Quoting Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [Krimel] > > Ok look I am begging you here what are we to measure and how. That study > > is the only thing you have suggested. > > [Platt] > That study is suggestive of the type of research that measures depth of > consciousness. > > [Krimel] > That study compared the answers of students who were asked questions during > an opinion poll. During the 1950's round of polling only 45 students > responded in 1997 slightly more than 400 were polled. The 15 questions > included things like: > What is the capital of Spain? > Who was the first person to make a transcontinental airplane flight? > Who is your favorite author? > Would you like to have a large collection of recorded classical music? > > If you are saying the depth of consciousness consists in the number of > specific facts accumulated, why would you object to the use of SAT scores > ACT scores or other such measures that have been administered annually for > decades to millions of students. They assess specific knowledge in math, > science, reading comprehension etc. > > Dumbing down aside what strikes you as particularly significant about the 15 > questions asked in the Zogby study? Why would you consider it more accurate > than standardized measures?
You can't put dumbing down aside in comparing SAT and other like scores from one generation to the next. > >[Platt] > > I thought you were against "causes," relying instead on "probabilities." > > > > [Krimel] > > That is correct and what I have said is the "cause" is an assessment of > > probability. We say a relationship is causal when it is at near 100% > > probability. > > [Platt] > Is there ever 100% probability, like death? > > [Krimel] > No, there isn't. Read Pirsig's account of Hume's thought. He explains this > nicely. But that is why cause is probabilistic. Glad to know you think there's a possibility you won't die. That's really scientific. :-) > > [Platt] > > Sure. College enrollments are irrelevant to depth of consciousness. The > > drop out rate has probably increased in a similar way. > > > > [Krimel] > > Then please tell me what is that's all I ask. > > [Platt] > I've told you what -- twice, three times? -- what is. What does it take to > get through to you? > > [Krimel] > You are correct sir I am especially dense. But with a little patience on > your part I am hopeful that I can be brought into an understanding. What I > hear you saying is that depth of consciousness consists entirely of the > ability to accumulate and recall specific facts. And that this can only be > measured by pollsters because standardized testing services have dumbed down > their tests for political reasons thus giving an unfair advantage to present > day students. I apologize if I missed something but point me to where you > have clarified this. Or feel free to clarify anew. Not bad. Glad to see I have made myself reasonably clear. But instead of the term "pollsters" which suggests that only companies like Gallup can determine depth of consciousness, I would prefer the word "surveys." Also, I would say that depth of consciousness consists of cultural literacy instead of "entirely of specific facts" because the latter suggests mere rote recitation rather than understanding. Do you really believe there's a possibility you won't die? What about the probability that you were born and that the cause was, well, you know ... ? ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
