Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Totalitarianist · 02-09-2003, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna
[B]A shame about the side-track, but as Mageth said, your medical knowledge, (as per your politics I note) appears to be a century or so out of date �

False.

Quote:

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~leg450/penry.htm
(emphasis mine)

I often read updated literature on the subject of psychology in the form of usually monographs and quite often the word "idiot" is among the words my eyes are in the habit of seeing, usually in literature that concerns itself with intelligence in relationship with genetics.

As you know, and as Mageth knows (I am sure), "idiot" is used in the same sense in which I had used it quite frequently when the subject is the genetic influence of intelligence, when the author is a qualified authority, and the subject-matter is presented in a highly formal manner.

Mageth · 02-09-2003, 04:28 PM

The link you posted does nothing to support your position. To the contrary, from the article:

"In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the term "idiot" was used to describe the most retarded of persons, corresponding to what is called "profound" and "severe" retardation today. See AAMR, Classification in Mental Retardation 179 (H. Grossman ed. 1983)"

As you know, and as Mageth knows (I am sure), "idiot" is used in the same sense in which I had used it quite frequently...

No, I do not "know", and you haven't demonstrated it.

...when the subject is the genetic influence of intelligence, when the author is a qualified authority, and the subject-matter is presented in a highly formal manner.

None of which were the case in Phanes' usage of "idiot", nor in your usage of it here on this thread, which underscores the "idiocy" of you interpreting it in that context here.

echidna · 02-09-2003, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
I often read updated literature on the subject of psychology in the form of usually monographs and quite often the word "idiot" is among the words my eyes are in the habit of seeing, usually in literature that concerns itself with intelligence in relationship with genetics.

As you know, and as Mageth knows (I am sure), "idiot" is used in the same sense in which I had used it quite frequently when the subject is the genetic influence of intelligence, when the author is a qualified authority, and the subject-matter is presented in a highly formal manner.

Well, of 30 google references, the only 2 which yield your �clinical� definition refer to the 1910 period, so I don�t know which articles you are reading, but maybe they need updating.

http://slate.msn.com/id/111355/

Quote:

Of course, it's a step up from "moron," "imbecile," or "idiot," which were actually codified as appropriate technical terms in 1910 by the AAMR, then known as the Association of Medical Officers of American Institutions for Idiots and Feeble-Minded Persons. (Morons were the brightest, followed by idiots and imbeciles.) The AAMR replaced those terms with "mild," "moderate," and "severe" retardation in 1959, but the old words did not go quietly: Davidson recalls attending a guest lecture in graduate school in the 1970s where the speaker, an esteemed professor in the field, discoursed on "low-grade imbeciles." (The professor was not invited back.)

If your eyes are �in the habit of seeing� the word "idiot�, then I�d suggest that there might be other reasons.

Psycho Economist · 02-09-2003, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer
I always thought that smart people die younger. Just look at some of the past famous scientists and mathematicians.

One of my homework problems for a unit on inferential statistics was to see if a sample of famous scientists and mathematicians lived longer or shorter lives than the population at large. They didn't. May not have been the best sample in the world, though... i don't know.

Gemma Therese · 02-09-2003, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nataraja
http://enchantedmind.com/html/scienc...ter_brain.html

The irony is killing me. Nuns?

Why is it ironic that they studied nuns?

Gemma Therese

pz · 02-09-2003, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist

I often read updated literature on the subject of psychology in the form of usually monographs and quite often the word "idiot" is among the words my eyes are in the habit of seeing, usually in literature that concerns itself with intelligence in relationship with genetics.

As you know, and as Mageth knows (I am sure), "idiot" is used in the same sense in which I had used it quite frequently when the subject is the genetic influence of intelligence, when the author is a qualified authority, and the subject-matter is presented in a highly formal manner.

Your comment is simply not true. I happen to have an extremely well-qualified expert on this subject right here in the room with me -- my wife has a Ph.D. in psychology. The term "idiot" has not been used in the clinical literature in the way you claim since the early years of the last century. It is not at all current and is only used in historical references.

You should be aware by now that this board is frequented by quite a few well-informed people. The kind of bogus claim you just made is going to get smoked out fast.

Totalitarianist · 02-09-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna
Well, of 30 google references, the only 2 which yield your �clinical� definition refer to the 1910 period, so I don�t know which articles you are reading, but maybe they need updating.

http://slate.msn.com/id/111355/

If your eyes are �in the habit of seeing� the word "idiot�, then I�d suggest that there might be other reasons.

I have in mind papers written in 1996 and 1998. Do you consider that obsolete?

Totalitarianist · 02-09-2003, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
Your comment is simply not true. I happen to have an extremely well-qualified expert on this subject right here in the room with me -- my wife has a Ph.D. in psychology. The term "idiot" has not been used in the clinical literature in the way you claim since the early years of the last century. It is not at all current and is only used in historical references.

You should be aware by now that this board is frequented by quite a few well-informed people. The kind of bogus claim you just made is going to get smoked out fast.

Okay, perhaps I exaggerated slightly. I have read it a few times in updated literature, and not as an historical reference. I prefer the term "idiot" because, though it is indeed "obsolete" (only because some people find it offensive, and not for any other reason), it is more precise than other terms. "Idiot" refers to a very specific range of intelligence, whereas other words are somewhat less precise, and even less vivid. "Profounder", in my mind, does not suffice.

pz · 02-09-2003, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Okay, perhaps I exaggerated slightly. I have read it a few times in updated literature, and not as an historical reference.

Then cite them.

Doubting Didymus · 02-09-2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
Then cite them.

^ Question most often asked of trebaxian.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2003, 04:28 PM	#22
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The link you posted does nothing to support your position. To the contrary, from the article: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the term "idiot" was used to describe the most retarded of persons, corresponding to what is called "profound" and "severe" retardation today. See AAMR, Classification in Mental Retardation 179 (H. Grossman ed. 1983)" As you know, and as Mageth knows (I am sure), "idiot" is used in the same sense in which I had used it quite frequently... No, I do not "know", and you haven't demonstrated it. ...when the subject is the genetic influence of intelligence, when the author is a qualified authority, and the subject-matter is presented in a highly formal manner. None of which were the case in Phanes' usage of "idiot", nor in your usage of it here on this thread, which underscores the "idiocy" of you interpreting it in that context here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.