threatening a customer or not

Thumbs up!

Education definitely has impact on one's intelligence. Although the latter one is not derived from the former, but education makes one more knowledgeable. Without knowledge, how can one even think to talk on a particular topic? Education not only influences and enhances one's cognitive abilities, but also induces one's personal development. A master's student knows how much he is different from the one enrolled in a bachelor's program. How does studying authentically and professionally for 2 to 3 years more after accomplishing a bachelor's degree not affect a person's capabilities? Secondly, self-study is way different from getting tutored. I believe writing academic papers is more of a self-study. It influences one's talents through practice but writing after getting properly educated is better and more efficient.

PS: Not to forget mentioning that education does not mean acquiring a degree. I am talking in the context of getting educated by achieving knowledge, which ultimately leaves you with a recognizable degree. Pheelyks, at times, insists that degrees are important in choosing a career as an academic writer, and then contradicts his own statements by stating it does not matter at all, when he is pointed out as a poorly educated jug-head.

The first statement does mean that, though in context I think what I meant is more clear; the second statement actually implies that there is some relationship, just not a directly proportional one, but whatever.


I believe now you are picking a fight, and on ridiculously pedantic grounds. I was arguing with stu4, and while my rhetoric might have got the better of me to suggest that this implies real ignorance is just being an assh*le.


This was precisely my point, and something Buford explicitly said did not exist in this industry. Thanks for stepping in.


No.


Again, no. You're boxing your own shadow.

Just because you say so? Accepting the fact would make you look like a duffer? You are uneducated implies that you are unintelligent, right?


A big no. I am kicking your ass.

Why? Because I said something negative about you? I was simply defending my position that a master's degree (which I have) is a useful qualification in this industry. I'm sorry If you felt offended by my example, but I believe that the example was necessary to drive my point. If you say that it wasn't real ignorance on your part, then maybe it wasn't. However, it did not seem that way to me; it still does not.


Right, whatever. Like a logarithmic or exponential relationship, maybe? Your liberal arts is showing. Yes, now maybe I am picking a fight. However, it's only because I dislike people who pretend to know things they don't, especially in the hard sciences. It's probably similar to what you feel when you call people out on their grammatical errors and they insist that they're not wrong.

Because the evidence says so. People with more intelligence might tend to seek/succeed in higher levels of education, but education does not create intelligence, enhance intelligence, etc, as intelligence is by definition an innate ability.


Apparently in your view it does, but not in the real world. The number of counter examples that tidily disprove your point is quite substantial.


You're arguing about something I never said. There's no ass for you to kick.

Lol! I stated:


To make it clear for you, what I meant is education does not make one intelligent, but has impact on one's intelligence.

ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v2n4/GUSTAF/PAPER.PDF - "certain schooling experiences may cause improvements both in general cognitive ability, and in specific abilities"

usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/mentalhealth/story/2011-12-27/IQ-isnt-fixed-at-birth-and-can-increase-with-educ ation/52237552/1 - IQ isn't fixed at birth, can increase with education

By the way, you are both uneducated and unintelligent, and you have a "big a%s" to be kicked. Thanks for proving it!


Huh?
Here is the definition: dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligence

Your first article is hardly conclusive, seeing an IQ spike of 3 points in young adults in an academic track as opposed to those not on an academic track. The authors say "may" because they dont actually have significant evidence that would allow them to say something more definite.

Your second article is about cognitive development in children, and yes, giving children opportunities to improve their cognitive abilities can have a major effect on measured intelligence. This has nothing to do with higher education and adult intelligence.

It means the point is debatable. So your "No" reflects your ignorance.


Did you read the article? I don't think so. Or maybe you did not understand what is written in the article. Reading and Comprehension problem? Can't help it then.

Are you saying that higher education and schooling have nothing to do with each other? I wonder why you wasted time in school. wouldn't you have gone to university directly? Hmm..

Yes. The debate is a lot more complex than you seem to think, though, and involves the way intelligence is and can be measured.


No, my "no" tells you you're wrong to assert a connection that isn't backed by evidence.

Hahahaha. This is what you say when someone provides EVIDENCE, and you instead of providing your own reject it. I think you have a big problem. Would you like to consult a psychiatrist?

Yes, I did. Educating children has nothing to do with changing intelligence in adults via education.


You didn't though. That's the point. You're drawing a conclusion that the evidence doesn't allow you to draw.

Did you get it, pheeleaks?

Sorry, hadn't even caught this until now. I think there are many relationships other than the three identified (directly proportional, logarithmic, and exponential). Like, perhaps there is a third factor that mediates how intelligence correlates with education? or they could have an inverse relationship (I'm not saying they do, but there's another option). I'm sure you're very happy with your master's degree and I hope you think it was time and money well spent. It does not contribute to intelligence, which was the only debate I was having. Everything else is your own imagination.

Please do not take my quote out of context. I meant it specifically for the issue that I brought up. Personally, I tend to side with nature in the whole nature vs. nurture debate on intelligence.

You have a long way to go pheeleaks. You did not read the articles, and just rejected to save your face. ;)

You have to first understand the words: Intelligence, education, learning, and knowledge. You can come back and start fighting again, but first you need to get to that level. I can't believe you if you say you know these words and their contexts of use. You have to prove it...quite a hard job, I know.


I was not doing so, I think. The issue is the same, which you can understand if you read my posts.

I read the abstract of the first article, which outlines their findings, and read most of the USA Today article, which is about education for children affecting lifelong intelligence. Niether of your sources says what you have claimed, namely that increased education in secondary/post-secondary school improves intelligence.

The day you manage to write a meaningful sentence without making any mistakes, I'll prove that I know the meanings of these words.

I think both have their own importance. Believe it or not, a person's behavior and development are influenced by both his/her innate abilities and environmental factors.

Really?

Anything else I imagined?


There are, but a mediating variable is not called a "relationship." Also, while a mediating variable can change the relationship between two variables from being linear (directly proportional) to being exponential, etc., it often does not. Rather, it only strengthens/weakens the existing relationship. In my experience, studies in the field of education mainly investigate the presence/absence of direct/inverse relationships and the different mediating effects of other variables on those relationships. I was being sarcastic when I said exponential/logarithmic.

Schooling is a part of education. Don't know why you do not believe so. That was the title of the article. I wonder you did not read the title, how did you read the content?


Okay. Now you start insulting me for writing skills. You mean education does not affect intelligence but language skills do? LOL!

You were. The context in which my post was made has nothing to do with your argument with pheelyks.

How? What was the argument? Isn't it about relationship of education with intelligence?

It is okay that you side with pheelyks, but why distorting the argument?

No.

Hey, where is your evidence that higher education DOES NOT contribute to intelligence?


Okay.

Sorry, EW, I'll clarify again: it was the only debating I was having before you entered the conversation, and the only debate anyone has attempted to provide any evidence for (including the evidence you presented). The aspects of the general writing process I identified--namely, research ability, organizational skills, critical thinking--are also outgrowths of intelligence. My point was, and is, that intelligence rather than degree is a qualifier in this industry, and that education has no effect on intelligence. I will take care to be more narrow and specific when I'm responding to you in the future.


I know, and that's the problem. When there are many other relations that could apply, why go there? I mean, do you think that there's a directly proportional relationship between education and intelligence? Your earlier comments seem to suggest otherwise.


No, I mean writing skills (and reasoning skills) are evidence of intelligence, to some degree.


You can't prove a negative.

I am inclined to agree.


...and I say that both are important, especially since a graduate degree makes one much more knowledgeable about the different technicalities of quantitative and qualitative research writing.


Numerous credible studies point towards this so, yes, I am inclined to believe that there is a direct correlation between educational attainment and intelligence.


No, they don't. What I don't believe in is that education makes a person more intelligent. I do not think that this is the direction of causality between the two variables.


Amen.

There's our dispute, then. While this certainly can be the case, it isn't always, nor does the lack of a master's degree preclude knowledge about these technicalities.


That's not what I said, and you are more than intelligent enough to know that. Don't be disingenuous.

We will assume, then, that you don't think education and intelligence are directly proportional--i.e. an increase in one would necessarily be seen to coincide with an increase in the other, and vice-versa. That they have a direct correlation might be possible, but this is a far more vague assertion.

What the evidence shows is that intelligent people tend to seek out and attain higher levels of formal education. This would mean a direct correlation but says nothing about direct proportion.

That means you can't prove your own statement.

Of course, I never claimed that it was always the case. I even qualified that the degree was only useful if the writer actually took it seriously.


There's the problem. I already said that I don't believe becoming more educated adds to one's intelligence. However, this is not the same as saying that I don't believe they are directly proportional.

The problem here is that direct proportionality has nothing to do with causality. A linear relationship can be expressed as:

IQ = A1 * Education + A2, where A1 and A2 are some constants.

The question is, do I believe that such a relationship exists between Education and IQ? The answer is yes, I do. I do because studies clearly show that this is the case. That is, given the level of education of a person, it is possible to use the formula to predict what the intelligence quotient of that person likely is (and vice versa). This is direct proportionality. However, this does not mean that when a person takes on a higher degree, his intelligence will increase. That has nothing to do with direct proportionality between two variables.

A similar relationship exists between height and weight. They are directly proportional. However, this does not mean that if a person gets an operation to increase his height by a few inches (a la Gattaca), his weight would increase.

I already proved my points by providing evidences. Remember the two articles and the definition of intelligence?


I talked about education, not higher education.


I stated this when I was referring to importance of higher education in academic writing career, but made it clear that by education I don't mean getting a degree.

Again, I proved what I claimed. Period.

Err... that's where your problem lies. If two variables are directly correlated, they are also in direct proportion. Correlation is the strength of the relationship while proportion is its size. For example, the variables in the ordered pair (x,y) described by samples (1,1), (2,3), and (3,5) are directly related with a correlation coefficient of 1.0. They are in direct proportion, with every 1 unit increase in x leading to a 2 unit increase in y.

Sorry, but no.

Directly proportional: thefreedictionary.com/Directly+proportional

Direct correlation:
thefreedictionary.com/direct+correlation

...

I did not say that they meant the same thing. I said that one implied the other, and vice versa. If two variables are directly related, then they are in direct proportion.

Sigh...

A positive correlation indicates that the two variables move together, and the relationship is stronger the closer the correlation gets to one. A negative correlation indicates the two variables move in opposite directions, and that relationship also gets stronger the closer the correlation gets to minus 1. Two variables that are perfectly positively correlated (r=1) essentially move in perfect proportion in the same direction, while two assets which are perfectly negatively correlated move in perfect proportion in opposite directions.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/StatFile/statistics.htm

Also,

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=nIE6idG8jFgC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=direct+proportion+perfect+correlation&source=bl&ots=GQe3YSMCaE&sig=-AwodfmSq6SpFirgn79XSkmQDCo&hl=tl&sa=X&ei=yNWgT6_GNouyiQew_4X1BA#v=onepage&q=direct%20proportion%20perfect%20correlation&f=false

Dude, I actually write quantitative research studies on a regular basis. I know what I'm talking about. I don't see why you need to be pigheaded about this.

Still, no. If they are in direct proportion then they would be in direct correlation, given the above definitions, but not vice versa. A directly proportional relationship is a very specific and very concretely defined thing. A direct correlation is not as specific. Or, to use your own sources, only a perfectly positive direct correlation would be a directly proportional relationship. You are not asserting, I don't think, that education and intelligence have a perfectly positively correlated relationship. Are you?


The fact that you write about something/in a certain manner regularly doesn't mean you actually know what you're talking about. We both know that. I'm being no more pig-headed than you, except that your pig-headedness is wrong. Direct correlation does not imply a directly proportional relationship, and therefore rejecting the notion of a directly proportional relationship (my original statement) does not reject the idea of any correlation between the two variables (your interpretation).

What do you even mean by "specific" here? Both concepts are well defined in mathematics.


If two variables are in direct proportion, then they are directly correlated. If they are in perfect correlation, then their proportional relationship is also perfect. If the correlation is not perfect, then the direct proportion between the two would yield some error. However, an equation denoting direct proportion (not inverse proportion, or direct square proportion etc.) would still be drawn. None of this is related to your flawed idea that when you say that education and intelligence are directly proportional, it implies that one causes the other.That's just wrong.


It does.

Directly correlated <-> Direct proportionality
Perfectly directly correlated <-> Perfect direct proportionality

It's as simple as that. In fact, it may even be the case that the two variables are in perfect direct proportion, but there is no causality between them. For example, let us say that we found the number of ice cream sales and the number of suicides during different months in a town to be as follows (2,1), (3,4), (4,7). There is a perfect correlation here (r=1), and the proportion is direct and perfect (an increase of 1 sale leads to an increase of 3 suicides). So, does this mean that increasing ice cream sales would lead to more suicides? Do you get what I'm saying?

I mean specific. As in, there is a wide range and ultimately infinite variability in the degree of a direct correlation, while there is one specific value that denotes a directly proportional relationship.


Yes, I understand you perfectly. What causality has to do with the difference between direct proportion and direct correlation I do not know. Either you're confused or you're deliberately trying to confuse the situation.

One more time: I said that intelligence and education are not directly proportional. This means that for every unit increase in education there is not necessarily the same unit increase in intelligence. Do you disagree with this statement/conclusion?

I see. You mean that if r=1, then there is direct proportionality. Otherwise, the relationship between the two variables cannot be in direct proportion. This is still wrong.


You asked:


I answered:


To which you replied:


My answer was and still is, yes, the two are directly proportional. This means that for "every unit increase in education there is some constant unit of increase in intelligence." That is what current research points out. There is direct proportionality between them, with some error. Were they found to be in perfect direct correlation/proportion in these studies? No, no experimental variables ever are. However, if you are asking if I claim that getting a graduate degree would make one smarter, no, I never claimed that. I actually stated that it was more likely the other way around, intelligent people tend to pursue higher degrees.

Either way, it still implies that one can statistically predict how intelligent a person is based on his highest educational attainment. Do you disagree?

It isn't wrong according to the definition I've found, and you have yet to provide a definition for "directly proportional." So, if you have a different definition you'd like to use, now would be a good time to cite it.


It would also mean that every unit increase in intelligence corresponds with a unit increase in education. And the research doesn't show this, and I don't believe you really believe this--every year of school adds the same amount to intelligence as the previous year? Really?


One can statistically predict a higher intelligence level when selecting from a pool of Ph.D. holders than a pool of BAs, sure. Using this to try to predict the intelligence of a particular individual based purely on a knowledge of their educational attainment represents a gross misuse of statistics...which I'm sure you know.

No, it's not. The definition you found is correct. When two variables are directly correlated, an equation can be developed to express this correlation as a direct proportional relationship between the two variables. The procedure is called linear regression, and is described in the following link.

stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/linreg.htm

Before attempting to fit a linear model to observed data, a modeler should first determine whether or not there is a relationship between the variables of interest. This does not necessarily imply that one variable causes the other (for example, higher SAT scores do not cause higher college grades), but that there is some significant association between the two variables.


Yes it does, that's what correlation implies. This is how it works, you use the data to find the correlation coefficient. You check if the coefficient is significant and if its square is high enough to proceed to modeling. The model yields a linear equation, where one variable is made to be directly proportional with the other variable (y=mx + b, where m and b are the constants derived from the regression analysis). If this model is strong enough, it would be possible to reasonably determine how many units of education is increased by every unit of intelligence found in the sample.


That's precisely what I am talking about.


No, it's not. Doctors use this logic all the time when constructing screening tools. Your risk to acquire certain diseases can be predicted accurately by different factors (age, gender, etc.). In developing a screening instrument to say, replace/supplement an invasive procedure (such as a biopsy), what we do is we try to find which factors are the best predictors (variables from blood chem tests, urinalysis, etc.), and then use regression statistics to assign scores to them. In this analysis, we are actually able to estimate how large each point of a certain variable adds to your risk of getting the disease.

Do employers use this same logic in determining how smart applicants are? Why should they when they have an HR department equipped with instruments that can measure IQ? An exact measurement is always better than a predicted one. Still, the difference between the salaries of undergraduates and graduates in the United States implies much about how employers value higher degrees.

bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm

So, the definition I found of directly proportional is correct (variables rise and fall together with a constant ratio), but somehow my interpretation of this definition as meaning that a specific correlation (witha positive coefficient of 1) is wrong?

I notice you switched back to "direct correlation" again--are you doing that on purpose, or are you legitimately confused?

oh there was soda, all right, and it was all over the upholstery. it's probably because you still have trouble operating your fat baby fingers, Socrates.