3 ms·

There’s no onus on either of us to do anything. We are just strangers posting on the internet without pay or other compensation. Your experience and knowledge

by syops 5y ago

There’s no onus on either of us to do anything. We are just strangers posting on the internet without pay or other compensation. Your experience and knowledge about teaching help me to decide the merits of your beliefs. It appears from my perspective that you know quite little about what you are posting. I know slightly more by having a lot of anecdotal evidence but this certainly doesn’t imply that I’m more likely to be right. As stated in my original comment I’m quite liberal. In education we talk a lot about social conditions and their effects on education. It’s why teachers’ unions strongly support universal healthcare, school lunch programs, etc. After 20 years on the job I’ve come to the conclusion that some can’t learn it. This isn’t controversial in some sense since we know retarded people can’t learn algebra. So what level of capability is necessary to learn it? I don’t know but I suspect it’s well above being mentally retarded. I could be completely wrong but given your lack of experience in the topic my experience ought to at least make you pause a bit. In another comment you wrote about me: … you're more likely ignoring the real-life circumstances your students find themselves in, and your colleagues are not. Talk about making an assertion with no evidence! At least I waited 20 years before stating my absurd assertion.

TameAntelope 5y ago
It's clear to me that this belief has wormed its way into your identity somehow, and you're unable to discuss it in a detached and curious way. I'm sad for you that such is the case, but I am now more empathetic towards your colleagues who have to deal with your false assertion that some people are too stupid to learn the math you teach. Also not for nothing, but "retarded" hasn't been a medical term for some time now, with institutions such as the AMA and SSA both replacing the term with "intellectual disability". The only remaining reasons you'd use it are either because you are thus uninformed, or you're signaling something...
- syops 5y ago
  It’s easier to type retarded than intellectually disabled on an iPad. I wrote the modern version in my original comments. Clearly I have been discussing this topic in a detached way. You’ve formed an image in your mind about me that isn’t supported by the evidence. I’ll read whatever response you have but won’t comment further. I wish you well. Keep up the good fight!
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    You can use "cognitively impaired" as a more neutral and factual descriptor than either (and "cognitive impairment" as the generic term). It's also more broadly applicable. (I.e. If you got whacked in the head once too many while playing rugby, that might not count as "intellectual disability" according to some since it's not developmental. But it might interfere with learning math, so it's pretty indistinguishable in a practical sense!)
    - syops 5y ago
      That’s a better term to use. Thanks for the suggestion.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to talk about a view you've held that's been unpopular with your colleagues. I think you, and everyone who thinks like you, need to take a very hard look at what you've done to eliminate the environmental factors related to your viewpoint that some people aren't smart enough to learn something, because its extremely easy to trick yourself into thinking someone is incapable when in reality other factors abound. As the article explains, if society refused to educate/feed/raise/nourish red-headed children, there would be a genetic correlation between red-headedness and intelligence. How absolutely confident are you that you've accounted for every explanation besides the genetic one in determining why some people can't learn algebra?
    - imbnwa 5y ago
      Its kinda crazy how casual people are with their constraints on explantion when the topic is intellectual disparity. Person you're replying to claimed they weren't arguing for a gentic component to another reply but also doesn't do anything to filter any other factor than a congential threshold for learning math. This is absolutely why the Left is generally leary of this type of discussion because it is so easy to use the information for all sorts of ill-informed or cross purposes.

by syops 5y ago

TameAntelope 5y ago

It's clear to me that this belief has wormed its way into your identity somehow, and you're unable to discuss it in a detached and curious way. I'm sad for you that such is the case, but I am now more empathetic towards your colleagues who have to deal with your false assertion that some people are too stupid to learn the math you teach. Also not for nothing, but "retarded" hasn't been a medical term for some time now, with institutions such as the AMA and SSA both replacing the term with "intellectual disability". The only remaining reasons you'd use it are either because you are thus uninformed, or you're signaling something...

syops 5y ago
It’s easier to type retarded than intellectually disabled on an iPad. I wrote the modern version in my original comments. Clearly I have been discussing this topic in a detached way. You’ve formed an image in your mind about me that isn’t supported by the evidence. I’ll read whatever response you have but won’t comment further. I wish you well. Keep up the good fight!
- zozbot234 5y ago
  You can use "cognitively impaired" as a more neutral and factual descriptor than either (and "cognitive impairment" as the generic term). It's also more broadly applicable. (I.e. If you got whacked in the head once too many while playing rugby, that might not count as "intellectual disability" according to some since it's not developmental. But it might interfere with learning math, so it's pretty indistinguishable in a practical sense!)
  - syops 5y ago
    That’s a better term to use. Thanks for the suggestion.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to talk about a view you've held that's been unpopular with your colleagues. I think you, and everyone who thinks like you, need to take a very hard look at what you've done to eliminate the environmental factors related to your viewpoint that some people aren't smart enough to learn something, because its extremely easy to trick yourself into thinking someone is incapable when in reality other factors abound. As the article explains, if society refused to educate/feed/raise/nourish red-headed children, there would be a genetic correlation between red-headedness and intelligence. How absolutely confident are you that you've accounted for every explanation besides the genetic one in determining why some people can't learn algebra?
  - imbnwa 5y ago
    Its kinda crazy how casual people are with their constraints on explantion when the topic is intellectual disparity. Person you're replying to claimed they weren't arguing for a gentic component to another reply but also doesn't do anything to filter any other factor than a congential threshold for learning math. This is absolutely why the Left is generally leary of this type of discussion because it is so easy to use the information for all sorts of ill-informed or cross purposes.