You are saying that nurture is the only game in town? What if two people, one smarter/more intelligent/*insert 'bigger brain' descriptor here* than the other, but with an identical life story, tried a novel task-
Surely the clever one would be better, despite their identical upbringing?
I reckon you are devaluing the concept of art, at least by one definition-
For me, an artist could be one who is able to perceive truths the rest of us cannot, and is then able to relay this insight, so that those of use without this extra layer of perception can at least glimpse some higher 'truths'.
This debate is called nature vs. nurture, and has raged for centuries. Greater minds than ours are unable to figure out how either of them can usefully be quantified, or which is the more significant. The science just isn't there yet.
>gross biological and anatomical features...
I can guess which way you lean.
Again, I'm curious to learn how you determined that so conclusively.
I'm glad you're not too shy to ask. I think the misunderstanding (and I deduce this only from your use of the phrase 'so conclusively') can be put to rest by careful examination of the post of mine to which you first replied-
But the majority, in my experience...
See- I make no claims for conclusiveness, but am instead relating simple anecdote.
Now that we've roundly dealt with my right to hold an opinion, perhaps you'd care to address its substance? Or not, I don't mind.
Well, that's something for a different debate. But regardless, I wasn't talking about genetics.
Surely you have witnessed the phenomenon of some people being 'more capable' than others, before any learning (of whatever) has begun? We are not only a product of the lessons we've sat through, surely?
As my growing 'Freaks' list will testify. I didn't mean to come across as a dick, but I do like to be- er, what's it again- insolent, and a bit stingy. I find it helps make/. more readable when done by others....
I am clearly my own worst enemy (though only just, it seems).
I wasn't generalizing. Rothko (amongst a great many other 'modern' artists) does that same eye-pleasing thing on me too. But his ass is handed to him by anyone remotely of the caliber of, say, Titian, Rubens, Van Dyke etc. And I can list the addresses of the upside-down hanging restaurants too if you like, that was also not (just) a joke.
I still don't understand why you're so convinced the average CS major could be making great art.
But, dearest Otter, I never said that.
My comparison was between the capacity for making (or even appreciating) art between yer average Maths/Science/Engineering student and the average media studies one.
>...if this was true, then the complaints about boring textbooks wouldn't be a problem. If engineers were truly so gifted in brain power, then their books would be more enjoyable and tantalizing.
I'd contend that it is harder to please a complex mind than a simple one.
I had a physics/maths oriented education, before realising that it wasn't where my heart lay.
Having worked in a few different fields, I can assure you that, unless you are applying to work in a discipline relevant to your degree, a media studies qualification gets you through many of the same doors as the scientific 'equivalent'.
I was careful to talk about 'his average student'. I've no doubt that there are true, budding auteur-geniuses among the media studies students. But the majority, in my experience, are not destined to make great art.
They will, however, get better grades with less native ability. Perhaps the arrogance you feel is more often than not resentment?
According to the author of the article... in order for engineering to not suck, we should have inflated grades...
A much better solution would be to stop artificially inflating the grades of the weaker subjects.
I got a punch on the nose recently from a media studies lecturer in his fifties (he'd got drunk at a party, I was a bit teasy) for discussing exactly this.
The point where he snapped was where I suggested that the Maths/Science/Engineering students could make films (i.e. write papers about their favourite zombie flicks) many times better than his average student, if they were not busily, y'know, learning how to do hard stuff.
I've never seen a post of his that isn't reflexive Microsoft bashing.
Just because it's reflexive MSFT bashing, doesn't mean it can't be funny, or insightful.
I speak as someone who was goaded into a flame war with one of Twitter's alter-egos*, Mactrope, just the other day (I was making a point about how Apple's decision to foist Safari on iTunes-updaters sucked).
*A user named Macthorpe gave me this info, having apparently had run-ins with Twitter over this supposed name-copying. It's all a bit soap-opera like for me, which is why I judge the content, not the commenter.
If you try all of Dan Brown's books and realize they're all crap, you can legitimately say Brown's a crappy author.
And if (the awful) Brown's next tome was the greatest work of literature since Shakespeare, what then?
I'd be highly suspicious that he was behind it, but that wouldn't alter the quality of the prose.
Did anyone else find it intriguing that a day or two Microsoft announces that they passed Acid2 with IE8, The Web Standard Project announces Acid3 which IE8 epically fails?
It's like this- The Web Standards Project is like a kindly teacher, who waited patiently for the slowest kid in the class to understand the current lesson, before moving on to the next one.
As people, I like them about as much as anyone who takes the supernatural seriously. (i.e. they're mostly a friendly bunch, but I'd keep an eye on them if they were using scissors)
>Since muslims believe this is the literal truth straight from "god"...
I don't know if you're being disingenuous here, or whatever, but it is a minority of religious adherents (regardless of which fairytale they favour) who go for a literal interpretation these days. Probably in order to limit the mocking.
Slashdot Mirror
>firmly governed
You are saying that nurture is the only game in town? What if two people, one smarter/more intelligent/*insert 'bigger brain' descriptor here* than the other, but with an identical life story, tried a novel task-
Surely the clever one would be better, despite their identical upbringing?
I reckon you are devaluing the concept of art, at least by one definition-
For me, an artist could be one who is able to perceive truths the rest of us cannot, and is then able to relay this insight, so that those of use without this extra layer of perception can at least glimpse some higher 'truths'.
But acid works about better, IMHO.
Or Apples and Dells....
Now, about looking silly....
This debate is called nature vs. nurture, and has raged for centuries. Greater minds than ours are unable to figure out how either of them can usefully be quantified, or which is the more significant. The science just isn't there yet. >gross biological and anatomical features... I can guess which way you lean.
Now that we've roundly dealt with my right to hold an opinion, perhaps you'd care to address its substance? Or not, I don't mind.
Surely you have witnessed the phenomenon of some people being 'more capable' than others, before any learning (of whatever) has begun? We are not only a product of the lessons we've sat through, surely?
As my growing 'Freaks' list will testify. I didn't mean to come across as a dick, but I do like to be- er, what's it again- insolent, and a bit stingy. I find it helps make /. more readable when done by others....
I am clearly my own worst enemy (though only just, it seems).
I wasn't generalizing. Rothko (amongst a great many other 'modern' artists) does that same eye-pleasing thing on me too. But his ass is handed to him by anyone remotely of the caliber of, say, Titian, Rubens, Van Dyke etc. And I can list the addresses of the upside-down hanging restaurants too if you like, that was also not (just) a joke.
My comparison was between the capacity for making (or even appreciating) art between yer average Maths/Science/Engineering student and the average media studies one.
>...if this was true, then the complaints about boring textbooks wouldn't be a problem. If engineers were truly so gifted in brain power, then their books would be more enjoyable and tantalizing.
I'd contend that it is harder to please a complex mind than a simple one.
All my love, Naughty Bob X.
The number of times I walk into a restaurant/office/wherever and see a Rothko hanging upside down.
I had a physics/maths oriented education, before realising that it wasn't where my heart lay.
Having worked in a few different fields, I can assure you that, unless you are applying to work in a discipline relevant to your degree, a media studies qualification gets you through many of the same doors as the scientific 'equivalent'.
I was careful to talk about 'his average student'. I've no doubt that there are true, budding auteur-geniuses among the media studies students. But the majority, in my experience, are not destined to make great art.
They will, however, get better grades with less native ability. Perhaps the arrogance you feel is more often than not resentment?
I got a punch on the nose recently from a media studies lecturer in his fifties (he'd got drunk at a party, I was a bit teasy) for discussing exactly this.
The point where he snapped was where I suggested that the Maths/Science/Engineering students could make films (i.e. write papers about their favourite zombie flicks) many times better than his average student, if they were not busily, y'know, learning how to do hard stuff.
It's just about brain power.
I speak as someone who was goaded into a flame war with one of Twitter's alter-egos*, Mactrope, just the other day (I was making a point about how Apple's decision to foist Safari on iTunes-updaters sucked).
*A user named Macthorpe gave me this info, having apparently had run-ins with Twitter over this supposed name-copying. It's all a bit soap-opera like for me, which is why I judge the content, not the commenter.And if (the awful) Brown's next tome was the greatest work of literature since Shakespeare, what then?
I'd be highly suspicious that he was behind it, but that wouldn't alter the quality of the prose.
You have mistaken me for Nice Bob.
In English?
Ah, now I realise you are being disingenuous. Thank you for clearing that up.
>Network Solutions analyzing the film's content is overstepping its bounds.
Surely private companies are free to set their own bounds?
>...I guess you don't like muslims very much
As people, I like them about as much as anyone who takes the supernatural seriously. (i.e. they're mostly a friendly bunch, but I'd keep an eye on them if they were using scissors)
>Since muslims believe this is the literal truth straight from "god"...
I don't know if you're being disingenuous here, or whatever, but it is a minority of religious adherents (regardless of which fairytale they favour) who go for a literal interpretation these days. Probably in order to limit the mocking.