reliv3

This is a good point to bring up, but this correlation is still being debated: the causal connection between the IQ test and the correlation is unclear, and there is debate on whether the correlation is being constructed through bad data or analysis techniques. Because of this, no one can confidently claim whether IQ tests predicts good job performance, employment, etc.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4557354/

[Skip to the conclusion at the end to get the tldr, since this is a long scientific publication]

Good point. Ultimately this leads me to question the existence of some fixed quality of intelligence. People are growing, adapting, and learning through their lives, so a fixed number defining general intelligence is likely a moot concept.

On top of the prior point lies another major issue with any sort of "general intelligence" test: defining "general intelligence". Intelligence comes in many forms: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, visual-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic, existential intelligence, and more. The IQ test does not test all forms of intelligence.

This being said, It is likely impossible to test all forms of intelligence in one test; and even if we could create this test, how would this test handle differently abled people. For example, a completely blind person would fail the visual intelligence portion every time (for obvious reasons).

It depends on the state. Oklahoma is ranked 49 of 50 for its k-12 public education system, and we are seeing evidence of this here.

I am a physics teacher in a New Jersey high school (and not even a high ranked school) and I would say that a majority of the teachers are true professionals with masters degrees in education. New Jersey is ranked 2 of 50 though (just behind Massachusetts). We also see teachers salaries around and over $100,000 in New Jersey so it entices more people to become teachers and treat the job very seriously.

You are a waste of time

I used the higher level 3-dimensional definition of work, and you told my I was wrong and provided my the high school level 1-dimensional definition of work. Then you hang it over my head and try to correct me as if my definition is incorrect.

The fact is your knowledge of physics is so low that you didn't even know this nuance; and you are not arguing in good faith because this is something you easily could have looked up and realized if all you cared about wasn't "being right".

It's very apparent that you are not a good faith discusser and your knowledge of physics is very low.

I'm checking out of this discussion

Not AI. I'm in academia, so I write academically.

I specify "physics work" to mean physic's definition of work (dot product between Force and Displacement).

And to not connect the importance between the electric and magnetic field as it pertains to the the electrostatic force and magnetic force reveals your basic understanding of the physics. Hence, why your prior comment was so problematic...

Oh boy, this is very incorrect, because it sounds like you are attempting to explain magnetism with electrostatic forces. Here is a basic model which separates the difference between the two:

1. Electrostatic forces are caused by the electric field. Something produces an electric field simply by having an unbalanced charge. Positive attracts negative, negative repels negative, positive repels positive.

2. Magnetic forces are caused by the magnetic field. Something produces a magnetic field by having an unbalanced charge AND is moving.

This is why when trying to explain how solid magnets work, we focus on the electrons because electrons are charged particles that are always moving. So they produce both an electric field (being charged) and a magnetic field (being a moving charged system).

Rhaedas is sorta correct. Any solid system has the capability of being a magnet, but this takes an incredible amount of physics work where iron is special. Iron's electrons are able to easily maintain a synchronous orbit with each other which results in magnetic forces being observable at a macroscopic scale (seeing iron magnets pull on each other). In most other materials, the electrons orbits are chaotic, so even though magnetic fields are still being produced by their electrons, the lack of order results in no magnetic force being observable on the macroscopic scale; but if you place this non-iron material within a very strong magnetic field, you may be able to align their electrons orbits so that it becomes magnetic on the macroscopic scale (like iron).

The correct method is to actually articulate the irrelevancy; but that takes real work... Either that or perhaps the teacher doesn't understand what the irrelevancy is, so instead, they resort to just repeating the same thing: not internalizing that perhaps the math isn't as simple as they think.

Restating your prior point in a different way doesn't make it any more or less correct. The point is these two things seem to be independent from each other, which, if true, would already disprove the modified claim you are presenting.

The issue is, there exist plenty of people who are bad at both, good at both, and bad at one and good at the other. This pattern doesn't support a strong connection between being class conscious and being socially conscious.

Eh, not necessarily. Class consciousness is important, but thinking that it completely overlaps with social consciousness not true. People compartmentalize things.

For example male black homophobes are common in America; Which is ironic because one would think that a black male would understand how it feels being a marginalized caste. Nevertheless, they do not transfer there own experience of racism with their own actions against homosexuals.

So my point is, being class conscious does not guarantee someone to become social conscious as well.

Open desmos. Graph y = x^2. Then graph y = (x)^2. Recognize that both graphs are identical. Realize the flaw in your argument.