What non political controversial position do you hold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extra time on testing is BS. It's a way for people to try to game the system and the reality is their kids just can't cut it. The "learning disability" whether true or not is simply the explanation of why the kid can't cut it. There is no extra time in life, if you have a competitive job you need to produce on a deadline every day. The extra time on testing is just delaying the inevitable day of reckoning and trying to obfuscate the reality that will eventually become clear regardless.

My controversial opinion is that being able to do well quickly on a standardized test does not show any true smarts, is a fairly useless skill, and is a silly way to assess intelligence. I have been in tech for over twenty years. I have worked with literal geniuses who are now multimillionaires hundreds of times over who did terribly on standardized testing in high school because of the artificial time constraints. I think people who like the time limits on standardized testing tend to be the paper pushers who like useless data points, not the actual smart people who make things.

And I know people who did well on standardized tests who are bright, innovative people. You sound bitter with this post. Sour grapes?

Standardized tests are unfair and not a good way to assess intelligence. Therefore, you don't make broad generalizations about people's usefulness based on them either way.

Opinion: People who immediately jump to “you sound bitter” or “sour grapes” on DCUM tend not to be very bright no matter what the subject matter. It’s a defensive reaction they use because they can’t understand or engage with the actual content of the post they are upset by.

This is also true of the people who respond with “you are just jealous” when they read something they don’t like. That response betrays a lack of intelligence. They can’t respond with any substance so they jump to “you are just jealous” to cover their lack of ability to engage in a substantive discussion.

This is the first time I have ever responded on DCUM with "sour grapes", because, in this case, the person sounds bitter. As though they didn't do well on standardized tests and are angry about it. I go on to say that I agree that standardized tests are unfair.

A bright person would criticize the tests themselves (there is plenty to say on this score) rather than give a blanket INSULT to the people who do well on them. The former would be an intelligent opinion. The latter is sour grapes.

Sorry you are not bright enough to see this and were unable to engage fully with my response.

And I agree completely about the "you are just jealous".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extra time on testing is BS. It's a way for people to try to game the system and the reality is their kids just can't cut it. The "learning disability" whether true or not is simply the explanation of why the kid can't cut it. There is no extra time in life, if you have a competitive job you need to produce on a deadline every day. The extra time on testing is just delaying the inevitable day of reckoning and trying to obfuscate the reality that will eventually become clear regardless.

My controversial opinion is that being able to do well quickly on a standardized test does not show any true smarts, is a fairly useless skill, and is a silly way to assess intelligence. I have been in tech for over twenty years. I have worked with literal geniuses who are now multimillionaires hundreds of times over who did terribly on standardized testing in high school because of the artificial time constraints. I think people who like the time limits on standardized testing tend to be the paper pushers who like useless data points, not the actual smart people who make things.

And I know people who did well on standardized tests who are bright, innovative people. You sound bitter with this post. Sour grapes?

Standardized tests are unfair and not a good way to assess intelligence. Therefore, you don't make broad generalizations about people's usefulness based on them either way.

Opinion: People who immediately jump to “you sound bitter” or “sour grapes” on DCUM tend not to be very bright no matter what the subject matter. It’s a defensive reaction they use because they can’t understand or engage with the actual content of the post they are upset by.

This is also true of the people who respond with “you are just jealous” when they read something they don’t like. That response betrays a lack of intelligence. They can’t respond with any substance so they jump to “you are just jealous” to cover their lack of ability to engage in a substantive discussion.

NP. Throwing out an insult instead of wanting to engage has nothing to do with intelligence. Lots of time intelligent people don't engage because it's not worth engaging somebody who isn't receptive. I try not to throw out insults but I know people do it not because they're stupid but just because they want to be clever and, well, insult somebody.

Also, I think you are making a much bigger deal out of intelligence than need be. My mom thought being intelligent was basically the most important thing to be, and so being stupid was the ultimate insult. But my mom is also not a very great person to be around and is pretty unhappy with life. No thanks, I'd rather be stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:J.K Rowling wasn't being transphobic. She's a sexual assault victim, she is traumatized.

Agreed. I found her cancellation repugnant.

I understand the feelings of fear that cause the transgender community to push their "you're either with us or against us" agenda, but I don't agree with it. You can feel no hatred against transgendered people and still disagree with some of their assertions.

I totally agree with this. It is absurd and evil that Lia Thomas’s teammates can’t make any negative comments about their experiences with her on their team without getting a deluge of violent rape threats from transactivists, facing expulsion from UPenn, and permanent career harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Royal Family is a huge asset to the UK.

I think American's who love the Royal Family, and are heavily invested in Royal family news have mental issues. Get a life.

I feel the same way with the US version, which is celebrity obsession. If a person has an incredible talent I get appreciating the talent (musician, writer etc.) but obsession over the minutiae of their personal life is odd to me.

And, I really don’t get the obsession with the celebrities who offer little talent beyond marketing their daily lives, like the Kardashians.
And, I really, really think it gross to pawn children to the American entertainment spotlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extra time on testing is BS. It's a way for people to try to game the system and the reality is their kids just can't cut it. The "learning disability" whether true or not is simply the explanation of why the kid can't cut it. There is no extra time in life, if you have a competitive job you need to produce on a deadline every day. The extra time on testing is just delaying the inevitable day of reckoning and trying to obfuscate the reality that will eventually become clear regardless.

My controversial opinion is that being able to do well quickly on a standardized test does not show any true smarts, is a fairly useless skill, and is a silly way to assess intelligence. I have been in tech for over twenty years. I have worked with literal geniuses who are now multimillionaires hundreds of times over who did terribly on standardized testing in high school because of the artificial time constraints. I think people who like the time limits on standardized testing tend to be the paper pushers who like useless data points, not the actual smart people who make things.

And I know people who did well on standardized tests who are bright, innovative people. You sound bitter with this post. Sour grapes?

Standardized tests are unfair and not a good way to assess intelligence. Therefore, you don't make broad generalizations about people's usefulness based on them either way.

Opinion: People who immediately jump to “you sound bitter” or “sour grapes” on DCUM tend not to be very bright no matter what the subject matter. It’s a defensive reaction they use because they can’t understand or engage with the actual content of the post they are upset by.

This is also true of the people who respond with “you are just jealous” when they read something they don’t like. That response betrays a lack of intelligence. They can’t respond with any substance so they jump to “you are just jealous” to cover their lack of ability to engage in a substantive discussion.

NP. Throwing out an insult instead of wanting to engage has nothing to do with intelligence. Lots of time intelligent people don't engage because it's not worth engaging somebody who isn't receptive. I try not to throw out insults but I know people do it not because they're stupid but just because they want to be clever and, well, insult somebody.

Also, I think you are making a much bigger deal out of intelligence than need be. My mom thought being intelligent was basically the most important thing to be, and so being stupid was the ultimate insult. But my mom is also not a very great person to be around and is pretty unhappy with life. No thanks, I'd rather be stupid.

If you don’t jump to “sour grapes,” “you sound bitter,” or “you are just jealous” in your responses, then that post isn’t about you. Also, people who jump to those immediately also tend to be very unhappy themselves — that is why that is their first response when encountering a thought they don’t like. Bitterness and jealousy are emotions they know well, so they go there quickly as a defensive mechanism.

All three phrases are identifying phrases for people who are unhappy themselves and usually not bright enough to engage in substantive discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extra time on testing is BS. It's a way for people to try to game the system and the reality is their kids just can't cut it. The "learning disability" whether true or not is simply the explanation of why the kid can't cut it. There is no extra time in life, if you have a competitive job you need to produce on a deadline every day. The extra time on testing is just delaying the inevitable day of reckoning and trying to obfuscate the reality that will eventually become clear regardless.

My controversial opinion is that being able to do well quickly on a standardized test does not show any true smarts, is a fairly useless skill, and is a silly way to assess intelligence. I have been in tech for over twenty years. I have worked with literal geniuses who are now multimillionaires hundreds of times over who did terribly on standardized testing in high school because of the artificial time constraints. I think people who like the time limits on standardized testing tend to be the paper pushers who like useless data points, not the actual smart people who make things.

And I know people who did well on standardized tests who are bright, innovative people. You sound bitter with this post. Sour grapes?

Standardized tests are unfair and not a good way to assess intelligence. Therefore, you don't make broad generalizations about people's usefulness based on them either way.

Opinion: People who immediately jump to “you sound bitter” or “sour grapes” on DCUM tend not to be very bright no matter what the subject matter. It’s a defensive reaction they use because they can’t understand or engage with the actual content of the post they are upset by.

This is also true of the people who respond with “you are just jealous” when they read something they don’t like. That response betrays a lack of intelligence. They can’t respond with any substance so they jump to “you are just jealous” to cover their lack of ability to engage in a substantive discussion.

NP. Throwing out an insult instead of wanting to engage has nothing to do with intelligence. Lots of time intelligent people don't engage because it's not worth engaging somebody who isn't receptive. I try not to throw out insults but I know people do it not because they're stupid but just because they want to be clever and, well, insult somebody.

Also, I think you are making a much bigger deal out of intelligence than need be. My mom thought being intelligent was basically the most important thing to be, and so being stupid was the ultimate insult. But my mom is also not a very great person to be around and is pretty unhappy with life. No thanks, I'd rather be stupid.

If you don’t jump to “sour grapes,” “you sound bitter,” or “you are just jealous” in your responses, then that post isn’t about you. Also, people who jump to those immediately also tend to be very unhappy themselves — that is why that is their first response when encountering a thought they don’t like. Bitterness and jealousy are emotions they know well, so they go there quickly as a defensive mechanism.

All three phrases are identifying phrases for people who are unhappy themselves and usually not bright enough to engage in substantive discussion.

If that is all they say in their post, I might agree, but in some cases people do sound jealous or bitter and a poster is pointing out the obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Royal Family is a huge asset to the UK.

I think American's who love the Royal Family, and are heavily invested in Royal family news have mental issues. Get a life.

I feel the same way with the US version, which is celebrity obsession. If a person has an incredible talent I get appreciating the talent (musician, writer etc.) but obsession over the minutiae of their personal life is odd to me.

And, I really don’t get the obsession with the celebrities who offer little talent beyond marketing their daily lives, like the Kardashians.
And, I really, really think it gross to pawn children to the American entertainment spotlight.

Agreed. I don't understand obsession with any type of celebrity. It is immature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extra time on testing is BS. It's a way for people to try to game the system and the reality is their kids just can't cut it. The "learning disability" whether true or not is simply the explanation of why the kid can't cut it. There is no extra time in life, if you have a competitive job you need to produce on a deadline every day. The extra time on testing is just delaying the inevitable day of reckoning and trying to obfuscate the reality that will eventually become clear regardless.

My controversial opinion is that being able to do well quickly on a standardized test does not show any true smarts, is a fairly useless skill, and is a silly way to assess intelligence. I have been in tech for over twenty years. I have worked with literal geniuses who are now multimillionaires hundreds of times over who did terribly on standardized testing in high school because of the artificial time constraints. I think people who like the time limits on standardized testing tend to be the paper pushers who like useless data points, not the actual smart people who make things.

And I know people who did well on standardized tests who are bright, innovative people. You sound bitter with this post. Sour grapes?

Standardized tests are unfair and not a good way to assess intelligence. Therefore, you don't make broad generalizations about people's usefulness based on them either way.

Opinion: People who immediately jump to “you sound bitter” or “sour grapes” on DCUM tend not to be very bright no matter what the subject matter. It’s a defensive reaction they use because they can’t understand or engage with the actual content of the post they are upset by.

This is also true of the people who respond with “you are just jealous” when they read something they don’t like. That response betrays a lack of intelligence. They can’t respond with any substance so they jump to “you are just jealous” to cover their lack of ability to engage in a substantive discussion.

NP. Throwing out an insult instead of wanting to engage has nothing to do with intelligence. Lots of time intelligent people don't engage because it's not worth engaging somebody who isn't receptive. I try not to throw out insults but I know people do it not because they're stupid but just because they want to be clever and, well, insult somebody.

Also, I think you are making a much bigger deal out of intelligence than need be. My mom thought being intelligent was basically the most important thing to be, and so being stupid was the ultimate insult. But my mom is also not a very great person to be around and is pretty unhappy with life. No thanks, I'd rather be stupid.

If you don’t jump to “sour grapes,” “you sound bitter,” or “you are just jealous” in your responses, then that post isn’t about you. Also, people who jump to those immediately also tend to be very unhappy themselves — that is why that is their first response when encountering a thought they don’t like. Bitterness and jealousy are emotions they know well, so they go there quickly as a defensive mechanism.

All three phrases are identifying phrases for people who are unhappy themselves and usually not bright enough to engage in substantive discussion.

If that is all they say in their post, I might agree, but in some cases people do sound jealous or bitter and a poster is pointing out the obvious.

Not really. You can rarely tell whether someone is truly jealous or bitter from a DCUM post. There isn’t enough context. And frankly, it’s nearly always used as a way to try to shut down conversation about a topic that person does not like.

Personally I usually read “you sound bitter/jealous” as “I’ve lost the argument and this conversation is now beyond my abilities.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extra time on testing is BS. It's a way for people to try to game the system and the reality is their kids just can't cut it. The "learning disability" whether true or not is simply the explanation of why the kid can't cut it. There is no extra time in life, if you have a competitive job you need to produce on a deadline every day. The extra time on testing is just delaying the inevitable day of reckoning and trying to obfuscate the reality that will eventually become clear regardless.

My controversial opinion is that being able to do well quickly on a standardized test does not show any true smarts, is a fairly useless skill, and is a silly way to assess intelligence. I have been in tech for over twenty years. I have worked with literal geniuses who are now multimillionaires hundreds of times over who did terribly on standardized testing in high school because of the artificial time constraints. I think people who like the time limits on standardized testing tend to be the paper pushers who like useless data points, not the actual smart people who make things.

And I know people who did well on standardized tests who are bright, innovative people. You sound bitter with this post. Sour grapes?

Standardized tests are unfair and not a good way to assess intelligence. Therefore, you don't make broad generalizations about people's usefulness based on them either way.

Opinion: People who immediately jump to “you sound bitter” or “sour grapes” on DCUM tend not to be very bright no matter what the subject matter. It’s a defensive reaction they use because they can’t understand or engage with the actual content of the post they are upset by.

This is also true of the people who respond with “you are just jealous” when they read something they don’t like. That response betrays a lack of intelligence. They can’t respond with any substance so they jump to “you are just jealous” to cover their lack of ability to engage in a substantive discussion.

NP. Throwing out an insult instead of wanting to engage has nothing to do with intelligence. Lots of time intelligent people don't engage because it's not worth engaging somebody who isn't receptive. I try not to throw out insults but I know people do it not because they're stupid but just because they want to be clever and, well, insult somebody.

Also, I think you are making a much bigger deal out of intelligence than need be. My mom thought being intelligent was basically the most important thing to be, and so being stupid was the ultimate insult. But my mom is also not a very great person to be around and is pretty unhappy with life. No thanks, I'd rather be stupid.

If you don’t jump to “sour grapes,” “you sound bitter,” or “you are just jealous” in your responses, then that post isn’t about you. Also, people who jump to those immediately also tend to be very unhappy themselves — that is why that is their first response when encountering a thought they don’t like. Bitterness and jealousy are emotions they know well, so they go there quickly as a defensive mechanism.

All three phrases are identifying phrases for people who are unhappy themselves and usually not bright enough to engage in substantive discussion.

I never said this post was about me, in fact I think I pointed out multiple times that it wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extra time on testing is BS. It's a way for people to try to game the system and the reality is their kids just can't cut it. The "learning disability" whether true or not is simply the explanation of why the kid can't cut it. There is no extra time in life, if you have a competitive job you need to produce on a deadline every day. The extra time on testing is just delaying the inevitable day of reckoning and trying to obfuscate the reality that will eventually become clear regardless.

My controversial opinion is that being able to do well quickly on a standardized test does not show any true smarts, is a fairly useless skill, and is a silly way to assess intelligence. I have been in tech for over twenty years. I have worked with literal geniuses who are now multimillionaires hundreds of times over who did terribly on standardized testing in high school because of the artificial time constraints. I think people who like the time limits on standardized testing tend to be the paper pushers who like useless data points, not the actual smart people who make things.

And I know people who did well on standardized tests who are bright, innovative people. You sound bitter with this post. Sour grapes?

Standardized tests are unfair and not a good way to assess intelligence. Therefore, you don't make broad generalizations about people's usefulness based on them either way.

Opinion: People who immediately jump to “you sound bitter” or “sour grapes” on DCUM tend not to be very bright no matter what the subject matter. It’s a defensive reaction they use because they can’t understand or engage with the actual content of the post they are upset by.

This is also true of the people who respond with “you are just jealous” when they read something they don’t like. That response betrays a lack of intelligence. They can’t respond with any substance so they jump to “you are just jealous” to cover their lack of ability to engage in a substantive discussion.

NP. Throwing out an insult instead of wanting to engage has nothing to do with intelligence. Lots of time intelligent people don't engage because it's not worth engaging somebody who isn't receptive. I try not to throw out insults but I know people do it not because they're stupid but just because they want to be clever and, well, insult somebody.

Also, I think you are making a much bigger deal out of intelligence than need be. My mom thought being intelligent was basically the most important thing to be, and so being stupid was the ultimate insult. But my mom is also not a very great person to be around and is pretty unhappy with life. No thanks, I'd rather be stupid.

If you don’t jump to “sour grapes,” “you sound bitter,” or “you are just jealous” in your responses, then that post isn’t about you. Also, people who jump to those immediately also tend to be very unhappy themselves — that is why that is their first response when encountering a thought they don’t like. Bitterness and jealousy are emotions they know well, so they go there quickly as a defensive mechanism.

All three phrases are identifying phrases for people who are unhappy themselves and usually not bright enough to engage in substantive discussion.

If that is all they say in their post, I might agree, but in some cases people do sound jealous or bitter and a poster is pointing out the obvious.

Not really. You can rarely tell whether someone is truly jealous or bitter from a DCUM post. There isn’t enough context. And frankly, it’s nearly always used as a way to try to shut down conversation about a topic that person does not like.

Personally I usually read “you sound bitter/jealous” as “I’ve lost the argument and this conversation is now beyond my abilities.”

Some people provide plenty of details.

I agree with you that sometimes it is the case that these responses reflect an inability to really present an argument. But not always. You are starting to sound pretty miserable yourself with your inflexibility on this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think ADHD is caused by poor or neglectful parenting.

That isn't just controversial, it's so ignorant. I have ADHD. Damn, I wished I had been diagnosed in my youth and gotten proper treatment. My life is night/day with treatment.

I think adhd is a normal variation on behavior that helped propel society forward (someone had to be the dreamers and the doers!). But now schools want to medicate it instead of adapting the school environment to help kids succeed. (Not that medication is bad, but why should it be the first thing teachers and admins say needs to be done, instead of having special Ed classrooms adapted to adhd kids?)

But it doesn’t propel society forward anymore. Society now demands focus. Not just in classrooms but in almost jobs as well. I absolutely agree there is an overemphasis on sitting down and shutting up, and that many accommodations for movement are needed. But this is the world we live in.

For a person with ADHD, one overlooked aspect of IS intense focus.

To all the PP's points, the ability to sit down and shut up in early grades is not a clear indicator of intelligence or likelihood of future success, yet we treat those who can't as less capable academically in those formative years. Crushing kids' spirits by making them feel inadequate for being who they are benefits no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people, including on this board, claim that their children are SN, because they don't want to admit that their kid has only average intelligence. Average/below average is not a SN.

We have this problem at my school all the time. Parents think because their kid is slow at reading or math that they have a SN. That’s not how it works. Some kids are just slow at reading or math. That’s all. And that doesn’t qualify you for special services. Sorry.

A new DCUM low - putting down children with difficulty reading and writing for requesting help. OMFG. Go to hell

NP
There is literally nothing in that post that puts down children with difficulties in reading or math. Absolutely nothing derogatory was said.

You don’t think it derogatory to say dyslexic children are just slow not SN?!

That’s not what was said AT ALL.

You said many don’t want to say their kids are average intelligence so they say they are SN.

But a huge amount of studied show high/average IQ and dyslexia are treated in school as stupid. Same with ADHD.

So your saying it’s not derogatory to say these kids are “just slow”?

That poster wasn’t me. But it sounds like she was saying not every slow reader deserves a diagnosis. Sometimes a slow reader is just…a slow reader. Same with math.
My daughter (15) is awful at math. So we got her a tutor. I’m pretty sure if we went looking for a diagnosis we would find one. But she doesn’t need a label - she just needs help in math. Because she’s really not good at it.

+1. There’s a difference in kids who have special needs and kids who just aren’t good at math. Both kids may be great at other things. Upper middle class parents just need to label their “not good at math” kid. Maybe they just don’t take to math!

Most kids bad at math should just be labeled as “kids with teachers who cant teachers math”. Hence the need for a tutor.

No sorry. But very DCUM of you to blame am the teacher. A child can be slow at math, and not have a SN or a bad teacher. Some kids are just slower at math. That doesn’t make them bad people. But it’s not always something you can “fix.”

Seriously. Aren't any if you bad at math?
I was and am "bad at math"
I had great teachers and it still didn't come easily to me. I struggled up to and including calculus and then have never used much math again.
I don't have a learning disability.

There has actually been a good amount of research on the idea of being “bad at math” and the implications of labeling somebody as such, but I’m wondering how you would feel about labeling a kid in elementary school who is behind on reading as “bad at reading?” I think it has the feel of being some permanent state rather than just not having had enough good instruction and practice.

But that is correct. Some people simply have less aptitide for some subjects than others. No amount of "good instruction and practice" could make all people equal at reading or math or any other subject. The idea that you think all students could be equal with "enough good instruction" is downright laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extra time on testing is BS. It's a way for people to try to game the system and the reality is their kids just can't cut it. The "learning disability" whether true or not is simply the explanation of why the kid can't cut it. There is no extra time in life, if you have a competitive job you need to produce on a deadline every day. The extra time on testing is just delaying the inevitable day of reckoning and trying to obfuscate the reality that will eventually become clear regardless.

My controversial opinion is that being able to do well quickly on a standardized test does not show any true smarts, is a fairly useless skill, and is a silly way to assess intelligence. I have been in tech for over twenty years. I have worked with literal geniuses who are now multimillionaires hundreds of times over who did terribly on standardized testing in high school because of the artificial time constraints. I think people who like the time limits on standardized testing tend to be the paper pushers who like useless data points, not the actual smart people who make things.

And I know people who did well on standardized tests who are bright, innovative people. You sound bitter with this post. Sour grapes?

Standardized tests are unfair and not a good way to assess intelligence. Therefore, you don't make broad generalizations about people's usefulness based on them either way.

Opinion: People who immediately jump to “you sound bitter” or “sour grapes” on DCUM tend not to be very bright no matter what the subject matter. It’s a defensive reaction they use because they can’t understand or engage with the actual content of the post they are upset by.

This is also true of the people who respond with “you are just jealous” when they read something they don’t like. That response betrays a lack of intelligence. They can’t respond with any substance so they jump to “you are just jealous” to cover their lack of ability to engage in a substantive discussion.

NP. Throwing out an insult instead of wanting to engage has nothing to do with intelligence. Lots of time intelligent people don't engage because it's not worth engaging somebody who isn't receptive. I try not to throw out insults but I know people do it not because they're stupid but just because they want to be clever and, well, insult somebody.

Also, I think you are making a much bigger deal out of intelligence than need be. My mom thought being intelligent was basically the most important thing to be, and so being stupid was the ultimate insult. But my mom is also not a very great person to be around and is pretty unhappy with life. No thanks, I'd rather be stupid.

If you don’t jump to “sour grapes,” “you sound bitter,” or “you are just jealous” in your responses, then that post isn’t about you. Also, people who jump to those immediately also tend to be very unhappy themselves — that is why that is their first response when encountering a thought they don’t like. Bitterness and jealousy are emotions they know well, so they go there quickly as a defensive mechanism.

All three phrases are identifying phrases for people who are unhappy themselves and usually not bright enough to engage in substantive discussion.

If that is all they say in their post, I might agree, but in some cases people do sound jealous or bitter and a poster is pointing out the obvious.

Not really. You can rarely tell whether someone is truly jealous or bitter from a DCUM post. There isn’t enough context. And frankly, it’s nearly always used as a way to try to shut down conversation about a topic that person does not like.

Personally I usually read “you sound bitter/jealous” as “I’ve lost the argument and this conversation is now beyond my abilities.”

Some people provide plenty of details.

I agree with you that sometimes it is the case that these responses reflect an inability to really present an argument. But not always. You are starting to sound pretty miserable yourself with your inflexibility on this point.

That was really funny. Love the unintentional demonstration of the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people, including on this board, claim that their children are SN, because they don't want to admit that their kid has only average intelligence. Average/below average is not a SN.

We have this problem at my school all the time. Parents think because their kid is slow at reading or math that they have a SN. That’s not how it works. Some kids are just slow at reading or math. That’s all. And that doesn’t qualify you for special services. Sorry.

A new DCUM low - putting down children with difficulty reading and writing for requesting help. OMFG. Go to hell

NP
There is literally nothing in that post that puts down children with difficulties in reading or math. Absolutely nothing derogatory was said.

You don’t think it derogatory to say dyslexic children are just slow not SN?!

That’s not what was said AT ALL.

You said many don’t want to say their kids are average intelligence so they say they are SN.

But a huge amount of studied show high/average IQ and dyslexia are treated in school as stupid. Same with ADHD.

So your saying it’s not derogatory to say these kids are “just slow”?

That poster wasn’t me. But it sounds like she was saying not every slow reader deserves a diagnosis. Sometimes a slow reader is just…a slow reader. Same with math.
My daughter (15) is awful at math. So we got her a tutor. I’m pretty sure if we went looking for a diagnosis we would find one. But she doesn’t need a label - she just needs help in math. Because she’s really not good at it.

+1. There’s a difference in kids who have special needs and kids who just aren’t good at math. Both kids may be great at other things. Upper middle class parents just need to label their “not good at math” kid. Maybe they just don’t take to math!

Most kids bad at math should just be labeled as “kids with teachers who cant teachers math”. Hence the need for a tutor.

No sorry. But very DCUM of you to blame am the teacher. A child can be slow at math, and not have a SN or a bad teacher. Some kids are just slower at math. That doesn’t make them bad people. But it’s not always something you can “fix.”

Seriously. Aren't any if you bad at math?
I was and am "bad at math"
I had great teachers and it still didn't come easily to me. I struggled up to and including calculus and then have never used much math again.
I don't have a learning disability.

There has actually been a good amount of research on the idea of being “bad at math” and the implications of labeling somebody as such, but I’m wondering how you would feel about labeling a kid in elementary school who is behind on reading as “bad at reading?” I think it has the feel of being some permanent state rather than just not having had enough good instruction and practice.

But that is correct. Some people simply have less aptitide for some subjects than others. No amount of "good instruction and practice" could make all people equal at reading or math or any other subject. The idea that you think all students could be equal with "enough good instruction" is downright laughable.

Oh you are quite wrong about this. First of all, I never said that all students could be equal with good enough instruction. That would be laughable. Second, having less of an aptitude for a subject doesn't mean you are bad at it permanently. Although I suppose if not being able to get a B in math without struggling means you are bad at it, maybe you're right. But think about reading: we expect people to get up to a certain level in reading, and then that's basically it. Most adult books are written on an eighth grade level. Then we practice again and again and again at that level. So even if somebody struggled mightily to get up to an eighth grade reading level and somebody learned quickly, after they are both proficient in reading and can do it with ease, you wouldn't say one is bad at reading and the other not. However we stratify math in a way we don't stratify reading, and the vast majority of us don't get practice in our everyday life. So it seems different from reading, but it's not.

I won't get into this but here is what a cognitive scientist has to say about it. The article is really good!

https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/willingham.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people, including on this board, claim that their children are SN, because they don't want to admit that their kid has only average intelligence. Average/below average is not a SN.

We have this problem at my school all the time. Parents think because their kid is slow at reading or math that they have a SN. That’s not how it works. Some kids are just slow at reading or math. That’s all. And that doesn’t qualify you for special services. Sorry.

A new DCUM low - putting down children with difficulty reading and writing for requesting help. OMFG. Go to hell

NP
There is literally nothing in that post that puts down children with difficulties in reading or math. Absolutely nothing derogatory was said.

You don’t think it derogatory to say dyslexic children are just slow not SN?!

That’s not what was said AT ALL.

You said many don’t want to say their kids are average intelligence so they say they are SN.

But a huge amount of studied show high/average IQ and dyslexia are treated in school as stupid. Same with ADHD.

So your saying it’s not derogatory to say these kids are “just slow”?

That poster wasn’t me. But it sounds like she was saying not every slow reader deserves a diagnosis. Sometimes a slow reader is just…a slow reader. Same with math.
My daughter (15) is awful at math. So we got her a tutor. I’m pretty sure if we went looking for a diagnosis we would find one. But she doesn’t need a label - she just needs help in math. Because she’s really not good at it.

+1. There’s a difference in kids who have special needs and kids who just aren’t good at math. Both kids may be great at other things. Upper middle class parents just need to label their “not good at math” kid. Maybe they just don’t take to math!

Most kids bad at math should just be labeled as “kids with teachers who cant teachers math”. Hence the need for a tutor.

No sorry. But very DCUM of you to blame am the teacher. A child can be slow at math, and not have a SN or a bad teacher. Some kids are just slower at math. That doesn’t make them bad people. But it’s not always something you can “fix.”

Seriously. Aren't any if you bad at math?
I was and am "bad at math"
I had great teachers and it still didn't come easily to me. I struggled up to and including calculus and then have never used much math again.
I don't have a learning disability.

There has actually been a good amount of research on the idea of being “bad at math” and the implications of labeling somebody as such, but I’m wondering how you would feel about labeling a kid in elementary school who is behind on reading as “bad at reading?” I think it has the feel of being some permanent state rather than just not having had enough good instruction and practice.

But that is correct. Some people simply have less aptitide for some subjects than others. No amount of "good instruction and practice" could make all people equal at reading or math or any other subject. The idea that you think all students could be equal with "enough good instruction" is downright laughable.

Oh you are quite wrong about this. First of all, I never said that all students could be equal with good enough instruction. That would be laughable. Second, having less of an aptitude for a subject doesn't mean you are bad at it permanently. Although I suppose if not being able to get a B in math without struggling means you are bad at it, maybe you're right. But think about reading: we expect people to get up to a certain level in reading, and then that's basically it. Most adult books are written on an eighth grade level. Then we practice again and again and again at that level. So even if somebody struggled mightily to get up to an eighth grade reading level and somebody learned quickly, after they are both proficient in reading and can do it with ease, you wouldn't say one is bad at reading and the other not. However we stratify math in a way we don't stratify reading, and the vast majority of us don't get practice in our everyday life. So it seems different from reading, but it's not.

I won't get into this but here is what a cognitive scientist has to say about it. The article is really good!

https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/willingham.pdf

Well said.