How to raise the next Columbine shooter

[Khendraja'aro]

No I just would like you wouldn't just pick the one that fits you the most to make an argument. If something is not clear (and the chance is quite high in normal human communication) then just ASK.

Why? Because you're cherrypicking and cutting massive swaths from a topic just so it fits your argument? Please look at the row of definitions for empathy. You'll note that NONE of them fit your "but it's more complex!" argument.

I don't think the definition of Empathy is the problem in the misunderstanding but the problem in the definition of intelligence.

Well, then have fun finding the definition for intelligence.

As the naming implies it is a subset, a subset is a relation.

Oh, great. And you didn't even bother to have a look in which way it is related.

I also find it fascinating that you latch on to it now that I myself mentioned it.

Yes, this is a General Chat thread not a scientific work.

I see, that means that you can pose confused and shoddy arguments and then get all indignant when someone points out the inconsistencies?

All I said is that only few with Asperger have Savant syndrome, I stay with that claim.

The Savant Syndrome has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. So you can stay with that argument all you want, the relevant part of Asperger's was that it leads to low empathy. Which you promptly did not and obviously still not grasp.

Again: You talked about empathy and inteligence. I showed you one example where intelligence does not lead to empathy (Asperger's). You then completely misunderstood and went off on the irrelevant tangent of savants.

The point of this all is: You make a broad and sweeping statement, using an arbitrary subset of what your term actually means and then expect us to generously accept your definition (which you didn't even state, we have to guess them!) when the real world actually says otherwise?

[earthJoker]

If your point is that IQ doesn't relate to empathy I agree with you. And yes I know they invented this EQ thing as well to get this part into it. Now you can tell me that some people have high EQ and low IQ and vice versa, but there are also people better at memorizing and some better at calculating ect. ect.

Well, then have fun finding the definition for intelligence.

Yes I know it's a wide field, I use deferentially a broader definition than you.

[Dreadnaught]

I think that was an interesting summary, Wiggin. Of all the interesting stuff though, one part keeps sticking out at me:

* Students who study by themselves for more hours each week gain more knowledge -- while those who spend more time studying in peer groups see diminishing gains.

I was always dumbfounded at the number of people who tried to work in the library with their friends. I never got a single fucking minute of work done at the library, besides getting books for research. And my one group study was such a waste of time I just stopped going. The idea that you can actually study in those environments is a farce.

[Loki]

I was always dumbfounded at the number of people who tried to work in the library with their friends. I never got a single fucking minute of work done at the library, besides getting books for research. And my one group study was such a waste of time I just stopped going. The idea that you can actually study in those environments is a farce.

I think it might help people who can't grasp material by themselves. For example, when I did game theory homework by myself, I could usually do it within an hour. When I was working in a group, it would usually take three times as long (it's hard to really concentrate with other people talking). But some people wouldn't be able to do the homework at all without help from others.

[wiggin]

I was always dumbfounded at the number of people who tried to work in the library with their friends. I never got a single fucking minute of work done at the library, besides getting books for research. And my one group study was such a waste of time I just stopped going. The idea that you can actually study in those environments is a farce.

While I generally agree, I did find a few study groups worthwhile - particularly collaborative hacks at very difficult problem sets (two classes that come to mind are advanced fluid mechanics and learning theory) - the math is complex enough that it's often useful to have a few sets of eyes (and brains) to look at a problem from different perspectives.

For actual studying, though, I completely agree.

[GGT]

When did I claim otherwise? Do you know anything about how the free market functions. Hint: companies don't give higher wages because they care about the well-being of their workers.

How's that relevant to anything said in this thread?

At least the unions are watching out for us by stealing 2% of our income and negotiating higher stipends for humanities students only.

Hey, Dr. Loki. Are you done yet changing goal posts to suit you, in this thread?

This Chinese Tiger Mother thing has gone viral, hit every news source, and every parenting or cultural blog. This forum is pretty much the only place I've seen that's gone on for several pages about academia, wages, job prospects, unions, freeeee markets, or Marxism.

This is a societal parenting issue more than anything. Even the title hints at that. Yet, not many have commented about that, if at all.

Redirect.....

[Catgrrl]

Ya, but this forum has a low number of actual parents, and many forumites are more concerned about the things you just mentioned.

It's just the dynamic of this particular forum.

[Draco]

Saw this mole on Australian TV this morning (several hours ago), they were just showing the TV report from the US. About how her book has become the number one seller, blah blah. But a thought occured to me: What if a Western/White mother had written an article about how Chinese/Asian parents have it all wrong on parenting? I would like to see who'd be playing the whole racism/politically correct card?

[Dreadnaught]

It's clear the whole WSJ essay was a brilliant way to troll for book sales. The thing is I don't think anyone takes her tips seriously, it's sort of a watch-in-horror kind of purchase. I would buy it myself but it's not on Google eBooks yet.

[Omega]

This was an excerpt from a book. Read the entire book before scrutinizing a single passage.

Not criminalizing marijuana is a shame.

criminalizing marijuana is a shame.

Big difference.

[Illusions]

This was an excerpt from a book. Read the entire book before scrutinizing a single passage.

Unless she's going to do an about face during parts of it, its still completely horrible advice, which she should not be paid money for through purchases of her book.

[Aimless]

Ok, now I get what you meant. I agree, but we can have similar effects with other diseases. You have several strange effects when only parts of the brain are effected. Like for example having the secondary visual centre destroyed people can still see but don't know what they see.

It's called "to render more precisely" and is very common in every discussion, because human communication is hardly perfect and usually you need at least one feedback loop until both have the same understanding of what one meant.

I would highly appreciate it if you would try to interpret my text in the way I meant it, I know it needs some skill. But if you just interpret my writings in the best way they fit to you to have an argument, this discussion doesn't make any sense.

Are you insane??! How can you possibly expect that sort of thing from a teacher?