AmericanIntelligence

Two words that just don't seem to go together.

When restoring all the deleted pages, I almost left this one out with the theory that most americans don't have any intelligence.

Leading statisticians estimate that 50% of the American population is below average intelligence. --Aimaz 13:10, 14 February 2006 (GMT)

Note to readers:

Please do not confuse lack of intelligence with being uneducated, unaware or uniformed. To say most Americans are without intelligence is to say they are without the faculty of thought and reason because of their race or nationality. To say "some Americans are ignorant," that is, uneducated, unaware or uninformed, would be more accurate and less stupid than "most Americans don't have any intelligence."

I would challenge anyone to show that a higher percentage of the American population are ignorant compared to the British or any other national group. In fact, I would challenge anyone to provide a universally accepted definition of "ignorance" that could be applied to statistically determine the number of "ignorant" people in a given popultion.

So shut up.

The following defintions are from www.dictionary.com, which uses the American Heritage Dictionary.

Intelligence:

The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.
Superior powers of mind.

Ignorance:

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
The lack of knowledge or education.

You muppet, why are you using an AMERICAN dictionary when you could be using the OED!??! Point proven!

The following definitions are from the Oxford English Dictionary, due to a possible bias in using an American-based dictionary, as kindly pointed out by my British colleague above.

Intelligence:

The faculty of understanding; intellect.
Understanding as a quality of admitting of degree; spec. superior understanding; quickness of mental apprehension, sagacity.
The action or fact of mentally apprehending something; understanding, knowledge, cognizance, comprehension (of something).

Ignorance:

The fact or condition of being ignorant; want of knowledge (general or special).

Ignorant:

Destitute of knowledge, either in general or with respect to a particular fact or subject; unknowing, uninformed, unlearned.

And after everything said in defence of the Americans... this whole diatribe simply led to a highlighting of the fact that by DEFINITION (3. Superior powers of mind.) amercians are stupid. The context of "intelligence" cannot be defined as such. That would be "more intelligent than ***** persons = therefore having superior powers of mind." Jesus, Amercians are such fucking retards!

So, if I understand your poorly written response correctly, you are saying that because an American dictionary (The American Heritage Dictionary) wrongly, in your opinion, listed one definition of "intelligence" as "superior powers of mind," Americans are "fucking retards?"

What of the argument that "lack of intelligence" is not the same as "ignorance" that was put forward in the first place? If you ignore the definitions provided by the American Heritage dictionary because it is American (which would make you a bigot, but that is another story) and only use those provided by the Oxford English Dictionary, you can still see that intelligence, the faculty of understanding, is not the opposite of being ignorant, that is being uninformed or unlearned.

(1) As an american source was quoted in defense of Americans, it seemed only right to focus on this, American intelligence being, after all, the crux of the issue; as opposed to the prevariaction and rambling stated aftwerwards. This America source was incorrect in content. As somebody with English literature and language skills at degree level I attempted to make this very, very simple. Obviously not simple enough for some....... Continuing to quote the Oxford Dictionary as a focus for your argument does, however, create a context; this being that as you are now using it (somewhat misguidedly) as the meat of your argument, you seem to be of the opinion that it is "superior". Maybe the american definition should read :3. Superior powers of mind, as possesed by the British in comparison with Americans. Now we have both definiton and context, and everyone is happy.

While I am at it I shall quote a source of my own.

http://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/index.asp?file=KeyFindings/Demographics/Overall.asp&PageId=16

(2) It seems that ignorance is an issue after all..... for 43% of Americans (less than basic or very basic to poor literary skills), as quoted by the NAAL. A National Assesment of Adult Literacy (in Amercian Adults.)as well as for the person who began bandying issues of ignorance around in the first place.

(3) The american dictionary source quoted stated that ignorance is "The lack of knowledge or education" and the English source states that it is "Destitute of knowledge, either in general or with respect to a particular fact or subject; unknowing, uninformed, unlearned." Therefore 43% of Americans are ignorant, by both doctionary definitons.

(4) The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99%) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom beats the Americans hands down, (according to the NAAL's literacy statistics at least.) so maybe I should'nt be so harsh.. after all, if they can't read, how can they be expected to write an accurate dictionary?

As an american source was quoted in defense of Americans, it seemed only right to focus on this, American intelligence being, after all, the crux of the issue; as opposed to the prevariaction and rambling stated aftwerwards.

You will note that after it was pointed out that www.dictionary.com uses an American dictionary the definitions for "intellicence," "ignorance" and "ignorant" were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, in order to prove the original point that lack of intelligence is not the same as ignorance.

Continuing to quote the Oxford Dictionary as a focus for your argument does, however, create a context; this being that as you are now using it (somewhat misguidedly) as the meat of your argument, you seem to be of the opinion that it is "superior".

Again you will note that the original point, that lack of intelligence is not the same as ignorance, is supported when using either the American dictionary definitions for "intelligence" and "ignorance" or the Oxford dictionary definitions for the same words. Quoting the Oxford dictionary simply illustrated the original point using an acceptably British source for the bigots amongst us.

Furthermore, quoting the National Assesment of Adult Literacy as an indicator of literacy and comparing that to a statistic from Wikipedia is totally unsound. The NAAL assesment has not been carried out in the United Kingdom, making the comparison of this assesment with the statistic of "literacy," which is not defined in the Wikipedia source invalid. To make any meaningful comparison between two populations or groups, the same assesment must be used for both populations; this is a basic concept of scientific or sociological method that perhaps was missed out in an English Language degree. Bellow are two statistcs from the CIA World Factbook that use the same indicator for literacy, the definition of which is provided as: Age 15 and over has completed five or more years of schooling.

United States: 97% (1999 est.)

United Kingdom: 99% (2000 est.)

As you can see these figures are quite distinct from the 43% to 99% of "literacy" rates.

Finally, it seems that again the original point has not been understood. In paragraph (1) American intelligence is said to be the "crux of the issue." In paragraph (2) American ignorance is said to be the issue. I would like to restate the original point, in bold, capital letters for easy reading:

THE LACK OF INTELLIGENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING IGNORANT.

If this point is not understood, please start from the beginning of this page and read slowly and carefully. If you don't believe the American Dictionary read the Oxford dictionary, and think about the definitions of intelligence and ignorance and how they relate to each other. Hopefully arrive at the simple conclusion that "intelligence is the faculty of reason of the mind, while ignorance is the condition of being without knowledge or education; therefore, the opposite of intelligence is not in fact ignorance but unintelligence, and the opposite of ignorance is not intelligence but instead being educated." Which was the ORIGINAL point.

Oh I'm sorry, there was me thinking I would attempt to keep the argument TO THE POINT, by choosing sources in the same style as the original two. One was American (yes you twit, american, or course NAAL did'nt assess the U.K, it is an american organisation, they give TOTALLY different figures from the CIA world factbook for the factor you chose as well, and I'm sure they know well enough the literacy rates for their own country...unless you are insinuating that they can't do math either) followed by a source writted by a Brit (check the source of that figure on the wikipedia before you go into another unsubstantiated rant about this).

In paragraph one I RESTATED what I had said originally, attempting to get it throught to you by explaining it again. In paragraph two I replied to your comments. The ORIGINAL POINT, which I will restate for you, as you seem not to be able to read,AND which I DID NOT write,was this:

"AmericanIntelligence:Two words that just don't seem to go together."

In order that you may be further assisted in basic literacy comprehension in the future I will also highlight the following, I hope you find it helpful.

"Quoting the Oxford dictionary simply illustrated the original point using an acceptably British source for the bigots amongst us. "

I ALSO quoted the American source in order to substantiate my comment, when writing on issues of literature content please be certain that you have READ the source material. Even at G.C.S.E level this would be an unforgivable error were this a marked piece.

Oh I'm sorry, there was me thinking I would attempt to keep the argument TO THE POINT, by choosing sources in the same style as the original two.

It is obvious that you are trolling, but I will entertain you and briefly illustrate the problem with comparing two different assesments of literacy, that are not any where near the same style as each other (one is based on interviews and written assesments with a group of adults statistically indicative of the greater population which are then grouped according to ability, while the other is an term applied to those over 15 who have had 5 or more years of schooling).

(1) NAAL statistic that gives the bellow percentages and definitions:

14% Below Basic: no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills.

29% Basic: Can perform simple and everyday literacy activities.

Giving your total of 43%.

(check the source of that figure on the wikipedia before you go into another unsubstantiated rant about this).

(2) Wikipedia gives the statistic for "literacy" in the United Kingdom at 99%. The Wikipedia article does not define what it means by literacy. As the CIA World Fact book gives the same number, 99%, for the literacy rate in the United Kingodm, and provides a definition of literacy, as at age 15 and over has completed five or more years of schooling, it may be that the Wikipedia has gotten the number of 99% from this source. Incidently, the Wikipedia article for the demographics of the United States also gives the literacy rate as 97%, the same as in the CIA World Factbook and cites the CIA World Factbook as one of its sources.

The definition of literacy from the CIA World Factbook is presented here: "This entry includes a definition of literacy and Census Bureau percentages for the total population, males, and females. There are no universal definitions and standards of literacy. Unless otherwise specified, all rates are based on the most common definition - the ability to read and write at a specified age. Detailing the standards that individual countries use to assess the ability to read and write is beyond the scope of the Factbook. Information on literacy, while not a perfect measure of educational results, is probably the most easily available and valid for international comparisons."

While it admits the weakness of not having a universal definition of literacy, and presents the most common definition, it does conclude information on literacy, while not a perfect measure of educational results, is probably the most easily available and valid for international comparisons.

You plank, I SAID "check the SOURCE of the Wikipedia article", not "quote it all again" I did read it you know, you however have proven, yet again, that you have a real problem with reading.

The Wikipedia article does not give the source for the UK literacy rate, but does give the source for the US literacy rate. See (2)

Obviously you didn't read it.

Compare what you wrote:

43% of Americans (less than basic or very basic to poor literary skills)

To what the source actually says:

14% Below Basic: No more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills.

29% Basic: Can perform simple and everyday literacy activities.

If you wanted to show the difference, for example, between 15 year old students in the United Kingdom and the United States, you could use the data produced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), Knowledge and Skills for Life, 2000. It shows higher scores for students in the United Kingdom compared to the United States in reading, mathematics and science literacy, shown in the table below. However, using the Wikipedia entry for the United Kingdom, which does not provide a source or definition for literacy, and comparing it to a misquoted figure from a comprehensive assesment of English language literacy skills in the United States adult population, is methodologically unsound.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
                   | Reading literacy         |Mathematics literacy        |  Science literacy
                   |__________________________|____________________________|___________________________
      Country      |Total   |Male    |Female  |Total   |Male     |Female   |Total   |Male     |Female
___________________|________|________|________|________|_________|_________|________|_________|________
         1         |  2     |  3     |  4     |  5     |  6      |  7      |  8     |  9      | 10
___________________|________|________|________|________|_________|_________|________|_________|________
  OECD total\1\ ...|499(2.0)|485(2.3)|514(2.0)|498(2.1)|504 (2.6)|493 (2.3)|502(2.0)|502 (2.5)|503(2.0)
  OECD average\2\ .|500(0.6)|485(0.8)|517(0.7)|500(0.7)|506 (1.0)|495 (0.9)|500(0.7)|501 (0.9)|501(0.8)
United Kingdom ....|523(2.6)|512(3.0)|537(3.4)|529(2.5)|534 (3.5)|526 (3.7)|532(2.7)|535 (3.4)|531(4.0)
United States .....|504(7.1)|490(8.4)|518(6.2)|493(7.6)|497 (8.9)|490 (7.3)|499(7.3)|497 (8.9)|502(6.5)

NOTE: Scales were designed to have an average score of 500 points and standard deviation of 100. 
Standard errors appear in parentheses.

for gods sake, are you actually that incapable of reading a link? Read the whole of the NAAL report, NOT just the front page.. (yes there is more) then get back to me.

Don't comment on trolling when you have posted swathes of data where a link would suffice (unless you assume everyone is as incapable of reading the next page as you are). The data I provided was merely done in that way so that it would be an american and british source (in the same style as the oxford conscise and american dictionary were earlier provided). It is possible to find data on american literacy rates which suggests they are even worse. This would'nt surprise me. Look up gov. school funding and overlay this with predominant race in poorly funded areas.. then do some simple math as to race stats nationwide, and you will see why this is feasable. I hate to cause upset, but I'm fairly sure there are a LOT of Americans who would wholeheartedly agree with what I have just said. I could list hundereds of reasons why they are (as a nation) pretty damn stupid (carbon emissions, abortion laws, international policies, obesity.. president bush, financial segregation by race, healthcare, artificially low fuel prices - yeah, see what THAT will do in the long term) but if you can't figure it out for yourself, what can I say.Move there then. In additon to all of this I feel I must return to the orginal point, "americans and intelligence, two words that just don't seem to go together". This was neatly skirted. Once again, please, read what is actually there, not what you choose to see. And don't forget to take out health insurance and take vitamins, because that will really help as we all slide into World War Three.

this page is like "o rly?" "ya rly" "no ur" "fuck u buddy, ur" "srsly?" "stfu" "no u" but conducted by two anally retentive masters students. - Bluec

As I am a self admitted anal retentive, but also know I am not a masters student, I chose to take that as a compliment.

March on xenophobia and bigotry.