At 09:54 AM 4/8/2004, you wrote:
EP contain lots of constructs as intelligence ,personality,motivation defined within a Eurogenic
schema -where individual differences are emphasized in a Eurocentric environment.
I'm sorry, but I don't seem to understand what you are trying to say here. In a non-Eurocentric environment individual differences are not important or acknowledged? Everyone is assumed to believe the exact same things, perform equally well on all tasks, behave in the exact same manner, etc? So, members of a group in a non-Eurocentric environment would put there dependence for food on the person who has not been able to provide food in the past? This just doesn't make sense to me... perhaps because I've been so corrupted by my Eurocentric training... Can you please elaborate on this idea to help me understand? Perhaps provide an example of a situation where members of a group would not be concerned about differences in performance or behavior of another member of the group? Actually, asking for this clarification might be putting too much emphasis on the individual differences in understanding and perspective between us, so perhaps I shouldn't have asked...
But applying these concepts to a non-Eurogenic environment often leads to an assumed deficiency attribution to blacks,Hispanics and others.
If one group scores lower than the other and the measure is reliable, then yes, a particular group might be viewed as being below another group on that trait. Then the discussion can focus on exactly what the trait really is and why those differences exist. My guess is that if a certain segment of a group consistently failed to provide food for the rest of the groups they would be viewed as deficient in their food gathering ability. As a result they might be given a different set of tasks to accomplish in support of the group, or perhaps given training in an attempt to improve their food gathering abilities. Either way it would require an acknowledgement of individual differences which I didn't think existed in a non-Eurocentric environment...
There are valid concepts but how they are defined are critical.Intelligence may be defined as the ability to adapt to existing environments.With this in mind,it would appear basketball players depict maximum adaptive ability at Notre Dame and other colleges.
Interesting point... being on the basketball team is an indication of adapting well to college? Doesn't this depend on how you view the purpose of college and what it means to succeed in college?
Raising academic standards of the paper and pencil type to judge skills in an area where different skills are required just does not make sense.
Okay... but aren't the basketball players in college? Isn't college supposed to be primarily about academics and academic standards? If college is supposed to be all about basketball, then I apparently failed miserably and why do we even bother with any course that is not about improving basketball performance?
I still do not understand why people think that a star athelete should be doing good academically.These may be different intelligences.Is one form of intelligence better than another? and what about motivation?
Part of adapting to college is, or at least should be, developing the ability to perform at an intellectually high level as demonstrated by learning content in courses... and we measure the learning of that content through the use of measurement (paper-and-pencil tests, oral tests, discussion, etc.) To say that adapting to college is simply being able to perform well athletically implies that the only purpose of college is to improve athletic skills. It seems to me you have lost sight of what the purpose of college is supposed to be. A person who attends college but fails to learn anything in the courses they are taking has not successfully adapted to the college environment. So, should the star athlete be expected to perform well academically? If they are in college then I would have to say yes since academic performance is what college is primarily about.
Now, is that to say that being good a good athlete is more or less important than doing well in a statistics course? No, but college is not about being a good athlete. If they have no motivation to be taking courses and are only motivated to be in college to play basketball, then perhaps moving straight into the NBA rather than going to college would be a better example of adaptive behavior.
Hoping for some clarification... - Marc
=============================================
G. Marc Turner, MEd, Network+, MCP
Instructor & Head of Computer Operations
Department of Psychology
Texas State University-San Marcos
San Marcos, TX 78666
phone: (512)245-2526
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
