This discussion is closed.
nexttime
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#81
Report 1 year ago
#81
(Original post by Maths&physics)
you like personal attacks (ad hominem), dont you?
And you like replying with that rather than addressing what's been asked of you.

from the various types of intelligence, mathematical/logical intelligence is usually defined as academic intelligence.
?? according to who?

If you go by amount of money/research output, academia pretty much = cancer! Medical sciences at the very least.

No one thinks only maths = academia.

(Original post by Maths&physics)
im getting bored of this debate now
The above was the first time you cited any evidence whatsoever, so 'debate' is surely a stretch. You are getting bored of stating your opinion over and over, is what you mean.

I am not at all interested in this "debate", especially as it has next to nothing to do with that the OP asked, but just so that i am at least contributing, off the top of my head i know of these: Oxford-educated doctors do better in doctor's exams [full link], More of Oxford University’s postgraduate research students and research staff go on to academic careers than those from any other UK university, Oxford graduates earn more on average (and do much better in the 'value added' scores), andOxford leads the world in research into neglected diseases i.e. probably actually has the biggest impact on the population of the world currently.
0
Maths&physics
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 year ago
#82
(Original post by nexttime)
And you like replying with that rather than addressing what's been asked of you.

?? according to who?

If you go by amount of money/research output, academia pretty much = cancer! Medical sciences at the very least.

No one thinks only maths = academia.
medical/all sciences are based on maths


The above was the first time you cited any evidence whatsoever, so 'debate' is surely a stretch. You are getting bored of stating your opinion over and over, is what you mean.
I personally know Oxford students who didnt apply to Cambridge because they felt their application/UMS weren't strong enough.
when has a cambridge student ever felt he wasnt good enough for Oxford?


I am not at all interested in this "debate", especially as it has next to nothing to do with that the OP asked, but just so that i am at least contributing, off the top of my head i know of these: Oxford-educated doctors do better in doctor's exams [full link], More of Oxford University’s postgraduate research students and research staff go on to academic careers than those from any other UK university, Oxford graduates earn more on average (and do much better in the 'value added' scores), andOxford leads the world in research into neglected diseases i.e. probably actually has the biggest impact on the population of the world currently.
1st) you can be trained for exams - which isnt a reflection of ability. maybe you should look up gifted children and exam results. its why these unis interview because a lot of people can do well in exams if they prepare but arent particularly clever.

2nd) wow, they earn more? yep, academia = money. and what are you defining as academic - maths based subjects? yet, they still dont win as many noble prizes. I thought that was more of an achievement and reflection of academic ability?

3rd) thats good they lead the way and hope they get their noble prizes for their contribution.
0
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 year ago
#83
(Original post by Maths&physics)
medical/all sciences are based on maths



I personally know Oxford students who didnt apply to Cambridge because they felt their application/UMS weren't strong enough.
when has a cambridge student ever felt he wasnt good enough for Oxford?



1st) you can be trained for exams - which isnt a reflection of ability. maybe you should look up gifted children and exam results. its why these unis interview because a lot of people can do well in exams if they prepare but arent particularly clever.

2nd) wow, they earn more? yep, academia = money. and what are you defining as academic - maths based subjects? yet, they still dont win as many noble prizes. I thought that was more of an achievement and reflection of academic ability?

3rd) thats good they lead the way and hope they get their noble prizes for their contribution.

I think you guys know cambridge is more academic but you dont want to admit it. I guess youre like my friend: people who knew they weren't good enough to get into Cambridge, so they went to Oxford.
Dude, you're embarrassing. Please stop.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
nexttime
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 year ago
#84
(Original post by Maths&physics)
....
Opinion opinion opinion. Yawn.

If you want to have any kind of productive debate you need to bring more than 'some guy i know said this'.
0
RichE
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 year ago
#85
(Original post by Doonesbury)
Dude, you're embarrassing. Please stop.

Posted from TSR Mobile
PRSOM
0
entertainmyfaith
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#86
Report 1 year ago
#86
(Original post by Maths&physics)

I personally know Oxford students who didnt apply to Cambridge because they felt their application/UMS weren't strong enough.
when has a cambridge student ever felt he wasnt good enough for Oxford?
you're basing your argument on a few people you know lol
0
Maths&physics
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 year ago
#87
(Original post by Doonesbury)
Dude, you're embarrassing. Please stop.

Posted from TSR Mobile
how? ive removed the part where I suggested they are bitter because they weren't good enough for cambridge
0
Maths&physics
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 year ago
#88
(Original post by nexttime)
Opinion opinion opinion. Yawn.

If you want to have any kind of productive debate you need to bring more than 'some guy i know said this'.
so, youre someone who thinks doing better in medical exams indicates the university is more academic than winning noble prizes? or youre someone who thinks that doing better in a medical exam is just as good as winning a noble prize?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory..._intelligences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

logical mathematical intelligence = general intelligence = "The predictive validity of g is most conspicuous in the domain of scholastic performance" - aka, academic intelligence.
0
Maths&physics
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 year ago
#89
(Original post by entertainmyfaith)
you're basing your argument on a few people you know lol
lol no, im clearly basing it on what the students go on to achieve academically. winning the Nobel prize and fields medal is the pinnacle of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ty_affiliation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ty_affiliation
0
RichE
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 year ago
#90
(Original post by Maths&physics)
lol no, im clearly basing it on what the students go on to achieve academically. winning the noble prize and fields medal is the pinnacle of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ty_affiliation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ty_affiliation
FFS will you learn how to spell Nobel??!
1
Maths&physics
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#91
Report 1 year ago
#91
(Original post by RichE)
FFS will you learn how to spell Nobel??!
because I cant spell, this means im wrong - if so, thats ad hominem? or you have an issue with dyslexic people?
0
RichE
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 year ago
#92
(Original post by Maths&physics)
because I cant spell, this means im wrong - if so, thats ad hominem? or you have an issue with dyslexic people?
As you ask, you are wrong, but not because you repeatedly misspell "Nobel" and "Fields".
1
Maths&physics
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#93
Report 1 year ago
#93
(Original post by RichE)
As you ask, you are wrong, but not because you repeatedly misspell "Nobel" and "Fields".
Thank you for correcting me but I fail to see how I’m wrong. The “evidence” provided, such as: medical exam results, is hardly as compelling as nobel laureates.
0
username3555092
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#94
Report 1 year ago
#94
(Original post by Maths&physics)
so, youre someone who thinks doing better in medical exams indicates the university is more academic than winning noble prizes? or youre someone who thinks that doing better in a medical exam is just as good as winning a noble prize?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory..._intelligences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

logical mathematical intelligence = general intelligence = "The predictive validity of g is most conspicuous in the domain of scholastic performance" - aka, academic intelligence.
This is the most amusing post you've made yet - you posted two Wikipedia links to theories about intelligence which contradict each other, and you think somehow they both prove your point?

I hope you realise the idea of general intelligence and multiple intelligences are competing ideas to explain what intelligence is. No idea where you pulled "logical mathematical intelligence = general intelligence" from. Care to have a guess why it's called general intelligence? Hahaha. You've demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the things you've cited.

Throughout this whole thread, you've selected a couple of factors you wish to consider, which coincidentally put Cambridge in a good light, and ignore anything and everything that suggests maybe Oxford is good too. I don't know where you get off insulting people who got into Oxford and downplay their hard work and achievements! This is why nobody has taken you seriously. Perhaps adopt a better tone and an open mind, then maybe people might humour you and discuss this absolutely pointless question.
4
Maths&physics
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#95
Report 1 year ago
#95
(Original post by I hate maths)
This is the most amusing post you've made yet - you posted two Wikipedia links to theories about intelligence which contradict each other, and you think somehow they both prove your point?

I hope you realise the idea of general intelligence and multiple intelligences are competing ideas to explain what intelligence is. No idea where you pulled "logical mathematical intelligence = general intelligence" from. Care to have a guess why it's called general intelligence? Hahaha. You've demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the things you've cited.
thank you. but me confusing the 2 doesn't mean im wrong.

and what I quoted said that logical mathematical intelligence is related to general intelligence (which it is) and "the predictive validity of g is most conspicuous in the domain of scholastic performance".

Throughout this whole thread, you've selected a couple of factors you wish to consider, which coincidentally put Cambridge in a good light, and ignore anything and everything that suggests maybe Oxford is good too. I don't know where you get off insulting people who got into Oxford and downplay their hard work and achievements! This is why nobody has taken you seriously. Perhaps adopt a better tone and an open mind, then maybe people might humour you and discuss this absolutely pointless question.
who have I insulted and how have I downplayed their hard work?

im sorry but the best most people (including you) could do on this thread was attacked me and my spelling, and equate a medical exam to Nobel prizes.

it is not pointless, because if you want to go the more academic of the 2 and I concede that there is going to be little in it, then determining that would be a good place to start.
0
username3555092
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#96
Report 1 year ago
#96
(Original post by Maths&physics)
I think you guys know cambridge is more academic but you dont want to admit it. I guess youre like my friend: people who knew they weren't good enough to get into Cambridge, so they went to Oxford.

cambridge students generally claim its better, and Oxford students probably dont argue because they know its true.

“oxford is for the bourgeois and Cambridge is for the intellectual” (or words to that effect) was said by a famous ex Cambridge student, but I can’t remember who and the Cambridge’s students that I know say the same thing.
Here are some quotes from past you, in response to "who have I insulted and how have I downplayed their hard work? im sorry but the best most people (including you) could do on this thread was attacked me and my spelling, and equate a medical exam to Nobel prizes."

I can't believe you would even attempt to be disingenuous about being insulting. It's the most obvious thing you've been doing. I have only attacked your misunderstanding of your own sources and even your own argument (more on this below) - isn't that what you want people to attack? You've cried a lot about ad hominem, so I attacked your argument, but now that's off limits too?

(Original post by Maths&physics)
thank you. but me confusing the 2 doesn't mean im wrong.

and what I quoted said that logical mathematical intelligence is related to general intelligence (which it is) and "the predictive validity of g is most conspicuous in the domain of scholastic performance".
I will not insult your intelligence like you have been doing to others, and assume that you have simply not taken the time to read your own sources, rather than being too unintelligent to understand them.

Firstly, it does unfortunately mean you are in fact wrong about everything you said. All your arguments hinged upon STEM subjects being the only ones that matter in academics. You have not justified this at all (let alone why your measures of performance in these subjects are any good). In fact, both of the links you had put arguably disagrees with this. You have simply selected the number of Nobel prize laureates and Fields medalists due to your own biases, and chose to give no weighting to anything else...

Secondly, you simply cannot say "logical mathematical intelligence is related to general intelligence", because in the idea of general intelligence, logical mathematical intelligence doesn't exist. That's kind of the whole point. Your statement makes zero sense. The "g factor" is the idea that there is one single intelligence which governs your performance in every cognitive task. Thus if you are going to run with general intelligence, you must concede that performance in all subjects matter. Seriously, why would you put "logical mathematical intelligence" (which is from a completely different theory) on a pedestal? I could just as easily say "ability to distinguish musical pitches is related to general intelligence, so that's the only test that matters."

Because of your outright lie about being insulting, your refusal to take criticisms of your argument and your refusal to understand your own argument, I won't waste any more time with you. Good night.
0
alih99
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 year ago
#97
Im more of a Roehampton fan
1
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#98
Report 1 year ago
#98
(Original post by Maths&physics)
because I cant spell, this means im wrong - if so, thats ad hominem? or you have an issue with dyslexic people?
Nah, it's not just your spelling, there's the lack of capitals and missing apostrophes too!

Your level of angst smacks of an inferiority complex - perhaps it's not having a Nobel prize yet?!
1
Maths&physics
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#99
Report 1 year ago
#99
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Nah, it's not just your spelling, there's the lack of capitals and missing apostrophes too!

Your level of angst smacks of an inferiority complex - perhaps it's not having a Nobel prize yet?!
Lol you guys love ad hominem. Where did you study: Oxford or Cambridge?
0
Maths&physics
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#100
Report 1 year ago
#100
(Original post by I hate maths)
Here are some quotes from past you, in response to "who have I insulted and how have I downplayed their hard work? im sorry but the best most people (including you) could do on this thread was attacked me and my spelling, and equate a medical exam to Nobel prizes."

I can't believe you would even attempt to be disingenuous about being insulting. It's the most obvious thing you've been doing. I have only attacked your misunderstanding of your own sources and even your own argument (more on this below) - isn't that what you want people to attack? You've cried a lot about ad hominem, so I attacked your argument, but now that's off limits too?
again, attacking me (accusing me of crying) and not my arguments.

ad hominem is an attack on the man as opposed to attacking his argument.

im lying about insulting people yet you cant provide any evidence?


I will not insult your intelligence like you have been doing to others, and assume that you have simply not taken the time to read your own sources, rather than being too unintelligent to understand them.

Firstly, it does unfortunately mean you are in fact wrong about everything you said. All your arguments hinged upon STEM subjects being the only ones that matter in academics. You have not justified this at all (let alone why your measures of performance in these subjects are any good). In fact, both of the links you had put arguably disagrees with this. You have simply selected the number of Nobel prize laureates and Fields medalists due to your own biases, and chose to give no weighting to anything else...
are noble prizes awarded just for STEM subjects? and things like geography, etc, are based on STEM subjects.

which other awards are there of similar magnitude?

Secondly, you simply cannot say "logical mathematical intelligence is related to general intelligence", because in the idea of general intelligence, logical mathematical intelligence doesn't exist. That's kind of the whole point. Your statement makes zero sense. The "g factor" is the idea that there is one single intelligence which governs your performance in every cognitive task. Thus if you are going to run with general intelligence, you must concede that performance in all subjects matter. Seriously, why would you put "logical mathematical intelligence" (which is from a completely different theory) on a pedestal? I could just as easily say "ability to distinguish musical pitches is related to general intelligence, so that's the only test that matters."

Because of your outright lie about being insulting, your refusal to take criticisms of your argument and your refusal to understand your own argument, I won't waste any more time with you. Good night.
well, logical mathematical intelligence is compared to general intelligence, whilst the ability to distinguish between pitches is not. if it can be compared, lets take a look and see how its related.

again, a personal attack (calling me a lier and not even providing evidence). you apparently have an entire thread full of insults but cant find any.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

University open days

  • Regent's University London
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Thu, 19 Sep '19
  • Durham University
    Pre-Application Open Days Undergraduate
    Fri, 20 Sep '19
  • Loughborough University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 20 Sep '19

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (115)
24.78%
Pop (108)
23.28%
Jazz (20)
4.31%
Classical (23)
4.96%
Hip-Hop (87)
18.75%
Electronic (37)
7.97%
Indie (74)
15.95%

Watched Threads

View All