Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."



  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?





  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Kingmaker Rush . . . | Main | Why I Sometimes Hate Science. »

Comments

Icepick

(Of course, always keep in mind that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.)

Oh please! Like the economists DO know what they're talking about!

Spud

So I'm quite happy to stand behind my statement that liberals consider protecting the right to an abortion from any regulation or limitation as a sacrament.

If liberals don't hate our country, why is Obama's foreign policy team running around the world apologizing for everything we've done, and seeking to kow-tow to foreign dictators and tyrants?

Pat

Thanks Pat for proving my point of view that conservatives see liberals as anti God and country, and that so many conservatives see liberals as enemies.

Spud

Well, Spud, all I can tell you is that I've seen PLENTY of self-important liberals who look down on me simply because I hold conservative viewpoints on many issues. Pat

Yes, but they are not telling you that you are anti-God and anti-country, therein lies the difference. I'll agree when it comes to jerks, being left or right, doesn't matter.

wj

Amba, I am so glad that comment about IQ was a response to someone other than me! Because I have no use for generalized definitions of intelligence -- and none at all for IQ.

In fact, my experience indicates that IQ fails even on its own terms. According to the theory behind it, IQ should be unchanging over a lifetime. And, while one IQ test of an individual may differ slightly from another (a statistical variation in measurement thing), the variation should be within a few points (I seem to recall 5 either way) of the "actual" IQ.

But I grew up in a school district that was big on IQ tests, so I had one every year or two from 1st grade thru high school. And my scores? Not only a spread of 40 points (vs. 5), but every score higher than the one before -- which is like no random statistical scatter that I have ever seen. Between the two, a pretty solid indication that, whatever IQ tests are measuring, it ain't what the people doing it claim.

amba

every score higher than the one before Your own personal Flynn Effect!

Actually, doesn't sound mysterious to me -- sounds like you were learning how to ace IQ tests!

Icepick

But Rush Limbaugh will not help the cause, because he's dishonest with his assessment of liberals, which is, liberals hate God and country.

What about Joe Biden? He says it's patriotic to pay taxes. It stands to reason that it is UNpatriotic to NOT pay taxes.

So, the Dems now have an administration which has nominated several tax cheats to high office, including a former Senate Majority leader. Now we find out that the man newly in charge of vetting candidates has problems in his own family with permitting and fees.

Democrats have NOT had a problem with all of these tax cheats. In fact we have been told that many of them are the only people for the job.

So, according to Democrats not paying taxes is unpatriotic, and they believe in not paying taxes. Therefore Democrats are unpatriotic BY THEIR OWN CLAIMS!

So quit bringing up Limbaugh. You guys just hate America, and you happily admit it.

Icepick

WJ, please read the Gene Expression link to 'g'.

As for your test scores, most likely the people administering the tests weren't doing a good job.

Incidentally, your claim that your anecdotal experience trumps all other evidence is a good sign of yopur own refusal to accept scientific results. But then you do seem to have Republican sympathies and we all know that they hate science.

Spud

You guys just hate America, and you happily admit it.

Icepick

I hope your joking, if not, you proved my point as to why one can not have an honest debate with far right conservatives. Your stated view above is dishonest to the core.

Donna B.

wj, my IQ stayed nearly the same from 10th grade to my early 50s. It has now dropped about 25 points (and I do miss them) because of a brain tumor and subsequent radiation treatment.

At least that's what I'm blaming the drop on. I'm also blaming the tumor and radiation for an increasing lack of concentration/shortened attention span.

HBD makes sense, and it makes sense of so many other things. I'm currently reading the "10,000 Year Explosion" and find it very interesting. (Ten years ago I'd have read it one sitting, not so today - it will probably take another week to finish it.)

amba

Donna, if you've dropped 25 points I'd be extremely intimidated to know where you started.

wj

Amba, partly learning how to ace tests (not just IQ tests), of course. But even so, it's a pretty darn extreme display. (And, by declaring that results will only vary randomly about a mean, the theory clearly declares that the tests are such that "learning how to do well on the tests" is not a significant factor.) And Ice may be correct that the administration of the tests was less than perfect . . . although my results were not typical of those of my peers, else there would have been a lot different reaction in the school district! So bad administration seems unlikely to be a major factor.

Ice, sorry, but this scientist (rocket scientist, actually -- not that that expression means as much as its popular use would suggest) has a somewhat different view of the meaning of results. Yes, ancedotes are not a good way to prove a theory is correct. However, when a theory says that something cannot happen, and an anecdote demonstrates that it did happen, that calls the theory into question quite successfully. Monotonic-increasing results simply cannot be reconciled with a theory which requires only random variation. And while an occasional result several standard deviations from the expected value is entirely possible, having the majority of the results over two standard deviations from the mean is likewise a conflict.

Icepick

Your stated view above is dishonest to the core.

No it isn't. It starts with a premise of the number two man in your party, and how your party actually relates to that premise. It's your own guys you should be calling dishonest, not me.

Icepick

However, when a theory says that something cannot happen, and an anecdote demonstrates that it did happen, that calls the theory into question quite successfully.

Uh, except that all such arguments about 'g' and the like are probablistic in nature. Thuis your entire line of reasoning is meaningless in this context.

Spud

No it isn't. It starts with a premise of the number two man in your party, and how your party actually relates to that premise. It's your own guys you should be calling dishonest, not me.
Icepick

Ok Icepick, show me where democrats and liberals, accuse conservatives and republicans, of being anti-God and anti-county, as opposed to the other way around?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design

Ecosystem


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004