19
You know, we humans rely on words to show our intelligence. When you take a test, it says, 'is *insert science-y word here* like *insert science-y word here*?' When someone asks you how to fix a bike, they explain what's causing the problem in words. We learn purely by words. Now, this is veeeeery crude and ineffective. What about things that words can't describe?
Take myself for instance. I will read a book, about, say, bikes. Now, by the end of the day, I'll be fixing a bike like an expert. However, if someone asked me the difference between a lugnut and a tire rim, I'd go 'uuuuuh.' Why? Because the way I learn is by thought alone. It's one of the major downfalls in me: when I learn things, I don't associate words with the things I learn. Thus, when someone quizes me about it, I go 'uuuuh' and people think I'm an cool dude. But trust me, I can fix a bike up just about as good as any person who's been working on bikes for years.
So my point? We rely, as a race, on a ineffective and highly overrated form of communication to show intelligence. Which is why I'm so fond of telepathy: telepaths have no need for words. They use purely brain signals. It is one of the best forms of communication; you can describe anything that your mind can think about. But you don't even need telepathy to be able to communicate better than human speech; look at fish. Ok, ok, maybe they 'talk', to a point, but hey. They sure do communicate well. Or jellyfish! They communicate great, or so says the scientists.
Ok, ok, my point: we humans cannot show intelligence without speech. Due to this, some people, such as myself, struggle throughout life because our minds do not associate words with our knowledge. I think there's even a term for it. So everyone deems us dumb because we flunk the test, because, guess what? The test uses words.
The true test, ladies and gentlemen, should be an interactive simulation. In a science class, one could do an experient or a project. In other classes, one could do the same.
[/Rant]
Oh, I'll be gone for the rest of the day too.
Take myself for instance. I will read a book, about, say, bikes. Now, by the end of the day, I'll be fixing a bike like an expert. However, if someone asked me the difference between a lugnut and a tire rim, I'd go 'uuuuuh.' Why? Because the way I learn is by thought alone. It's one of the major downfalls in me: when I learn things, I don't associate words with the things I learn. Thus, when someone quizes me about it, I go 'uuuuh' and people think I'm an cool dude. But trust me, I can fix a bike up just about as good as any person who's been working on bikes for years.
So my point? We rely, as a race, on a ineffective and highly overrated form of communication to show intelligence. Which is why I'm so fond of telepathy: telepaths have no need for words. They use purely brain signals. It is one of the best forms of communication; you can describe anything that your mind can think about. But you don't even need telepathy to be able to communicate better than human speech; look at fish. Ok, ok, maybe they 'talk', to a point, but hey. They sure do communicate well. Or jellyfish! They communicate great, or so says the scientists.
Ok, ok, my point: we humans cannot show intelligence without speech. Due to this, some people, such as myself, struggle throughout life because our minds do not associate words with our knowledge. I think there's even a term for it. So everyone deems us dumb because we flunk the test, because, guess what? The test uses words.
The true test, ladies and gentlemen, should be an interactive simulation. In a science class, one could do an experient or a project. In other classes, one could do the same.
[/Rant]
Oh, I'll be gone for the rest of the day too.
