Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence

• Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
• In reply to: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
• Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
• Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:56:12 GMT

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:yNgJd.193$mA5.74386@news20.bellglobal.com...
> P.Comm wrote:
> [...] The tests were a lot more
>> complicated than just knowing what the characters in the tale did by rote
>> or remembering the names of the characters. If you answered "this pig
>> did that, then that pig did that" by rote, that was considered a bit
>> dumb. No one was asking students to rewrite the story from memory. What
>> was the meaning of the story? What do you think was the climax of the
>> story? What was the writer trying to say over all? What do YOU get out
>> of the story today? When pig three's house couldn't be blown down, what
>> does this show? There was no question that the students read the tale -
>> either read it or get into trouble (not just flunk). Things like that
>> were asked.
>
> Well, sure, but we didn't label those "reading comprehension." That's
> _interpretation_, since on the more complex questions (eg, motives) there
> may well be uncertainty and ambiguity - often, BTW deliberate - see Henry
> James (whom I don like, for other reasons, but he's a good example of
> deliberate ambiguities.)

Different educational systems. The USA used to be the tops back then. Not
anymore. In 5th we had comprehension and that included interpretation -
also was a kind of way to teach legal system imo - what THEY called
deconstruction and REconstruction (NOT the same as Derrida's
deconstruction).
>
>> Going outside the story to "real world" is post structuralism. Sticking
>> to the exact text of the story but - hmm, hard to explain it - sort of
>> ignoring the author's intent when he wrote the tale - is deconstruction.
>
> Well, the problem with "sticking to the text" is that you have to have a
> pretty good knowledge of the writer's cultural context, the expectations
> (s)he had of the audience and vice versa, etc.

Oh no, not in deconstruction. The author's intent is thrown out the
window - it doesn't exist!

Just looks at old movies
> - even _Bullitt_ looks "dated" now, because it was made for an audience
> that "read" movies differently than we do now.

Hmm, you keep referring to movies/texts I'm not too thoroughly familiar
with - or don't remember. The story I mentioned is PERFECT for all of this!
It's short, you could read it (it's online to be read!) and it's DAMNED
GOOD. "Call of Cthulhu" by HP Lovecraft.
>
> You always have to go outside the story/play/movie/etc in some sense.

That's post structuralism.

> Eg, did Hamlet actually believe the Ghost was a devil in disguise? He says
> so - but he says a lot of things, some of which are deliberately ambiguous
> or deceptive. Or maybe it was a momentary lapse into superstition. Or
> whatever. Point is, to understand what Shakespeare might have wanted the
> audience to get from this speech, we have to have some knowledge of how
> the audience thought about these things - after all, Hamlet's
> self-confessed motives must make sense to them. Maybe the "Yeah, I'd be
> worried too" kind of sense, or the "Is he nuts? Nobody believes that
> anymore" kind of sense; or etc. -- Another example is Romer and Juliet,
> see especially Juliet's father's proposal that she marry Paris. People
> nowadays put that down as the worst kind of larnetal oppression. But in
> Sh's time, Juliet's father would have been put down if had not made every
> effort to get her such a good match. His rage is more than just annoyance
> at her disobedience - by rejecting his choice, she's also extremely
> ungrateful, and denying his duty as a father, and so on. Not easy for a
> parent to take. But this reading of the play depends on our knowing what's
> outside the play. When we read R&J with oru modern sensibility, we forget
> that the play is one of the seminal texts that shaped that sesnibility, as
> much by it repeated reinterpretaion as our notions of love and marriage
> chnaged as by waht it originally portrayed.
>
> To put it another way, we always bring something in from the outside.

That is what deconstructiion-ists state - that you WRITE the story along
with the author as you read it! Therefore, no two people can possibly read
the same text, even if they read the same actual text - and you yourself are
reading a NEW text if you REread it.

> Good reading means knowing this, and trying to sort out what bits of what
> we bring are relevant and what bits aren't, and looking for more relevant
> bits.
>
> BTW, a conversation about a text would be the kind I would propose as the
> best form of Turing Test.
>
>> If you ever read HP Lovecraft "Call of Cthulhu" you will definitely see
>> what I mean. That story lends itself to this kind of non structuralist
>> reading. It's the best story to use to even TEACH post structuralism and
>> deconstruction. What I found weird is that Professor Burlseon (math
>> professor and literature professor) USED this tale and was teaching this
>> stuff to grad students. He found it as strange as I did that his
>> students had a hard time understanding it. That tale was the type of
>> tale we'd have had in 5th grade (grammar school, not grad school, LOL) -
>> I know Jack London's "To Build a Fire" was one of the tales we read back
>> then. I can barely remember it save for the everpresent HORROR,
>> especially when the match goes out on the guy. Lots of ways to "get"
>> something from that tale and I can remember what I got and wrote to
>> paraphrase.
>>
>> 1. Man alone is no match for raw nature. ERGO - man has to remain the
>> social animal that he is when he's born. He needs others to help him
>> out.
>> 2. A little of something can be safe and nice. But too much of the same
>> thing can be deadly and horrible (snow). A glass or two of wine with an
>> evening meal is good and healthy for you. But a case of wine with the
>> evening meal will make you dead drunk to pass out and is not healthy.
>> 3. Don't venture out into strange territory unprepared.
>
> I thought the guy was one of those people who have no imagination....

LONDON? LMAO. I vaguely remember a tale about Polynesia - two brothers -
it was GOOD. I don't even remember the title of it anymore, tho. Also a
problem exists - the text I read in school for "Call of the Wild" had a
woman, a wolf-dog and an Indian in it - it is exactly the same tale I saw
recently on Hallmark Channel, 1990s. It's heavy, it has layers of meaning,
even mystical meaning - but straight as a tale is it SAD (makes ya CRY!)
HOWEVER - I have not ever been able to FIND that text in any standard book
with this story in it. So there had to be some other version out there!
The version I see in books is lame.

• Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
• In reply to: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
• Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
• Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]