MarineHawk large booty email

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

I agree, though I'm increasingly of the opinon that intelligence and emotional competence are completely unrelated.

What are your thoughts on emotional intelligence then?

The distinction between intelligence and competence in the area of scognition(IQ) is very clear, where generally, psychological research demonstrates that IQ is a reliable measure of cognitive capacity, and is stable over time. In the area of emotion, the distinction between intelligence (EQ) and competence is murky. Current definitions of EQ are inconsistent about what it measures: some say that EQ is dynamic, and can be learned or increased; whereas others say that EQ is stable, and cannot be increased. Therefore there is a relation to some degree between intelligence and emotional competence.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

Therefore there is a relation to some degree between intelligence and emotional competence.

I slightly disagree.

There is a lack of consensus about a general theory of competence, and therefore, little to guide researchers in selecting and evaluating dimensions of communicative or emotional competence. I find that literature consists of numerous proposed dimensions, but that few of these have undergone rigorous assessment and evaluation. I advocate combining knowledge of how to behave with actual performance in order to distinguish competence, and i argue that competence also implies standards of appropriateness and effectiveness.

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

I slightly disagree.

There is a lack of consensus about a general theory of competence, and therefore, little to guide researchers in selecting and evaluating dimensions of communicative or emotional competence. I find that literature consists of numerous proposed dimensions, but that few of these have undergone rigorous assessment and evaluation. I advocate combining knowledge of how to behave with actual performance in order to distinguish competence, and i argue that competence also implies standards of appropriateness and effectiveness.

Your drivel was anticipated.
To simplify for you as best as I can relate to a lower facimile of human life. Your argument enevitably points to the eternalquestion as to the general state of human nature.
Natural productions are generally formed by degrees.Vegetables grow from a tender shoot, and animals from an infant state. The latter being destined to act, extend their operations as their powers increase: they exhibit a progress, in what they perform, as well as in the faculties they acquire. This progress in the case of man is continued to a greater extent than in that of any other animal. Not only the individual advances from infancy to manhood, but the species itself from rudeness to civilization. Hence the supposed departure of mankind from the state of their nature; hence our conjectures and different opinions of what man must have been in the first age of his being. The poet, the historian, and the moralist, frequently allude to this ancient time; and under the emblems of gold, or of iron, represent a condition, and a manner of life, from which mankind have either degenerated, or on which they have greatly improved. On either supposition, the first state of our nature must have borne no resemblance to what men have exhibited in any subsequent period; historical monuments, even of the earliest date, are to be considered as novelties; and the most common establishments of human society are to be classed among the incroachments which fraud, oppression, or a busy invention, have made upon the reign of nature, by which the chief of ourgrievances or blessings were equally with-held. Among the writers who have attempted to distinguish, in the human character, its original qualities, and to point out the limits between nature and art, some have represented mankind in their first condition,as possessed of mere animal sensibility, without any exercise of the faculties that render them superior to the brutes, without
any political union, without any means of explaining their entiments, and even without possessing any of the apprehensions and passions which the voice and the gesture are so well fitted to express. Others have made the state of nature to consist in perpetual wars, kindled by competition for dominion and interest,where every individual had a separate quarrel with his kind, and where the presence of a fellow-creature was the signal of battle.The desire of laying the foundation of a favourite system, or a fond expectation, perhaps, that we may be able to penetrate the secrets of nature, to the very source of existence, have, on this subject, led to many fruitless inquiries, and given rise to many
wild suppositions. Among the various qualities which mankind possess, we select one or a few particulars on which to establish a theory, and in framing our account of what man was in some imaginary state of nature, we overlook what he has always appeared within the reach of our own observation, and in the records of history.

In every other instance, however, the natural historian thinks himself obliged to collect facts, not to offerconjectures. When he treats of any particular species of animals,
he supposes, that their present dispositions and instincts are the same they originally had, and that their present manner of life is a continuance of their first destination. He admits, that his knowledge of the material system of the world consists in a collection of facts, or at most, in general tenets derived from particular observations and experiments. It is only in what relates to himself, and in matters the most important, and the most easily known, that he substitutes hypothesis instead of reality, and confounds the provinces of imagination and reason,of poetry and science.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

he substitutes hypothesis instead of reality, and confounds the provinces of imagination and reason, of poetry and science.

Are you kidding me?

There are at least three further good reasons for making provision for at least some students to write science poetry. First, Gardner suggested that we have at least seven different intelligences, where intelligence means the ability to solve problems or create products of value within a cultural setting: linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal or “social,” and intrapersonal or intuitive. He has recently added a naturalistic intelligence, and is working on a spiritual intelligence. Future successful adults will need to be resourceful and flexible, and use many of these different ways of being intelligent, or smart. For example, one can combine science with drama and music to create, in an audience, an increased awareness of how scientific discoveries are affecting, or may affect, our lives.

[DRTYFN]

I'm stupid so I don't get any of this.

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by DRTYFN

I'm stupid so I don't get any of this.

This I find shocking.

An ape intelligent enough to know it does not understand?!?!?! Fascinating! I must write a report on this.

[CO Hummer]

Originally Posted by DRTYFN

I'm stupid so I don't get any of this.

Stupidity is neither ignorance nor organicity, but rather, a corollary of knowing and an element of normalcy, the double of intelligence rather than its opposite. It is an artifact of our nature as finite beings and one of the most powerful determinants of human destiny. Like PhilD says, stupidity is always the name of the Other, and it is the sign of the feminine.

[h2co-pilot]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

Stupidity is neither ignorance nor organicity, but rather, a corollary of knowing and an element of normalcy, the double of intelligence rather than its opposite. It is an artifact of our nature as finite beings and one of the most powerful determinants of human destiny. Like PhilD says, stupidity is always the name of the Other, and it is the sign of the feminine.

Feminine being the key word.

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

Are you kidding me?

There are at least three further good reasons for making provision for at least some students to write science poetry. First, Gardner suggested that we have at least seven different intelligences, where intelligence means the ability to solve problems or create products of value within a cultural setting: linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal or “social,” and intrapersonal or intuitive. He has recently added a naturalistic intelligence, and is working on a spiritual intelligence. Future successful adults will need to be resourceful and flexible, and use many of these different ways of being intelligent, or smart. For example, one can combine science with drama and music to create, in an audience, an increased awareness of how scientific discoveries are affecting, or may affect, our lives.

You sir, are a fucktard.



Good day!

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by CO Hummer

Are you kidding me?

Gardner suggested that we have at least seven different intelligences ...: linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal or “social,” and intrapersonal or intuitive.

Don't forget the eighth and ninth intelligences: off-road tire placement and throttle control.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

What are your thoughts on emotional intelligence then?

I have no data, but within reasonable limits, I observe little if any correlation between intellect and emotional maturity (I?m obviously at the low end of the latter myself). More often, I see an inverse correlation. Some of the most pleasant, self-confident (the opposite of arrogant IMO) people I know are not the ones with whom I would want to discuss deep, complex intellectual issues. Of course, when you get into really low IQ's, you likely start to see a disproportionate amount of psychological problems. But, if you look at the part of the IQ bell curve containing 90% of people, I don't see a correlation. Like I said, I?m merely basing this on my own anecdotal observations. I work with a lot of highly-intelligent people, making pretty high salaries. But even their productivity in the work place, which has some significant correlation to intelligence, is probably more dependant on the person?s character than his or her intelligence. For example, I?ve consistently noticed that attorneys who grew up on farms are some of the most productive and useful I know. It?s because they consistently work through problems until they get the best resolution they possibly can find -- no matter how difficult the process is. That?s just one example. Many people with a non-agrarian background also have great work ethics. But, so many others simply focus on how much credit they think they will get and how they can ?complete? a project the most quickly and painlessly. Invariably, it affects their lives negatively because they are constantly fighting the ill impressions and disorganization their laziness yields. Many of these corner-cutters are very, very intelligent, but also very unproductive and probably fairly unhappy.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

I have no data, but within reasonable limits, I observe little if any correlation between intellect and emotional maturity (I?m obviously at the low end of the latter myself). More often, I see an inverse correlation. Some of the most pleasant, self-confident (the opposite of arrogant IMO) people I know are not the ones with whom I would want to discuss deep, complex intellectual issues. Of course, when you get into really low IQ's, you likely start to see a disproportionate amount of psychological problems. But, if you look at the part of the IQ bell curve containing 90% of people, I don't see a correlation. Like I said, I?m merely basing this on my own anecdotal observations. I work with a lot of highly-intelligent people, making pretty high salaries. But even their productivity in the work place, which has some significant correlation to intelligence, is probably more dependant on the person?s character than his or her intelligence. For example, I?ve consistently noticed that attorneys who grew up on farms are some of the most productive and useful I know. It?s because they consistently work through problems until they get the best resolution they possibly can find -- no matter how difficult the process is. That?s just one example. Many people with a non-agrarian background also have great work ethics. But, so many others simply focus on how much credit they think they will get and how they can ?complete? a project the most quickly and painlessly. Invariably, it affects their lives negatively because they are constantly fighting the ill impressions and disorganization their laziness yields. Many of these corner-cutters are very, very intelligent, but also very unproductive and probably fairly unhappy.

I think over time, people have been groomed to view things with more and more color. Releasing them from the confines of black and white, right or wrong. Levels of justification for low productivity or attitude as a whole (my momma beat me, I was called names in high school, TV was bad for me) have continued to blossom to a colorful rainbow of reasons not to simply do the right thing.

Increasingly, it's hard to find integrity as a central and overwhelming attribute. On the contrary, it's portrayed in negative light by many whom find there's less resistance by forgiving their own integrity for the sake of least resistance. As long as they have that colorful excuse to provide them with the minute amount of justification they can float through as lemmings being infected by those selfish with no moral aptitude who corrupt their thoughts and help them remain without the need to work hard at their own integrity.

I think you'll find that those hard working (not just trying to make a buck) individuals are ones that have the highest integrity, are the ones you can count out when you need them and are less likely to be swayed into the lemmingesk attitude of many. The credit seekers, obviously have lowered integrity and are cutting corners seeking a flash and not the bang.

[ROX]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

For example, I?ve consistently noticed that attorneys who grew up on farms are some of the most productive and useful I know. It?s because they consistently work through problems until they get the best resolution they possibly can find -- no matter how difficult the process is. That?s just one example. Many people with a non-agrarian background also have great work ethics. But, so many others simply focus on how much credit they think they will get and how they can ?complete? a project the most quickly and painlessly.

I concur with your line of reasoning here.

Please, Sir, let us keep this thread on topic and provide us with evidence of said booty.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by H2 Rocks

Please, Sir, let us keep this thread on topic and provide us with evidence of said booty.

Fortunately, no such photographic evidence exists.

[h2co-pilot]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Fortunately, no such photographic evidence exists.

Well that's just selfish.

[KenP]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Fortunately, no such photographic evidence exists.

That's only because you haven't been wheeling when we've been there.