Gifted Issues Discussion homepage

Strongly disagree. By attributing outrageous "facts" to the original source that the original source did not say, it is not provoking thought. It's doing just the opposite. It is provoking emotion... a handy trick to employ whenever you want people to stop thinking.

I share ultramarina's disdain of the article, but not because it's bad journalism. I hold it in contempt because it's good propaganda.

Point well taken. However in that light, now I must regard the author's article as a failure... as it has achieved the opposite effect on this board as that which you ascribe. On this board, his article has not caused a cessation of thinking... but rather lively discussion, critical thinking and analysis, and focused research for and sharing of primary sources and related articles.

As with many circumstances in life, the degree to which ideas resonate with different people, and each individual's take-away may vary considerably based upon the uniquely accumulated previous experiences and resultant knowledge base. Meanwhile it is good to raise awareness of the business relationships between various organizations.

Yes, but this is not your typical audience. The vast majority of readers will not verify the claims against the original source.

And yet, the furtive fallacy is still being expressed in this thread, so even in atypical audiences, it works.

Illuminating the alliteration... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furtive_fallacy

Must thank you, Dude, for introducing me to the phrase "furtive fallacy"--a concept I was certainly familiar with but did not know an actual name for.

F has all the best alliterations.

Interestingly, the whole notion of Intelligence itself being primarily an inherited characteristic is seen by many of Richwine's opponents as a furtive fallacy LOL

Whatever one's views may be about this author, his publication, the CB, or testing issues in general, I don't see how he is being misleading about this CB report.

I'll quote again from the report

How does one read that any way other than as suggesting that increasing these characterstics will improve outcomes? Where is that jump from correlation to causation (despite many obvious possible objections) justified in the report? The NR post is just an opinion journalism piece mocking the CB report, which, frankly, deserves it.

Suspecting that any organization might have ulterior motives in publishing a poorly supported argument as to why people should use more of their products "for the children" hardly seems to match the definition of the furtive fallacy.

Is there a name for a variation of the fallacist's fallacy where the suggested fallacy is being misapplied?

#1: Common Core is not at all the same thing as a core curriculum.

Core curriculum, as defined by the College Board:

"four or more years of English, three or more years of mathematics, three or more years of natural science, and three or more years of social science and history"

The Common Core is a lengthy set of educational standards--"what students should know and be able to do in each subject in each grade." Whatever its advantages or disadvantages--and it is a popular conservative *and liberal* whipping boy at the moment-- it is not at all the same as what the CB is referring to here, and Richwine knows this. Yet we get this from him:


No. Misleading.

That's probably the worst one, but he's deceptive with his wording elsewhere as well. Compare carefully.


does not equal