On 24.8.2021. 18:22, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 6:28:59 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>> On 19.8.2021. 19:31, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:53:39 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 19.8.2021. 1:11, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 18.8.2021. 13:43, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mario isn't even playing the game, because he didn't know that it was an
>>>>>>>> analogy question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I should have also spelled it out for him: "ocean is to littoral as river is to __________"
>>>>>>> But I mistakenly assumed that the notation was familiar to him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not make that kind of mistake when I told him about the Unique Factorization Theorem
>>>>>>> of integers. I very carefully removed all possible ambiguity from it, and wrote "whole number"
>>>>>>> instead of "integer".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But hey, if you had really wanted to help him, you should have told him it was an
>>>>>>> analogy question instead spoiling the riddle for him.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, nothing would help me. I have "brain fog", or something, I am not
>>>>>> in the mood for solving that kind of riddles, actually, I even didn't
>>>>>> think that this is some kind of a game,
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't mean it as a game, I meant it as an illustrative example
>>>>> of how tests for intelligence are not well set up for measuring
>>>>> intelligence. It does take a bit of intelligence to grasp that
>>>>> "littoral" means "having to do with the shore of a sea or ocean"
>>>>> [and if you don't know that, you can look up the word in a good dictionary]
>>>>> and to then realize that when "river" is substituted for "ocean", you need to
>>>>> find a word that means "having to do with a bank of the river."
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it becomes a vocabulary test of an especially difficult sort.
>>>>> The usual vocabulary test might ask you to define "riparian,"
>>>>> but this one starts with the definition and makes you hunt for the word.
>>>>> Short of going through a dictionary with at least 100,000 words,
>>>>> it just boils down to the luck of being familiar with the word "riparian" .
>>>>>
>>>>> So we have a question that is under-1% an intelligence test and over-99% a vocabulary test.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just answered anything to
>>>>>> continue with conversation. Yes, John was right, I wasn't actually
>>>>>> playing, I didn't, actually, understand, nor did I make an effort to
>>>>>> understand, and, after all, I don't think that I would understand it in
>>>>>> the first place. Word riddles aren't quite suitable for non-English
>>>>>> speakers. Since my line of thinking was too simple, I thought that this
>>>>>> is just some kind of example,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, an example to illustrate a point I was making.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a very serious side to this. Back in the early 1970's was a furor when a professor
>>>>> named Shockley published a paper that said Blacks in the USA were less intelligent
>>>>> on average than Whites. He was branded a racist and his public appearances
>>>>> were accompanied by riots. I witnessed one when a like-minded professor named Banfield
>>>>> came to the University of Chicago and tried to give a speech; it was completely
>>>>> disrupted by radicals.
>>>>>
>>>>> All this trouble could have been avoided if these people had been made
>>>>> to see that IQ tests are unfair for making such allegations, because
>>>>> of the different experiences an average Black has than the average White has.
>>>
>>>> In tune with my view on intelligence, I am looking at it from the
>>>> Evolution point of view. Just like physical abilities, I am claiming
>>>> that different races have different mental abilities, depending on the
>>>> conditions they evolved in. Of course, a lot of those mental abilities
>>>> aren't measurable at all.
>>>
>>> Quite true. Why not try posting this on sci.anthropology.paleo?
>>> It looks to be even more on-topic there than here.
>
>> I, very probably, did, sometime in the past. I have enough of posting
>> always the same things. I posted it here because we are discussing this.
>
> I'm glad you did, because you wrote what I've never seen anyone write
> before: a straightforward acknowledgement that races have different abilities
> without trying to say one ability is better than another.
>
> The American Ambassador to the UN under Jimmy Carter, Andrew Young, said almost what you did,
> but went on to make a fool of himself (IMO) by labeling anyone who did NOT
> make some such distinction between races as a "racist".
>
> Andrew Young was African-American, by the way.

Hm, this is an interesting subject, and people should know about this.
100 years ago, they would call me a "racist", because that is what I
was, back then. "Racist", 100 years ago, was what "racist" is today, but
without negative/chauvinistic connotations. What we cal today a
"racist", 100 years ago was called a "racialist". But then came WWII,
and they starter to call Hitler a racist, although he was actually a
racialist. So, those two terms exchanged meaning, what is now racist,
before it was racialist, and what is now racialist, before it was racist.
So, I am a racialist (but 100 years ago I was a racist). This means
that I differ everything, races, nations, I differ people on all
possible terms. But, I am not a chauvinist, I don't say that my race, my
nation, is the best there is. Mind you, this doesn't exclude that my
race/nation/anything can be better than all the others, racialist
doesn't exclude categorizing, it may be that some race is better than
the other in some aspect, or, probably, it *should be* that some race is
better than others in some aspect (like, black people are better in some
sports than others).

>>>>>> and juts wanted to show that I know two
>>>>>> words for small river, lol.
>>>>>> Your mathematical question I did consider a riddle, but, for sure I
>>>>>> cannot get into this. I don't know, maybe it has something to do with
>>>>>> Covid, maybe its the old age,
>>>>>
>>>>> Old age? I seem to recall that you are more than a decade younger
>>>>> than I am. If you are in as good health when I was your age, you have a lot of great years ahead of you.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my favorite sayings after I became 60 is "The sixties are the youth of old age."
>>>>> When I turned 60 I still could have run a kilometer in 4.5 minutes; now, 15 years older, I think
>>>>> I'll be lucky to do it in 5.5.
>>>
>>>> I'll turn 60 in two months. Of course, a lot depends on your physical
>>>> abilities. I don't move out of my room *at all* (I am retired, :) ),
>>>> during my whole life I was sitting whole day long (being a train driver,
>>>> but I did hike a lot for one period on my life),
>>>
>>> It's no too late to return to that state. Work up to it a little bit at a time.
>>> I haven't run a kilometer in over a decade, but I've been slowly increasing
>>> my stamina these last three months with daily walks and 4 shorter runs some mornings that add
>>> up to over a kilometer and are interspersed with 2-minute walks.
>>>
>>> When the cooler weather arrives, I expect to be routinely doing 1-kilometer runs.
>>> For you, it might take a year to get up to that level, but it will be worth it.
>>> When I got a nuclear stress test last month, all my arteries showed
>>> completely normal. I don't know whether that would have been the case if I had had it before regular workouts.
>
>> My goal in life is to accommodate my needs, my feeling. I don't feel
>> like running around, I feel like sitting in front of computer.
>
> Back when you were growing up, a great deal of stress was laid on spontaneity,
> on "going with your feelings." But that declined in the eighties, because spontaneity all
> too often results in acting on impulses which one comes to regret. Sometimes the
> regret comes the same day, as one reflects on some impulsive retort one made,
> with the conclusion, "I wish I hadn't said that."

Yes, exactly. It happens to me a lot. But, that's just how I do the
things, that's my way, I cannot help it. I don't think that this is the
best way, actually, when I was a kid I was far more controlled than
today. But I just do it, because that's what I am today. Tomorrow things
may change.

>> You are suggesting me that I should run,
>
> Not necessarily. Just walking a little further each day can bring you back
> to the point where you can take long hikes again. I wasn't trying to suggest
> that you try to do running as well; I hope I made that cle>ar.
>
>> so that I feel better when
>> sitting in front of computer, and so that I can live longer, so that I
>> can longer sit in front of computer?
>
> You've got it: your time at the computer is longer in the long run,
> and what's more, you'll have lots more experiences to make it possible to show
> greater wisdom in what you post.

Yes, thanks Peter for the good advice. I know about all this, I am
just doing things this way, I see some value in doing things this way.
After all, everybody else is doing it your way, who needs yet another
one, :) .

>> Good idea, but I never go after some imaginary goals, I always
>> accommodate my current needs, ;)
>
> I hope you know what those are. One thing is sure: you should have a thorough checkup if you are like my father.
> Shortly after he turned 65, he found himself getting more and more easily out of breath, and
> the diagnosis was that he was in need of a triple cardiac bypass.
> But he also had phlebitis, so the bypass was delayed for a month,
> and he suffered a heart attack. Fortunately, he survived for almost two decades longer,
> but only because he did have that triple bypass.

Yes, I am prepared for the bad consequences of my behavior, thanks.

> What you said earlier does sound like it could be serious:
>
>>>> and things like that.
>>>> After making a short walk, I am so tired that I usually fell to sleep, lol.
>>>> I like it that way never the less. My idea is that people aren't made
>>>> for physical endeavor.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com