Witty Things To Say In A Wedding Card

anger

Myjnia Samoobsługowa Jaki Program

L'intelligenza: nessuno sa cosa sia, ma questo non ci impedisce di cercare di misurarla in qualche modo. Un articolo , molto interessante, di Gilberto Corbellini apparso sul "Sole 24Ore" del 14 marzo mi ha condotto a qualche riflessione sul tema.

L'intelligenza viene usually measured with an index that is called the "quotient" because originally it was based on the division between the subject's mental age and chronological age (multiplied by the result of dividing by 100): that is, a child of 10 years who had received results considered normal for a child of 13, he obtained an IQ of 130 (conversely, a child of 13 years with the mental age of a child of 10, had an IQ of 77).

To make the results comparable between adults, however, we used a Gaussian distribution, where the normal, or the average in the population, is by definition fixed at 100, and people are more or less defined smart depending on how much you deviate from this norm, ie depending on which point of the "bell curve" involved. The intelligence tests, which are used to precisely measure the IQ, are of different types, but the most common are the Wisc and Wais, subject to ongoing review, for several reasons that we will see later.

The matter has always been debated is whether and how the intelligence tests are useful and reliable in measuring the quality in question (the intelligence) and the answer is not simple because the intelligence is one of the most difficult to define. It is supposed to have something to do with the ability to solve problems in adapting and, thanks to this capacity, the environment and survive. The problem is that just because the environment may be different, even the ability may be different from time to time most useful to adapt. A definition based purely on the outcome not ever capture the meaning of the term, because it is conceivable that in some contexts it is precisely the opposite of intelligence, stupidity, to have greater adaptive value.

A look at the tasks required to pass an IQ test can help us better understand what we mean: for example, are part of the common conception of intelligence such things as the ability of abstraction and synthesis, the ability to capture the similarities, the development of three-dimensional shapes (something which I found to be Scarsini, but I have the justification of myopia, then how about?), or mathematical reasoning. In this way, however, we risk to define intelligence in a purely circular: the intelligence is that which is measured by intelligence tests. We would fail, then, any term of comparison by which to calibrate and refine our tests.

This does not mean that the tests are not, however, continuously calibrated and refined, except that the only guide in this is our pre-intuitive understanding of what is intelligence, a concept that also tends to change with the evolution of culture. We would not, for example, a lot of value to a very high test scores attributed to those who did not succeed in life, and low scores to those who are full of personal gratification. For this is a bit 'misleading to say that the tests are valid because they are successful in predicting people's future: It is normal to be so, since they were built just on the basis of this criterion. If staff also contributes to the success of socio-cultural factors (as certainly happens), a definition based on the testing of risk in this way to crystallize and perpetuate an external obstacle to personal fulfillment.

can make it clear better to the point that some of the reasons behind the changes made to test explicitly ideological and political. For example in the first test, the women regularly obtained lower scores than men. This initially did not pose any problem: it was quietly accepted the fact that women had lower intelligence. At a time when women have achieved a higher social status, that outcome has become unacceptable and the test was changed so that women could give rise to, in scoring, which excel in quality than men. The same was done for some minorities.

The other reason for the change in test Continue (as well as a necessary linguistic tests for verbal nature, to take account of the evolution of language) is the fact that the media, surprisingly, is ever changing. That is, it seems that in the last century we have earned thirty points, then the test should be made more difficult not to make us look all gifted (which would be more of a contradiction, since the basis on which it is scored) . This is called the "Flynn effect ", mentioned in particular the article by Corbellini, and whose causes have not yet been fully clarified, although there are several options: it is a kind of result, however, that casts some shadows on the character alleged "innate" intelligence.

A test is made, usually of several sub-sections, which tend to emerge as a different type (such as verbalization, or Logic). The fact that the results in all these sub-sections are strongly correlated (ie a person good at one type of task tends to be good in the other) is what makes you think (despite the circularity I mentioned) to a general factor intelligence, which is called g: g would be the objective reality behind the test, what is actually measured. It can be likened to musical talent, that enables them to play not just one type of instrument, but a variety of them. The multifactorial analysis is also able to clarify which of the cognitive subtasks tested in a test are more influenced by g : those in which individuals from high IQs show a greater deviation from the mean (those who have musical talent, to example, tends to excel in a more difficult instrument like the violin with piano Bontempi).

In fact, the existence of g (which emerges from the analysis) at least shows that our concept of intelligence, we are trying to capture in a test, it is not entirely vacuous, or product of pure artifice language. It is not that different capacity mix at random, but there is actually something that is captured, although it is difficult to say precisely what. This is why I tend to be quite agree with the comments made in the last part of the article by Corbellini, where it made a criticism of the " theory of multiple intelligences" by Howard Gardner.

is a fairly recent fashion, especially in psychology and pedagogy, to dismiss the concept of general intelligence and replace it with a variety of different "intelligences", each with its own autonomy and dignity. Gardner identifies at least it seven (later eight, maybe nine):

1. Logical-mathematical intelligence, skills involved in the comparison and evaluation of concrete objects or abstract, to identify relationships and principles.

2. Linguistic intelligence, skill, which is expressed in the use of language and words, in the mastery of linguistic terms and the ability to adapt to the nature of the task.

3. Spatial intelligence, ability to perceive and represent the visual objects, manipulating them ideally, even in their absence.

4. Musical intelligence, skill is revealed in the composition and analysis of music, as well as the ability to discriminate with high accuracy of the sounds, rhythms and timbres.

5. Kinesthetic intelligence, skill is revealed in the control and coordination of body movements and manipulation of objects for functional purposes or expression.

6. Interpersonal intelligence, ability to interpret the emotions, motivations and moods of others.

7. Intrapersonal intelligence, ability to understand their emotions and channel them in socially acceptable ways.

What's wrong? First of all, the reasons behind the acceptance of this theory seem to have more to do with political correctness than with a genuine scientific discourse. As odious discrimination that is made on individuals classified by intelligent and unintelligent, are also seeking to make any person an "otherwise intelligent", in the reasonable hope that there is at least some kind of task in which it is able to cope .

But the main reason per cui il discorso non mi pare che regga, è che in questo modo i vari concetti di "intelligenza" vengono davvero resi totalmente vacui e circolari, come la famosa virtus dormitiva di Moliére: "perché l'oppio fa dormire? perché ha dentro di sé una virtus dormitiva " (ovvero fa dormire perché fa dormire). E perché Tizio è bravo in matematica? perché possiede un'intelligenza matematica, ovvero è bravo in matematica perché è bravo in matematica. Scomporre l'intelligenza in tante abilità scollegate fra di loro, insomma, può sembrare inizialmente sensato, ma quel che otteniamo è solo una serie di banali e inutili tautologie. Meglio tornare a g then.

The concept of intelligence by the assumption g is not clear, and also suffers from a degree of circularity as we saw, but you can still say that it is vacuous. We say that this is a big question mark, or an unknown factor in our equations. After all, intelligence is not something invented by some psychologist bad and racist at the end of the nineteenth century, as some do-gooders reports suggest, but a concept used since ancient times. Out of hypocrisy, we all know that there are people more intelligent and less intelligent, no need to come and tell us a man in a white coat.

Quello che gli antichi troverebbero strano, forse, è l'idea che la qualità oggettiva dell'intelligenza sia anche una quantità oggettivamente misurabile. Possiamo paragonarla al concetto di bellezza artistica. Esistono opere belle e opere brutte, libri bellissimi e boiate pazzesche, e non credo sia solo una questione di gusto soggettivo. Ciononostante, apparirebbe strana l'idea di dare ad una qualsiasi opera un punteggio in bellezza, e di poter confrontare fra di loro i capolavori della letteratura in base al punteggio ottenuto tramite una serie di parametri oggettivi.

Per questo, non sono del tutto sprezzante verso i test d'intelligenza. Potrebbero avere una some limited validity in some fields. But I also believe that as a measure of the value of a person leave the time they find. In the end I prefer to trust my personal opinion.

Spanish Wedding Expressions

the proportion of man the principle of (ir) responsibility

The economy is " the science which studies human behavior in relation to the objectives and limited resources at its disposal, which have alternative uses " (Lionel Robbins).

Being in the report for facing the men, the science of economics has to do essentially with the ethics, values, and it is not, as it wants a certain wisdom, two very different things and divergent. But the very notion of "value" would be difficult to understand, if we lived in a world where there was identity between what we want and what we can do: it is the scarcity of means at our disposal (in the definition above), or the finiteness of human condition, which forces us to make choices, sometimes painful, including a course of action and another.

Here comes into play, then the other side of economics, the more technical: The identification of the ends, which are actually achievable, and how to achieve them? how to decide between alternative plans of action? Traditional tools implemented are those of the calculation probability of the risk assessment, and analysis in terms of cost and benefits of any plan of action. Tools still valid, being simply the instruments of our rationality. Would deprive us give up our right to trial and decision to passively surrender to the forces of irrationality.

why I'm a bit 'skeptical whenever I hear the need for updating our decision-making procedures to the new global challenges we face, particularly in relation to environmental issues. It all began, I think, Hans Jonas, and his "principle of responsibility." Citing Wikipedia , in fact,

Jonas

According to this new horizon disturbing that human action has become, thanks to modern technology must be a new ethical theory that can be part of this horizon to assess the possible catastrophic consequences of the action of ' Man in the era of high technology is to involve the entire biosphere.

Why? It is one thing to say that those who have much power must be especially attentive to the consequences of his actions with respect to those counts for little, but another thing to say that there are two different ethical theories, one that goes well in certain circumstances, and another da vestire nelle grandi occasioni. L'etica è universale.

Questa nuova e necessaria etica deve radicarsi nella chiara visione di ciò che è in gioco come conseguenza del progresso tecnologico e deve utilizzare la paura suscitata dalle sue possibilità “quasi escatologiche” per la formulazione di un “principio euristico” “capace di proibire certi 'esperimenti' di cui è capace la tecnologia”.

Fondare un'etica cosmica basata sul “dovere della paura” rispetto ai possibili esiti catastrofici delle nostre azioni e sul “coraggio della responsabilità” è a necessary step to address and seek a political solution to the great problems of this: overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, energy problem and environmental problem

Warning: this ball is pulled in "fear". Fear is a feeling, an emotion. Legitimate and sometimes sacred, but it is a bit 'strange that you want to create an ethical theory of liability on the basis not of reason but of feeling of fear? And the great problems of the present, not only those that appear to us precisely because of this? It has always been characteristic of human thought to conceive of his time as a special and unique compared all the others, but it really makes sense to say that the problems faced by previous generations were small and insignificant in comparison to ours?

philosopher Hans Jonas is a certain level (it seems), a student of Heidegger. But his principle of responsibility, which already seems quite problematic, then it has evolved in environmental thinking, in one of the most destructive weapons ever conceived rhetoric, the so-called "precautionary principle", the real mantra of all fuffari no -global-environmentalists in the world.

There is no unambiguous definition of the precautionary principle (or, indeed, there may be), but basically Action is the rule that tells us of the unknown is always better to go back. For example, in the case of GMOs, says that should not be legalized and to market them as long as there is any doubt that may be hazardous to health or the environment. That is, we should not ever do that, period, because it is any reassurance from the front of the research will always be judged inadequate.

But the precautionary principle suffers from some ambiguity, and indeed is fundamentally contradictory, it is evident from the fact that is mentioned more often also recommend the opposite course of action. In the face of the unknown, always do everything what is necessary to solve any problem that might arise at any cost, as the feared event is considered unlikely. And this is the case with many of the addresses on the environment also adopted by governments, for example with regard to global warming.

The element common to the two opposing addresses, as we see, does not reside in any conceptual core, but is made from pure and simple "fear" immobilizing. Immobilizing him to cancel our rational ability to make real choices, and thus of living a genuine ethical dimension. A proponent of the precautionary principle might well be advised to build roofs for nostre abitazioni a prova di meteorite. La probabilità di un impatto è bassissima, certo, ma la paura di perdere le nostre vite è maggiore. Peccato che in tal modo ci condanneremmo alla certezza di un'esistenza vissuta in balia degli elementi atmosferici, e che senza tetto ci pioverebbe in casa. Peccato, per fare un esempio più concreto, che il denutrimento (attuale) di grandi strati della popolazione mondiale sia considerato insignificante rispetto all'eventualità che i prodotti Ogm possano rivelarsi lievemente allergenici, o chissà che altro.

Il riscaldamento globale è una realtà ormai accertata a livello scientifico, e di probabile origine antropica. Non c'è dubbio che si tratti a problem, the consequences potentially catastrophic. This does not mean, however, one should feel morally obliged to give its approval to any delusional plan proposed by environmentalists saving the planet and come out by international treaties. Not without assessing the feasibility of the plan, its costs, the actual ability to solve the problem, and possible alternatives. But that's what we are asked on behalf of the precautionary principle, even in the name of simple fear.

And based on public opinion campaigns that instead of presenting the scientific data in an objective and neutral, and it would be possible, rape the science (even allowing themselves well alter the data) in the name of political correctness that should leave no doubt where the good guys and bad guys might be confused in the eyes of public opinion but result in two distinct and opposing forces. Who does not agree, one who raises doubts is an egoist who wants to destroy the planet.

These are the considerations that tend to make me an eco-skeptic: I do not like moral blackmail. Fear can be healthy emotion, I said, or it may be an incentive to tackle the problems. But economics can not make an epistemological principle, as is being done with the precautionary principle. Not without giving up, in the name of goodness, to our status as moral agents and responsible. Good because stupid, good for timid and inert, it is never a good deal.