In the future, after we’ve started integrating computers into our brains to enhance them, we’ll develop a concept of aug and naug (augmented, non-augmented), pronounced and likely spelled: og and nog.

The terms will apply to the measure of human mental achievement, specifically to specify whether a particular mental feat or accomplishment was attained with or without the help of computers.

Jason: Hey, I scored a 2043 on my MART exam today…
Daniel: Nice, but that was aug, right?
Jason: Yeah, no shit. If I did over a 2000 naug I’d be a God.

These terms are likely to be adopted for a few reasons:

1. They clearly describe the concepts of natural vs. supplemental
2. They’re both only one syllable
3. The “n” sound in front of “naug” or “nog” is fairly easy to differentiate from “aug/og” when spoken

Some sign their email and/or comments with initials. I usually find the behavior to be rather pompous — a self-statement of greatness. But I’m re-thinking it. I’m getting quite bored of:

–Daniel

What do you guys think?

drm

Our country is crumbling before us as a direct result of relaxing our standards for excellence. This is true in many areas of American life but it’s most obvious in our education system. We’re abandoning the pursuit of excellence in favor of the pursuit of equality. This is more than foolish; it’s literally suicide.

CNN is reporting that American universities are moving from the SAT and ACT exams as requirements for entry. The justification? Not enough people with poor scores on those exams are making it into college.

Wake Forest made the move as part of its efforts to increase socioeconomic, racial and ethnic diversity in the student body, said Martha Allman, director of admissions. Research has shown that SAT performance is linked with family income, and that the test by itself does not accurately predict success in college, she said.

Making the test optional “removes the barrier for those students who had everything else,” like scholastic achievement and extracurricular activities, but who “maybe didn’t do as well on a specific test,” she said.

A specific test? That’s what we’re calling the SAT now? Just some random test? High SAT scores are linked with family income for a good reason — because high IQ is linked with family income¹. That’s why the SAT is used to test for college admission, because those with higher IQs do better on the SAT², and because IQ is strongly correlated with success both in college and in life.

If minorities aren’t scoring high enough on the SAT then find out why this is the case and help them. If you care about the quality of your group you don’t abandon a standard because not enough people are reaching it. The limited number of people achieving a high standard is the reason for and definition of a high standard.

If you lower the standard for medical school graduates you get lower quality doctors. And the same goes for a country where the college graduates don’t compare to those abroad — we end up with a lower quality population.

Bottom line: if you can’t read, write and do math at the 12th grade level then you shouldn’t be allowed to go to college. The answer isn’t lowering university standards; it’s raising the standards in high school.:

References

¹ [ Beyond the Bell Curve | nytimes.com ]

² Meredith C. Frey, Douglas K. Detterman (2004) Scholastic Assessment or g?. The Relationship Between the Scholastic Assessment Test and General Cognitive Ability Psychological Science 15 (6) , 373–378 doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x

[ Dropping SAT and ACT | cnn.com ]

Here’s a full list of stuff white people like.

[ Full List ]

This video addresses some pretty lame anti-Obama propoganda that is circulating. It astounds me that with all the legitimate reasons to attack Obama’s policies and beliefs, this is all his opponents can come up with.

My God. This reads like a f’ing Onion headline.

“Scientists Discover Women Aren’t in Science and Engineering Because They Don’t Want To Be“

Now two new studies by economists and social scientists have reached a perhaps startling conclusion: An important part of the explanation for the gender gap, they are finding, are the preferences of women themselves. When it comes to certain math- and science-related jobs, substantial numbers of women - highly qualified for the work - stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else.

Wow, that’s monumental. Massive studies to figure out what people instinctively knew but didn’t want to address. The answer has been right in front of us since the gap has been there. All you have to do is ask women.

The irony is that simply asking women, and having them tell you that they weren’t interested, wasn’t enough. Their responses were discounted as if their own desires couldn’t possibly be the primary factor.

“Sir, I asked 1,000 women and most of them said they just didn’t want to do Calculus.” So the people with the agenda say, “You asked them? What the hell do they know? Dammit, go find the real reason they’re not in science.”

Gee, that’s uplifting for women. Don’t trust them to tell you what they want for themselves just because the answers offend our pc-trained ears. Yay for objectiveness. Once again political correctness maligns science.

Here, try this — I know this isn’t scientific but you’ll get the idea. How many women do you know? How many girls about to be women do you know? Great, now how many of them want to be computer scientists? How about mathematicians? Yeah, me too. Now extrapolate. Brilliant!

More from the article:

Rosenbloom and his colleagues used a standard personality-inventory test to measure people’s preferences for different kinds of work. In general, Rosenbloom’s study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers - and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.

Personal preference, Rosenbloom and his group concluded, was the single largest determinative factor in whether women went into IT. They calculated that preference accounted for about two-thirds of the gender imbalance in the field. The study was published in November in the Journal of Economic Psychology.

Let’s try a simple explanation. Men and women are different and hence have different interests. But when women have the desire and drive to be in IT and other engineering-type vocations, they can excel at it to the point of making most men look silly — just like in any other field. The difference is just that there are less women with this particular drive than men.

So what? They also have uteruses. Should we try and determine why? What malfunction caused men to be born without them?

Pretending we’re all the same isn’t going to make it so, no matter how much money we dump into that agenda. We’re different, and it’s a good thing. Accept that we’re all fundamentally equal according to the precepts of secular humanism and move on with life.:

—
[ The Freedom to Say "No" ]

I especially loved the writer who wants you to know he’s a writer (who uses a Mac) and the “Complicated Order Guy Who Needs His Coffee Right the F*&k Now”.

[ Annoying Starbucks Personalities ]

This site is genius. It focuses on a particular sub-culture within the “white” culture, whatever that is. I suppose the closest approximation would be the upper-middle-class, or latte-liberals.

Anyway, it’s hilarious. Some of it’s kind of cutting, but if it’s true it’s true. The first three articles I read applied to me (and not completely in a good way) so I subscribed immediately.

Check it out; see what parts apply to you. For the bad parts, see if you’re 1) able to admit them to yourself, and 2) whether you think they’re a good part of your personality to keep.

[ stuffwhitepeoplelike.com ]

And thanks to Jo for the link.

This is an extraordinary read. Please take the time.

[ The Road to War and Dictatorship ]