Chris Woodhead= Cnut

matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
DD is just happy that he's one of those exceptional working-class types, rather than dirty and stupid like the rest of them.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
If one believes that a) intelligence has a significant heritable component and that b) intelligence has a bearing on life chances, then this is hardly an outlandish thesis: one's genes are likely to be better if one is middle-class, as are one's offsprings' genes.

That said, the probability of middle-class offspring being more able than that of the working-class is less than of the parents being so, as intelligence regresses to the mean through generations: very bright parents are more likely to have bright children rather than as or more bright; bright parents to have middling ones.

The thread title reminds me of die-hard leftie Cambridge lecturers frothing at the mouth at the very mention of the educational AntiChrist Woodhead's name = amusing.

There, you can call me cnut now, too. ;)
 
Last edited:
STN

STN

sou'wester
My parents are well clever, and I am probably thicker than both of them, to be honest, but then one (probably the smarter of the two) is working-class and the other's family are filthy rich. Hmm.
 
M

martin

----
How do you measure intelligence? Cos my dad thought art and literature was a load of rubbish, but he could pull a JCB apart and put it back together like it was a piece of piss.

Don't most education ministers think this way anyway?
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
john eden said:
Do you believe that?
Click to expand...

Psychologists tend to think it's at least 50% determined by heredity; some seem even to think 90%+. But then again, I'm not a psychologist.

From personal observation, it seems that hereditary factors are significant as, even when dealing with parents at school, the sharper parents tend to have the brighter children and the children themselves tend to have siblings of similar ability. I certainly don't think that children's intelligence is decided by some random process - it just wouldn't make sense given that it is a product of actual physical stuff, that itself is determined largely genetically.

It also seemed to be the case at Oxbridge that students very often had siblings also at the university. I doubt that this is solely the product of insider knowledge or particularly crazed familial work ethics (especially as so many of them were lazy cnuts).
 
Last edited:
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
mixed_biscuits said:
Psychologists tend to think it's at least 50% determined by heredity; some seem even to think 90%+. But then again, I'm not a psychologist.
Click to expand...

It's been two decades since I started my psychology degree but I seem to remember that general consensus back then was that intelligence being genetic was a load of bollocks.

Course, I am a bit thick so I may not be remembering that properly.

More recently there was a study mentioned in Freakonomics that academic success was directly related to how many books you had in the house as a kid. Perhaps that is also genetic tho? :slanted:
 
D

droid

Guest
mixed_biscuits said:
It also seemed to be the case at Oxbridge that students very often had siblings also at the university. I doubt that this is solely the product of insider knowledge or particularly crazed familial work ethics (especially as so many of them were lazy cnuts).
Click to expand...

This wouldn't have anything to do with those siblings coming from the the class/economic/social backgrounds which are more likely to be accepted to posh Universities?

Also - since when was university attendance a measure of intelligence? The opposite could also be true in my experience... :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
john eden said:
More recently there was a study mentioned in Freakonomics that academic success was directly related to how many books you had in the house as a kid. Perhaps that is also genetic tho? :slanted:
Click to expand...

Well, if you are smart you are more likely to be interested in gaining knowledge and more able to take it in. So, the number of books you have is a consequence and sign of your (genetically-determined) intellectual endowment - there is no point owning books that you do not need or cannot understand.
 
D

droid

Guest
mixed_biscuits said:
Well, if you are smart you are more likely to be interested in gaining knowledge and more able to take it in. So, the number of books you have is a consequence and sign of your (genetically-determined) intellectual endowment - there is no point owning books that you do not need or cannot understand.
Click to expand...

Or simply a sign that you can afford to buy and have time to read a lot of books.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
droid said:
This wouldn't have anything to do with those siblings coming from the the class/economic/social backgrounds which iare more likely to be accepted to posh Universities?

Also - since when was university attendance a measure of intelligence? The opposite could also be true in my experience... :D
Click to expand...

I agree that there is probably a bias on the interviewers' parts towards ppl who are like themselves. That said, intelligence is their uppermost consideration as it is far more desirable to have an intellectually adaptable (intelligent) working class student than a hot-housed, dim middle-class one. After all, they have to teach them and teaching able students is more fun.

Intelligence is obv strongly correlated with academic success.

btw (pomposity alert) Anglia Ruskin's quiz machine was the easiest machine I had ever played - the university's low entrance requirements + creaming from other universities creates a social environment with an abnormally low ceiling of ability/knowledge.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
droid said:
Or simply a sign that you can afford to buy and have time to read a lot of books.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to be able to profit from them in the first place, otherwise you wouldn't buy them even if you had gold bars cluttering up your house.

And you are more likely to be able to afford them if you are more intelligent, as intelligence enables you to get more of what people generally want - money, for instance.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"the number of books you have is a consequence and sign of your (genetically-determined) intellectual endowment - there is no point owning books that you do not need or cannot understand."
Click to expand...
I think that the point is that it's due to the parents rather than the child - a child that has parents that have a lot of books is likely to be at an advantage relative to other children as it is clear that they have parents who both value learning and are wealthy enough to purchase books. It's then hard to say that the children have inherited intelligence, it may just be that they are in a favourable environment.
That's not to say that intelligence may not have a genetic element.
 
D

droid

Guest
mixed_biscuits said:
Well, you have to be able to profit from them in the first place, otherwise you wouldn't buy them even if you had gold bars cluttering up your house.

And you are more likely to be able to afford them if you are more intelligent, as intelligence enables you to get more of what people generally want - money, for instance.
Click to expand...

LOL Have you ever watched the Apprentice?

Also - have you ever heard the term 'poverty trap' and do you understand what it means?
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
IdleRich said:
I think that the point is that it's due to the parents rather than the child - a child that has parents that have a lot of books is likely to be at an advantage relative to other children as it is clear that they have parents who both value learning and are wealthy enough to purchase books. It's then hard to say that the children have inherited intelligence, it may just be that they are in a favourable environment.
That's not to say that intelligence may not have a genetic element.
Click to expand...

Yes, point taken
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
This reminds me of a colleague of mine who recently discovered she had a sister.

She was going on about how much they had in common and how amazing it was because they'd never met.

Then it transpired that they both grew up around the same time about 10 miles away from each other, in Essex.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
droid said:
LOL Have you ever watched the Apprentice?

Also - have you ever heard the term 'poverty trap' and do you understand what it means?
Click to expand...

Are the Apprentice candidates not specially selected for their cnutishness, however?

You are more likely to break out of the poverty trap if you are intelligent, as intelligence = problem-solving ability with poverty being the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top