|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
 Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 7:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Not being a grammar Nazi, but is is 'stupider' or 'more stupid'?. My student asked me this a couple of weeks ago, and I said that I would usually say the latter, but I would say 'the stupidest' not 'the most stupid'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
augustine
Joined: 08 Sep 2012
Location: México
|
| Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A large portion of our societies will also be getting a whole lot smarter now that information is free and expanding globally. I'm more interested in the information overload that will be taking place. The stupid people will remain in places like Oklahoma deserts where their houses keep getting destroyed by tornadoes year after year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cabeza
Joined: 29 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Koreans who don't have this nutritional problem to the degree Westerners do, don't seem to be getting stupider? Or at least if they are they have IQ points to spare I guess... |
The top 5 countries for IQ are all east Asian I think.
But i don't find people in Korea to be any less stupid. Basically the same but it manifests itself in different ways.
There has always been stupid people, there always will be. I don't think it's getting any higher.
As with many things people idealize the past as some utopia.
I think people may have had more common sense in the past as there were more real consequences if they messed up or made a stupid mistake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cj1976 wrote: |
| Not being a grammar Nazi, but is is 'stupider' or 'more stupid'?. My student asked me this a couple of weeks ago, and I said that I would usually say the latter, but I would say 'the stupidest' not 'the most stupid'. |
stu�pid [stoo-pid, styoo‐] adjective, stu�pid�er, stu�pid�est. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj1976
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought it was just me being stupid(er), but I googled it and it appears a lot of people make this error. For some reason, 'stupider' just sounds wrong, even though it is grammatically correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Janny
Joined: 02 Jul 2008
Location: all over the place
|
| Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In an effort to give more "opportunity" and to balance schools, we've emphasized grades (which often reward doing homework) over test scores- which if structured correctly, will show that you understand the concepts. Lastly, the rise of the essay as a means of evaluation, while good in theory, has in practice turned into 30 students handing in 8 pages of BS each. Add to this the emphasis of citing sources rather than exploring the concept often results in papers that have the requisite number of sources with little connecting them and no coherent conclusion. |
You clearly have NO educational psychology or pedagogy knowledge. "30 students handing in 8 pages of BS each"? Are you kidding me? Are you some kind of idiot savant?
| Quote: |
| People over 35, even anti-intellectual types, tend to still be rather cogent about history, literature, and subjects that are outside their disciplinary range. They also understand how to acquire knowledge outside of a wikipedia search and have the patience to sit and read a book. These are people that still did things like write letters, use rotary phones, listened to whole record albums straight through, went to libraries and used the card catalogue, and such. People 28-35 tend to be in a bit of a grey area. But with people under 28 there is just a stunning drop off in the average knowledge of each person. You get people who have no knowledge of history outside of their lifetime, who have almost no knowledge of figures and events from Classical Antiquity, The Bible, to Shakespeare and the Romantic Age. In fields such as chemistry and physics they lack knowledge of basic concepts and components. Then you get a large swath which have a generally contemptuous attitude towards mathematics. |
Your sweeping generalizations are astounding here. Have you considered that people under 28 have knowledge and skills that are 'out' of immediate reach (being, not automatically learned) for the over-40 crowd? ....Because of the TIMES we live in? Hello, technology...
Intelligence is relative to the societal constructs of that time period. The real question is, what is real intelligence?
| Quote: |
| What skills do they have?- Social interaction |
And this just made me laugh. People under 28 are skilled at social interaction? If you mean they know how to interpret text-speak and navigate chat rooms, then yes. But "social interaction" implies face-to-face; the intricate mosaic of real-time communication. Body language. Tone of voice. Banter. These are things that are being lost today.
I believe we are not getting less intelligent...we are just changing quickly. I am happy to be 41, because I can kind of have my foot in both pools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maximmm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cj1976 wrote: |
I thought it was just me being stupid(er), but I googled it and it appears a lot of people make this error. For some reason, 'stupider' just sounds wrong, even though it is grammatically correct. |
I wouldn't call it a mistake per se - more stupid is also correct.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/better-versus-best.aspx
----------------------
Sometimes, though, no rule will help you determine which way to make a comparison. Some two-syllable adjectives can go both ways. You can say, �commoner� or �more common,� �tranquilest� or �most tranquil,� �stupider� or �more stupid,� and �naivest� or �most naive.�
According to the source that listed these two-way adjectives, �The terminational forms are usually older, and some of them are becoming obsolete� (3), so �tranquilest,� which sounds a bit odd to me and raises a flag in Microsoft Word�s spell checker, is moving out of favor. If you have a two-syllable adjective that doesn�t end in �-y,� �-ow,� or �-le� (it's not yowlier), you�ll need to rely on your ear or your dictionary, and Garner's Modern American Usage states that �if a word ordinarily takes the -er or the -est suffix�and that formation sounds more natural�it�s poor style to use the two-word form with more or most� (3). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You clearly have NO educational psychology or pedagogy knowledge. "30 students handing in 8 pages of BS each"? Are you kidding me? Are you some kind of idiot savant? |
Yeah, guess what? That is what's getting handed in. 5 kids out of 35 actually really try. The rest just try to get the job done.
Sorry I don't drink the "every child is special and academically inclined" kool-aid.
| Quote: |
| Your sweeping generalizations are astounding here. Have you considered that people under 28 have knowledge and skills that are 'out' of immediate reach (being, not automatically learned) for the over-40 crowd? ....Because of the TIMES we live in? Hello, technology... |
The average person under 30 is woefully ignorant compared to those over. There are plenty of exceptions, but the level of ignorance is STAGGERING. The problem is that it used to be fashionable and socially acceptable, even in working class homes, to do things like read books and discuss philosophy. The working class intellectual culture has been devastated over the last 50 years under a barrage of TV and sports.
Combine that with the fact that a large number of people used to go to college because they liked learning and that was what they were interested in. People who didn't care for academics would just go work at the Ford plant and make good money. Now, everyone goes to college because they think they have to in order to make money. Consequently you get a lot of people who aren't academically inclined going through the motions at college but having little natural intellectual curiosity.
Look at the classrooms in America now- Kids are afraid to raise their hand and answer questions or discuss things, lest they be perceived as a nerd or suck-up and get socially ostracized.
| Quote: |
And this just made me laugh. People under 28 are skilled at social interaction? If you mean they know how to interpret text-speak and navigate chat rooms, then yes. But "social interaction" implies face-to-face; the intricate mosaic of real-time communication. Body language. Tone of voice. Banter. These are things that are being lost today. |
I was more talking about the PC-diversity social interaction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There hasn't been enough time for evolutionary change, unless we just happen to be living at a time when a new mutation has spread through the population. The study doesn't mention any such new mutation, so perhaps we don't understand the relationship between genes and IQ as well as we thought, and some other factor or factors are at work.
It's arguable that the fact that more people survive could drag the average IQ down; it's also arguable that higher survival rates mean more people of high IQ surviving too. But we don't just have a lower general IQ (assuming the study's findings are correct); we also appear to have fewer geniuses making radical breakthroughs in new fields of knowledge. I would suggest that this has something to do with social dynamics, or perhaps we are close to exhausting the cultural capital built up over centuries. Whether the reason was society, the state of knowledge, or survival rates, the Victorians seem to have pursued their lives with more energy than us and this translated itself into higher IQ rates. [/random thoughts] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
it used to be fashionable and socially acceptable, even in working class homes, to do things like read books and discuss philosophy. The working class intellectual culture has been devastated over the last 50 years under a barrage of TV and sports. |
...going back further, 3-500 years, most Koreans and westerners both were expected to know how to recite numerous poems, stories, songs and so on by way of oral tradition. Peoples credibility was directly linked to their knowledge of classic cultural arts.
My own grandparents came from an era in which people were expected to be "distinguished" by pronounced knowledge of either musical ability, philosophical or theological knowledge, languages, history or other. Certainly people were expected to be good hosts, conversationalists or able to entertain in some way. Social skills were uppermost.
Nowadays TV is just one of the new media by which people ineffectually imbibe a lesser quality of information without being proactive or interactive. They way we recieve data nowadays does not force us to think or process information. In addition the modern era has encouraged people to become much more self-absorbed I think. We no longer un dergo the same former degree of socialisation or even physical exercise. We may have better nutrition and be taller than earlier generations but they were more robust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maximmm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
Try going back 500 years. Most Koreans and westerners both were expected to know how to recite numerous poems, stories, songs and so on by way of oral tradition. Peoples credibility was directly linked to their knowledge of classic cultural literature.
My own grandparents came from an era in which people were expected to be "distinguished" by pronounced knowledge of either musical ability, philosophical or theological knowledge, languages, history or other. Certainly people were expected to be good hosts, conversationalists or able to entertain in some way. Social skills were uppermost.
Nowadays TV is just one of the new media by which people ineffectually imbibe a lesser quality of information without being proactive or interactive. They way we recieve data nowadays does not force us to think or process information. In addition the modern era has encouraged people to become much more self-absorbed I think. People no longer un dergo the same former degree of socialisation or even physical exercise. People used to be more robust. They had to be. |
There is some truth to what you say.
Technology seemed to have impaired some of our cognitive functions. Remembering phone numbers/correct spelling/etc is a thing of the past. Hence, our memory suffers as a result. At the same time, these days there is a massive overload of information that we all have to deal with - education/constant barrage of media/new technology - it all combines with lack of exercise, sleep deprivation, lack of in-person socialization. All in all, it's not a healthy combination.
Still, if you truly think back to the old days - reading was not something that everyone could do. The commoners were actually quite poorly educated in regards to language skills/math/etc. Then again, I suppose it is quite feasible that their minds may have worked faster due to lack of mental stress/information overload. Then again, I'm not sold on RT (reaction time) or IQ being the best indicators of how productive and efficient the society is at the moment.
Note that they chose the Victorian period because of numerous innovations/inventions during that time. Their contention here is obvious - those innovations must have occurred because of some mental advantage that those people had over their ancestors and their descendants (us). Yet, it's more likely that those inventions were a byproduct of our discovery/utilization of new energy sources (oil and electricity).
Besides - one has to wonder about the accuracy of the RT measurements during the Victorian period. Aside from that - we talk of high IQ, but in truth, high IQ does not cause one to be more creative -
I would argue that creativity is just as important as RT and IQ, if not more so. The problem with creativity though is that it is hard/impossible to measure.
Last edited by maximmm on Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:29 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
The culture of ignorance. Somewhere between 1960-1990 (It wasn't an abrupt event but rather just a rising phenomenon), we started to treat being smart, having a strong vocabulary, and having a strong educational background as objects of derision.
This isn't the apologist in me saying this- I think a large part has to do with the decline in rote memorization, the increasing emphasis on grades, and the rise of the essay as the means to evaluate students. Rote is not the key to educational aptitude, but it is important to have a base of knowledge stored in your brain. If you lack that base, it is impossible to make intelligent decisions. In an effort to give more "opportunity" and to balance schools, we've emphasized grades (which often reward doing homework) over test scores- which if structured correctly, will show that you understand the concepts. Lastly, the rise of the essay as a means of evaluation, while good in theory, has in practice turned into 30 students handing in 8 pages of BS each. Add to this the emphasis of citing sources rather than exploring the concept often results in papers that have the requisite number of sources with little connecting them and no coherent conclusion.
When out with people under 35 or so, it is shocking what their level of ignorance is. People over 35, even anti-intellectual types, tend to still be rather cogent about history, literature, and subjects that are outside their disciplinary range. They also understand how to acquire knowledge outside of a wikipedia search and have the patience to sit and read a book. These are people that still did things like write letters, use rotary phones, listened to whole record albums straight through, went to libraries and used the card catalogue, and such. People 28-35 tend to be in a bit of a grey area. But with people under 28 there is just a stunning drop off in the average knowledge of each person. You get people who have no knowledge of history outside of their lifetime, who have almost no knowledge of figures and events from Classical Antiquity, The Bible, to Shakespeare and the Romantic Age. In fields such as chemistry and physics they lack knowledge of basic concepts and components. Then you get a large swath which have a generally contemptuous attitude towards mathematics.
What skills do they have?- Social interaction and sensitivity in the area of diversity, computers, Good Enuf paper writing, speech, cynicism and criticism (not critical-thinking), and perhaps some knowledge in their field of study, though even that tends to be low. Strangely enough, the people that tend to not be as ignorant are people in fields like engineering, math, and science, though they still tend to be below previous generations in their breadth of knowledge. |
When your concept of "history" comes from the History Channel, I'm not sure that you get to claim kudos for your intellectual prowess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorpion
Joined: 15 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We need to get back to eugenics. Unfortunately, the crimes of the Nazis gave the idea a nasty reputation that it did not deserve. There is much to be said for the concept. Those with bad DNA should be encouraged not to reproduce. Passing lousy DNA onto a new generation is a selfish act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cabeza wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Koreans who don't have this nutritional problem to the degree Westerners do, don't seem to be getting stupider? Or at least if they are they have IQ points to spare I guess... |
The top 5 countries for IQ are all east Asian I think.
But i don't find people in Korea to be any less stupid. Basically the same but it manifests itself in different ways. |
I think people confuse being enlightened and/or wise with IQ points.
They definitely have more IQ points. But they do a lot of stupid things.
It would be interesting to capture a sample of them, with their 106 avg IQs, and feed them donuts, cheese, skim milk, wonder bread, cooking spray, high fructose corn syrup Gatorade drinks, and breaded hormone chicken for 100 yrs, and see if IQs drop down to around 98 or so.
Unethical I guess, but it would be interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scorpion wrote: |
| We need to get back to eugenics. Unfortunately, the crimes of the Nazis gave the idea a nasty reputation that it did not deserve. There is much to be said for the concept. Those with bad DNA should be encouraged not to reproduce. Passing lousy DNA onto a new generation is a selfish act. |
 If you find a perfect human, let me know.
And genetic damage/ genetic diseases are increasing rapidly due to the degenerating environment- a result of our own despoiling of this planet. So you might want to begin your quest by stopping pouring toxins into the air and water. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
