time, with generations of children behind me; But I am child forever standing in wonderment at the miracle of beauty and life that stretches on into eternity and infinity.
I am all that there is and yet I am nothing compared to what is.
I have walked millions of miles and talked zillions of whiles and yet I've just begun to walk.
How old are you?
What if the odds are very high that you or someone you know will be blown up by some worthless guy you didn't hand out to? Are handouts justfied if they might prevent that?
America, and myself, personally, should never pay extortionists and thugs who seek to take what does not belong to them. Your statement about handouts is based on the assumption that a handout would prevent violence. Such an assumption is wrong. Eventually, if you give and give, you run out of what they want, or you refuse out of necessity, or they come to take all you have and are...then what? Violence and defending yourself would be necessary. Paying off someone to leave you unmolested never works...thugs always come back for more. Handouts only appease for a short while. Paying extortionists prevent nothing; it only prolongs the inevitable. You use the term 'worthless guy'; I ask, Why would you want to sustain and support someone who is worthless and a thug?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for today, and he shows up to be fed again tomorrow, resenting you because he needs you.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, and he goes away your friend.
"Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."
For one, your refusal to hand out is partly what made them thugs. And we're not talking about giving food to Osama; we're talking about giving food to the moderate Muslim before he radicalizes and carries Osama's bomb into, say, Concord Mills (www.concordmills.com ). That's not giving into extortion, since the future bomber is currently not an enemy. My question is, if you can prevent him from becoming an enemy, at a very low cost, isn't that the self-interested thing to do?
For two, it's all well and good to be so high-minded, until some guy shoots you for your TV. Roarkian as I'm sure you are, you will not be able to stop him from shooting you. Nor will you be able to stop the bomber from blowing you up in Concord Mills. However you look at it, the self-interested position is to stop him from wanting to kill you before he tries and succeeds.
re [North] Korea, etc: Yes, we're conceding tons *after* they've already become an enemy and extortionist. Of course they're going to just ask for more without changing their policies; they have no incentive not to. And yes, there's very little supporting information, as far as world politics go, for the notion that handing out *before* one becomes an enemy works, mostly because governments aren't very good at doing that. There is, however, this: Since 1998, at-risk youth outreach programs in NC have reduced incarcerations for juvenile delinquents by 65%, have lowered recidivism and gang application across the board, and have significantly increased college enrollment by at-risk youth, at the expense of about $8 million (since 1998). That means, for less than 14 cents per year for the last 7 years, you've been able to reduce crime - ie, the risk that you'll have your self-interest compromised by some gun-weilding mugger.
What have you got to compare with that? "Give a man a fish" :-(
This has nothing to do with wealth=intelligence, and a lot to do, I suspect, with being your pet tirade. Let's go back to what we were originally talking about, okay?
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for today, and he shows up to be fed again tomorrow, resenting you because he needs you.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, and he goes away your friend. "
Isn't this a contradiction to your claim that people shouldn't be over-educated? I want to educate all the people so that they have the tools to support themselves and their families, i.e, learn to fish. You say, "don't bother, they're not intelligent enough, and they will only harm themselves." I can't help seeing a glaring contradiction here, sorry.
Over-educated or educated past his intelligence level is more like giving some idiot, with an IQ of 75 and an 18th century idealogy, the means, plans, and instruction/education to make nuclear reactors and warheads. He has no ability to grasp the responsibility or concequences inherent in such information. He will use it as a neanderthal would be expected to: with lack of planning, judgement and wisdom. He may be able to understand how to put one together and how to use it, but he can not grasp the analytical reasoning one should have in order to be entrusted with the use of such information. This would be a clear example of educating a man past his intelligence level. With the results being easy to guess.
Log in to add a comment.