> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, I wrote:
> > > Stupid:
> > > 1. Unintelligent, slow-witted, foolish.
>
> On 10 Nov 96 at 17:08, zaimoni@ksu.edu wrote:
> > I find the definition (above) woefully inadequate
>
> Nonetheless, that is the definition from the Concise Oxford.
I see I'm going to burn some time explaining connotations as opposed to
denotations. The above accurately defines the denotation, but is
woefully inadequate for connotation. And I'm leery of using words
without knowing their connotations.
> > 1) I would emphazise "slow-witted", as in "finds concepts useful for
> > daily life utterly incomprehensible."
>
> I find the 'useful for daily life' clause to be falsely limiting and
> 'utterly incomprehensible' an overstatement. I would prefer 'takes
> a relatively long time to comprehend concepts'.
I have to disagree. *No-one* understands unfamilar concepts on the first
pass [except computers]! The domain for evaluation, in order to have any
heuristic validity, *must* be one which has decent immersion exposure.
====
I'm going to assume that the only thing an accurate IQ measurement
measures is thinking speed, for the next statement:
"utterly incomprehensible", in terms of time, would be "without any
measurable learning disability, under explicit instruction for both cases:
takes years to understand what a typical IQ 80 person needs hours to
understand". Note that said trait can apply to someone whose "speed of
thought measurement" is faster [say, IQ 100 or IQ 110].
The above is worthless without the domain restriction 'useful for daily
life'. If it isn't a job skill or something used frequently, it doesn't
count.
[CLIP]
> Yet when I first used the term 'stupid' you objected to it and
> offerred 'slow processing' as an alternative. Why, if they both mean
> the same thing?
Because 'stupid' can apply to someone who thinks quickly. And usually
does, in practice.