| |
|
Sorry Phex, didn't mean in my post to call you ignorant, more that your comments seemed ignorant with regards to assumptions about people based upon stereotypes, dress and image.
Phex: Well, I said 'football-hooligan looking'. I doubt I've had the misfortune to meet any actual football hooligans during my life.
And how do football hooligans look?
Phex: There's a difference between dressing in a way associated with a particular behaviour and actually carrying that behaviour out- but it does indicate an affinity with the values of the 'core group' that began a particular trend (the Burberry cap, for instance, I believe was popularised by the film 'The Football Factory', which is about football hooliganism, but I doubt many people who wear burberry today are actual football hooligans).
They wear/wore Burberry caps? As you say, alot of non-football hooligans wear or used to wear Burberry caps - do they have an affinity to the core group that is/was hooliganism? Same for hoodies? Again these are your perceptions on how you perceive and hold store in what people wear.
Phex: The point of that post was that I do get a little ignorant sometimes- we've all on some level dismissed a person as stupid based on their clothing, tone of voice, appearence etc. and on relative scales we are often right
Even if we did and we are often right about our assumptions, the key word is 'often'.
Phex: That said, I've yet to meet anybody who chooses to dress in a 'football hooligan' or 'chav' style whose intelligence I've respected. Though I'm always willing to be proved wrong about this and all things.
More on intelligence further below, in the meantime, you identify social steroetypes that you seem to subscribe to. In effect your first judgement of anyone you see dressed how you perceive a 'chav' to look, is in your mind, not going to come up to your intellectual standard, based on encounters with them.
A number of issues arise that are probably better explained in a seperate thread, but how many hooligans have you actually met? None you said in your post. So how do you know what they are, or dress like - Because you've seen Green Street? Because the papers helpfully point them out?
I remember a whole host of threads on the perception of 'Chavs' & 'Townies', but they're not showing on my searches for some reason. Can anyone point them out?
Phex: Me neither, although we both have massive ammounts of information at our disposal which Newton et al. don't have. Newton probably wouldn't be able to grasp Quantum Mechanics or String Theory, Bentham wouldn't understand Postmodernism. However, in terms of 'processing power', nobody on this board and few people in the world can equal those guys
Exactly. It's how you define 'smartness'. Do you hold store in 'knowledge' or retention of facts as an identifier to intellectual ability? Bentham probably could get his head around postmodernism given the chance to familiarise himself with the social historical factors from which it occurred. Ancient Egyptians were reputed to have a knowledge of the blood circulatory system that would rival a doctor of today. This is about the knowledge we have not how it's processed.
The point is that what we perceive as intellect is based around empirical measurements such as the various IQ tests. Agreed, these tests do correlate to a certain kind of indicator (that a child with a high IQ may do well at school, for example) but are only really measuring one aspect of overall ability/intellect - how can IQ tests measure ambition, willpower, creativity, social interaction, and the like?
Phex: However, due to the Flynn effect, people have higher IQs with each successive generation. Consequentially, the goalposts for IQ measurement keep being changed.
The problem with the Flynn effect is that the studies only go over a number of decades, not centuries. The other problem, recognised by Flynn himself, was that it was highly unlikely that people were outpacing evolution and every generation was/is growing in mental capacity every year and could be down to societal factors. Another diffculty is that tests used in the 80s are different to those used today, and so on, so are difficult to correlate effectively.
There's been plenty of talk about IQ on barbelith - here for example
Sorry. All thread rot. |
|
|
