• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Swearing Is Actually a Sign of More Intelligence - Not Less - Say Scientists

thelastman said:
HA! Im pretty sure lower socioeconomic people do put their kids in front of a television more than those of higher status. Maybe there isnt anything intelligent on there.

Apparently television background noise reduces the quality and quantity of parent-child interaction.
Click to expand...
Sadly, in many more and also less affluent families, there is little quality or quantity of parent-child interaction. "Entertainment" can never be a substitute for that. But however poor a substitute, TV can expose kids to variety in their language.

If you work with the poor, you will learn that even the very poor have TVs. (And smartphones, etc.)



www.movieguide.org

Study: Poverty and High Rates of TV Viewing Are Linked

A study conducted by the General Social Surveys of NORAC at the University of Chicago found that 34.1 percent of American families making less than $9,000
www.movieguide.org www.movieguide.org
 
Spirit of The Millennium said:
Television is passive consumption, but you don't learn to talk that way.

Unless you have a parent or older sibling watching with you. Then at least you can ask the meaning of words you don't know. This is probably a socioeconomic class thing: parents who are tired or emotionally beaten up from having a shit job, are more likely to turn on TV or line up some episodes, and just leave the kid to it.

Mayoclinic recommends no screen time at all before 18 months, and just 1 hour for kids 2 to 5. That leaves a HEAP of time when the child can and should be doing something interactive ("unstructured play") with parents, friends or siblings.
Click to expand...
Yes, "could" and "should."

You might be surprised by how many people new to this country teach themselves English by watching TV. This requires the desire to learn, of course.
 
nota bene said:
Yes, "could" and "should."

You might be surprised by how many people new to this country teach themselves English by watching TV. This requires the desire to learn, of course.
Click to expand...

OK. They might even learn to read a bit.

One of my earliest memories was me driving my parents mad by reading out every street sign and shop name I could see. I guess I'd been taught phonics at home (but whole word recognition at school) so I could read out names I'd never seen before. It's good to have both skills I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMR
nota bene said:
Sadly, in many more and also less affluent families, there is little quality or quantity of parent-child interaction. "Entertainment" can never be a substitute for that. But however poor a substitute, TV can expose kids to variety in their language.

If you work with the poor, you will learn that even the very poor have TVs. (And smartphones, etc.)



www.movieguide.org

Study: Poverty and High Rates of TV Viewing Are Linked

A study conducted by the General Social Surveys of NORAC at the University of Chicago found that 34.1 percent of American families making less than $9,000
www.movieguide.org www.movieguide.org
Click to expand...


I found the article from the picture you posted. The link goes to some nonsense that was written by a moron.

But yeah - the Naimil Shah thing reminded me of some propaganda I wrote on this topic many years ago. It was titled 'Are Intellectuals Worthless' and I quoted Hitler -

The reason for this is that the deprivations which the unemployed worker has to endure must be compensated for psychologically by a persistent mental mirage in which he imagines himself eating heartily once again. And this dream develops into such a longing that it turns into a morbid impulse to cast off all self-restraint when work and wages turn up again. Therefore the moment work is found anew he forgets to regulate the expenditure of his earnings but spends them to the full without thinking of to-morrow. This leads to confusion in the little weekly housekeeping budget, because the expenditure is not rationally planned. When the phenomenon which I have mentioned first happens, the earnings will last perhaps for five days instead of seven; on subsequent occasions they will last only for three days; as the habit recurs, the earnings will last scarcely for a day; and finally they will disappear in one night of feasting.

Often there are wife and children at home. And in many cases it happens that these become infected by such a way of living, especially if the husband is good to them and wants to do the best he can for them and loves them in his own way and according to his own lights. Then the week’s earnings are spent in common at home within two or three days. The family eat and drink together as long as the money lasts and at the end of the week they hunger together.

Housing conditions were very bad at that time. The Vienna manual labourers lived in surroundings of appalling misery. I shudder even to-day when I think of the woeful dens in which people dwelt, the night shelters and the slums, and all the tenebrous spectacles of ordure, loathsome filth and wickedness.

What will happen one day when hordes of emancipated slaves come forth from these dens of misery to swoop down on their unsuspecting fellow men? For this other world does not think about such a possibility. They have allowed these things to go on without caring and even without suspecting – in their total lack of instinctive understanding – that sooner or later destiny will take its vengeance unless it will have been appeased in time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hitler/Mein Kampf

I think that Hitler was more articulate than Shah. I think he does a better job of making the point as well.

Hey - have you ever read The People of the Abyss by Jack London?

edit - There is a chapter in The Iron Heel titled 'The People of the Abyss' too you know.

edit - I do not own a television. And I do not pay for any streaming services. I got youtube though. I watch a bit of that.

edit - Im getting off topic hey. Sorry OP.
 
Last edited:
Spirit of The Millennium said:
OK. They might even learn to read a bit.

One of my earliest memories was me driving my parents mad by reading out every street sign and shop name I could see. I guess I'd been taught phonics at home (but whole word recognition at school) so I could read out names I'd never seen before. It's good to have both skills I think.
Click to expand...
"Sesame Street" made learning fun for my kids and for me too.





 
Cardinal said:
Have a nice day, assholes.



www.sciencealert.com

Swearing Is Actually a Sign of More Intelligence - Not Less - Say Scientists

The use of obscene or taboo language - or swearing, as it’s more commonly known - is often seen as a sign that the speaker lacks vocabulary, cannot express themselves in a less offensive way, or even lacks intelligence.
www.sciencealert.com www.sciencealert.com
Click to expand...

I can point to a lot of really dumb people, with very limited vocabularies who swear alot; and plenty of people with large vocabularies. The idea that how much a person uses profane language is any indication of intelligence is dumb to me. I've seen this floating around for a while and it never means anything except to people who think they must be smart because they say **** a lot.
 
*&^%^$#!!! *&^%$#@!!!! **&&^%&^**&^^^%!

Alwayzs new I was a Jenius.
 
All good american swear words. If you lived around the 1940's.

Bejabbers! zounds!
Consarn! Gadzooks
Dad-sizzle! ods bodikins!
Thunderation! Gosh-all-Potomac
Great horn spoon! G. Rover Cripes
'Snails!

And what do they have in common. They are all euphemisms for the word god.

And what do we have in this thread today but references to body parts and functions.

Would anyone consider the swear words of the 1940's to be offensive today? And if not then why is todays words considered swearing?
 
thelastman said:
I found the article from the picture you posted. The link goes to some nonsense that was written by a moron.

But yeah - the Naimil Shah thing reminded me of some propaganda I wrote on this topic many years ago. It was titled 'Are Intellectuals Worthless' and I quoted Hitler -


Hitler/Mein Kampf

I think that Hitler was more articulate than Shah. I think he does a better job of making the point as well.
Click to expand...

Hitler may have made sense when he was himself at rock bottom, imprisoned for marching armed in the street. But the contrast between his patronizing concern for the poor and ****ing concentration camps where people worked AND starved, shows that he was a perfect hypocrit.

thelastman said:
Hey - have you ever read The People of the Abyss by Jack London?

edit - There is a chapter in The Iron Heel titled 'The People of the Abyss' too you know.

edit - I do not own a television. And I do not pay for any streaming services. I got youtube though. I watch a bit of that.

edit - Im getting off topic hey. Sorry OP.
Click to expand...

That's OK, I think we can all forgive a drunk.
 
soylentgreen said:
All good american swear words. If you lived around the 1940's.

Bejabbers! zounds!
Consarn! Gadzooks
Dad-sizzle! ods bodikins!
Thunderation! Gosh-all-Potomac
Great horn spoon! G. Rover Cripes
'Snails!

And what do they have in common. They are all euphemisms for the word god.

And what do we have in this thread today but references to body parts and functions.

Would anyone consider the swear words of the 1940's to be offensive today? And if not then why is todays words considered swearing?
Click to expand...

Good point.

Why is the f-word more offensive than the word "shit" ... when sex is very widely enjoyed but shit invokes an instinctive revulsion? And even more so, why is the c-word more offensive than the f-word?

It's not just patronizing protection of women's modesty, because there's a c-word for men's bits too.

Society it seems still has one taboo intact: sex, and the organs of sex. Perhaps it's a private thing to most people because talking about it with others who aren't lovers, is prone to demean it. And related to that, "other people's sexual acts" is assumed to be different and somehow inferior to "my sexual acts."
 
Cardinal said:
tl;dr version: it's the difference between swearing for narrative emphasis and swearing as lazy add-ins because the right word can't be found.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The distinction is between knowledge and usage. The perception of low intelligence is typically focused on the kind of people who constantly use the same one or two swear words in place of adjectives, pronouns and punctuation (because they have no idea what those things are ;) ). Even if someone actually uses the wide range of different swear words they know, isn't going to be perceived in the same way (though it may still be inappropriate depending on context).

It's a bit like a qualified pharmacist knowing of lots of different drugs that could kill a person doesn't make them a murderer while someone who doesn't know of any but puts rat poison in their partners coffee is.

The most worrying aspect of this is that the misunderstanding didn't come from bad journalism (as I must admit I'd initially expected) but a fundamental failure in the concept of the research in the first place. They didn't actually test the hypothesis they presented.
 
Scientists these days are just a bunch of F**/*/** R***** CO****Licking f***kw*****-NUMBS*'))')')'fy !
 
Cardinal said:
Have a nice day, assholes.



www.sciencealert.com

Swearing Is Actually a Sign of More Intelligence - Not Less - Say Scientists

The use of obscene or taboo language - or swearing, as it’s more commonly known - is often seen as a sign that the speaker lacks vocabulary, cannot express themselves in a less offensive way, or even lacks intelligence.
www.sciencealert.com www.sciencealert.com
Click to expand...
Cardinal:

A big feck-you to them damned scientists! I'z ignorant and proud of it! No shiftard is gonna get away with calling me "more intelligence"! I'z worked hard to be so ignorant and no bespectacled, egg-headed tw&t is gonna take that away from me!

Dang and Christ's balls!
Evilroddy.
 
Kreton said:
I can point to a lot of really dumb people, with very limited vocabularies who swear alot; and plenty of people with large vocabularies. The idea that how much a person uses profane language is any indication of intelligence is dumb to me. I've seen this floating around for a while and it never means anything except to people who think they must be smart because they say **** a lot.
Click to expand...

The idea that one dismisses out of hand studies they don't have a proclivity to agree with seems dumb to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom