"I'd like to introduce you to two of my associates. Bruno is half-blind, has to do everything solely by touch. Klaus is a moron who knows only what he reads in the New York Post." - Top Secret
WASHINGTON — It’s long been known that America’s school kids haven’t measured well compared with international peers. Now, there’s a new twist: Adults don’t either.
In math, reading and problem-solving using technology – all skills considered critical for global competitiveness and economic strength – American adults scored below the international average on a global test, according to results released Tuesday.
Adults in Japan, Canada, Australia, Finland and multiple other countries scored significantly higher than the United States in all three areas on the test. Beyond basic reading and math, respondents were tested on activities such as calculating mileage reimbursement due to a salesman, sorting email and comparing food expiration dates on grocery store tags.
Not only did Americans score poorly compared to many international competitors, the findings reinforced just how large the gap is between the nation’s high- and low-skilled workers and how hard it is to move ahead when your parents haven’t.
In both reading and math, for example, those with college-educated parents did better than those whose parents did not complete high school.
The study, called the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, found that it was easier on average to overcome this and other barriers to literacy overseas than in the United States.
Researchers tested about 166,000 people ages 16 to 65 in more than 20 countries and subnational regions. The test was developed and released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is made up of mostly industrialized member countries. The Education Department’s Center for Education Statistics participated.
The findings were equally grim for many European countries – Italy and Spain, among the hardest hit by the recession and debt crisis, ranked at the bottom across generations. Unemployment is well over 25 percent in Spain and over 12 percent in Italy. Spain has drastically cut education spending, drawing student street protests.
But in the northern European countries that have fared better, the picture was brighter – and the study credits continuing education. In Finland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, more than 60 percent of adults took part in either job training or continuing education. In Italy, by contrast, the rate was half that.
As the American economy sputters along and many people live paycheck-to-paycheck, economists say a highly-skilled workforce is key to economic recovery. The median hourly wage of workers scoring on the highest level in literacy on the test is more than 60 percent higher than for workers scoring at the lowest level, and those with low literacy skills were more than twice as likely to be unemployed.
“It’s not just the kids who require more and more preparation to get access to the economy, it’s more and more the adults don’t have the skills to stay in it,” said Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a statement the nation needs to find ways to reach more adults to upgrade their skills. Otherwise, he said, “no matter how hard they work, these adults will be stuck, unable to support their families and contribute fully to our country.”
Among the other findings:
-Americans scored toward the bottom in the category of problem solving in a technology rich environment. The top five scores in the areas were from Japan, Finland, Australia, Sweden and Norway, while the US score was on par with England, Estonia, Ireland and Poland. In nearly all countries, at least 10 percent of adults lacked the most basic of computer skills such as using a mouse.
-Japanese and Dutch adults who were ages 25 to 34 and only completed high school easily outperformed Italian or Spanish university graduates of the same age.
-In England, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United States, social background has a big impact on literacy skills, meaning the children of parents with low levels of education have lower reading skills.
America’s school kids have historically scored low on international assessment tests compared to other countries, which is often blamed on the diversity of the population and the high number of immigrants. Also, achievement tests have long shown that a large chunk of the US student population lacks basic reading and math skills – most pronounced among low-income and minority students.
This test could suggest students leaving high school without certain basic skills aren’t obtaining them later on the job or in an education program.
The United States will have a tough time catching up because money at the state and local level, a major source of education funding, has been slashed in recent years, said Jacob Kirkegaard, an economist with the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
“There is a race between man and machine here. The question here is always: Are you a worker for whom technology makes it possible to do a better job or are you a worker that the technology can replace?” he said. For those without the most basic skills, he said, the answer will be merciless and has the potential to extend into future generations. Learning is highly correlated with parents’ education level.
“If you want to avoid having an underclass – a large group of people who are basically unemployable – this educational system is absolutely key,” Kirkegaard said.
Dolores Perin, professor of psychology and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, said the report provides a “good basis for an argument there should be more resources to support adults with low literacy.”
Adults can learn new skills at any age and there are adult-geared programs around the country, Perin said. But, she said, the challenge is ensuring the programs have quality teaching and that adults regularly attend classes.
“If you find reading and writing hard, you’ve been working hard all day at two jobs, you’ve got a young child, are you actually going to go to class? It’s challenging,” Perin said.
Some economists say that large skills gap in the United States could matter even more in the future. America’s economic competitors like China and India are simply larger than competitors of the past like Japan, Carnevale said. Even while America’s top 10 percent of students can compete globally, Carnevale said, that doesn’t cut it. China and India did not participate in this assessment.
“The skills in the middle are required and we’re not producing them,” Carnevale said.
Respondents were selected as part of a nationally represented sample. The test was primarily taken at home using a computer, but some respondents used a printed test booklet.
Among the other findings:
-Japan, Finland, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Flanders-Belgium, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, and Korea all scored significantly higher than the United States in all three areas on the test.
-The average scores in literacy range from 250 in Italy to 296 in Japan. The US average score was 270. (500 was the highest score in all three areas.) Average scores in 12 countries were higher than the average US score.
-The average scores in math range from 246 in Spain to 288 in Japan. The US average score was 253, below 18 other countries.
-The average scores on problem solving in technology-rich environments ranged from 275 in Poland to 294 in Japan. The US average score was 277, below 14 other countries.
England's young adults trail world in literacy and maths
Young adults in England have scored among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests.
A major study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows how England's 16 to 24-year-olds are falling behind their Asian and European counterparts.
England is 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy out of 24 countries.
The OECD's Andreas Schleicher warned of a shrinking pool of skilled workers.
Unlike other developed countries, the study also showed that young people in England are no better at these tests than older people, in the 55 to 65 age range.
When this is weighted with other factors, such as the socio-economic background of people taking the test, it shows that England is the only country in the survey where results are going backwards - with the older cohort better than the younger.
'Shocking'
The study shows that there are 8.5 million adults in England and Northern Ireland with the numeracy levels of a 10-year-old.
"This shocking report shows England has some of the least literate and numerate young adults in the developed world," said Skills Minister Matthew Hancock.
"These are Labour's children, educated under a Labour government and force-fed a diet of dumbing down and low expectations."
Continue reading the main story
Numeracy test 16 to 24-year-olds
Netherlands
Finland
Japan
Flanders (Belgium)
South Korea
Austria
Estonia
Sweden
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Germany
Denmark
Norway
Australia
Poland
Canada
Cyprus
Northern Ireland
France
Ireland
England
Spain
Italy
United States
Source: OECD Survey of Adult Skills 2013
Ministers in England have announced a new maths qualification for 16 to 18 year olds as part of a drive to improve numeracy and its requirement that maths should be studied until the age 18 for those who do not have a good GCSE in the subject.
The newly-appointed shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt defended Labour's record.
"Labour drove up standards in maths and English across our schools, evident in the huge improvements we saw in GCSE results between 1997 and 2010."
He said a future Labour government would "ensure all young people study maths and English to 18" and would not allow "unqualified teachers to teach in our classrooms on a permanent basis".
Young adults in Northern Ireland performed better in the OECD tests than in England, but they were also in the bottom half of these rankings.
The highest-performing countries among this younger age group were Japan, Finland and the Netherlands. The country with the lowest numeracy skills was the United States, plummeting from once being one of the strongest education systems.
This landmark study from the OECD set out to measure the level of skills within the adult population - testing actual ability in literacy, numeracy and digital skills, rather than looking at qualifications.
It involved 166,000 adults taking tests in 24 education systems, representing populations of 724 million people. From the UK, adults in England and Northern Ireland participated.
The study looked at the level of skills across the adult population, between the ages of 16 and 65. England and Northern Ireland are below average for both literacy and numeracy, in league tables headed by Japan and Finland.
But for most industrialised countries the younger population are much better at such tests than the older generations.
Dr Jasper Kim describes South Korea's education system
Mr Schleicher pointed to the examples of Finland and South Korea where there had been huge progress in recent decades.
However, for England, when the results are separated from Northern Ireland, there was a different and unusual pattern, with almost no advance in test results between the 55 to 65-year-olds and those aged 16 to 24.
This younger group will have many more qualifications, but the test results show that these younger people have no greater ability than those approaching retirement who left schools with much lower qualifications in the 1960s and 1970s.
The grandchildren are not any better at these core skills than their grandparents.
Global race
Mr Schleicher says it might suggest evidence of grade inflation and it shows that better qualifications do not necessarily mean better skills.
"When you look at this snapshot you do have to conclude that these young people are not any better skilled when it comes to those foundation skills than people in the older generation," he said.
He warned of the serious economic implications of a failure to provide a skilled workforce.
Andreas Schleicher
Andreas Schleicher has warned that young adults in England are falling behind other countries
The influential OECD expert showed how there was an increasing demand in the jobs market for those with higher skills - and a static or falling jobs market for those with lower skills.
England and Northern Ireland have particularly high levels of adults with the lowest skill level in literacy and numeracy.
The economic and social rewards for having high skills are particularly strong in England and Northern Ireland, says the research, with significant advantages in health, job opportunities and income.
The global economic race is strongly linked to educational performance and the OECD report shows how the UK's share of the highest skilled workers is falling.
An even sharper decline is faced by the United States, an education superpower of a previous generation. Last year the OECD warned that the US was almost the only developed country facing educational "downward mobility", where the younger population is less well educated than the older generation.
This latest study shows that the US once had 42% of the world's highest-skilled adults but this had now fallen to 28%.
Mr Schleicher set out the scale of the difference in ability, saying that many secondary school pupils in Japan were ahead of graduates in England.
Neil Carberry, the CBI's director for employment and skills, said the UK's economic future depended on improving the skills of the workforce.
"This survey simply emphasises that the UK cannot afford to stand still on skills."
Ian Brinkley, director at the Work Foundation think tank, said the study showed the UK faced a "relative decline in the economy's skills base".
It doesn't say America is bad, but there is a problematic trend emerging. Ignoring the data seems to simultaneously strengthen the argument being presented while also exacerbating it.
It doesn't say America is bad, but there is a problematic trend emerging. Ignoring the data seems to simultaneously strengthen the argument being presented while also exacerbating it.
That looks like it might be it, maybe? It doesn't give much on the details though. Without more information, I can't take this seriously, because the source is about as trustworthy as a random blogger making the same comments.
hotsauceman1 wrote: It also doesnt help that American Is the hardest flipping language to learn
No it simplifies the English language and also a person who speaks a Germanic language probably won't have as much trouble learning it as someone who speaks Mandarin Chinese.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How difficult a language is to learn is based on how similar or dissimilar your mother tongue is to the language you're learning.
Cheesecat wrote: Probably has to mostly do with policy and culture.
It could also be that americans tend to focus more on critical thinking on actual learning language.
It is like the Chinese/Korean students in my classes. They pass their tests with flying colors. But when it comes to solving a problem or discussing a thing, they remain silent.
One told me why, All they know is what they got from the book, they studied the text, but couldnt think about how to apply them in Real life situations.
Americans have plenty of trouble learning how to critically think. We also have issues thinking a problem through to it's logical conclusion. If we mastered those skills, the entire redneck and hilljack populations wouldn't exist because they'd have learned that saying, "Ya'll come watch this!" is probably going to lead to a death, and they'd quickly realize that they shouldn't be acting this way and seek to better themselves.
With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sto someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
Mathieu Raymond wrote: I'm so happy Canada is... above you guys. Not a front-runner, but above England and the US.
Just joking. It is a bit alarming, but I can see it in the kids I get sent from the elementary school system.
Growing up in Alberta, and reflecting upon my education from beginning to end, I have to say that it was pretty lacking. It's just poorly structured, from kindergarten through college, and the government loves to take money out of education at every turn. I feel like I managed to get through things pretty well, through talent, luck, and the drive to pursue my own learning, but I can think of a lot of people who aren't so lucky.
With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sto someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
But I'd imagine that "A bird in the bush is worth two in the hand" would be instantly understandable, regardless of your understanding of idioms.
With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sto someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
But I'd imagine that "A bird in the bush is worth two in the hand" would be instantly understandable, regardless of your understanding of idioms.
It's possible, I was just throwing it out there, but Americans and the English language in general rely on so much context in our words that it makes it difficult for ESL learners to really understand wtf we're saying.
Alfndrate wrote: Americans have plenty of trouble learning how to critically think. We also have issues thinking a problem through to it's logical conclusion. If we mastered those skills, the entire redneck and hilljack populations wouldn't exist because they'd have learned that saying, "Ya'll come watch this!" is probably going to lead to a death, and they'd quickly realize that they shouldn't be acting this way and seek to better themselves.
With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sto someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
Alfndrate wrote: Americans have plenty of trouble learning how to critically think. We also have issues thinking a problem through to it's logical conclusion. If we mastered those skills, the entire redneck and hilljack populations wouldn't exist because they'd have learned that saying, "Ya'll come watch this!" is probably going to lead to a death, and they'd quickly realize that they shouldn't be acting this way and seek to better themselves.
With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sto someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
But think of how much poorer YouTube would be...
I think our economy could take the hit... Also we still have Carbide Cannon videos from people in the Netherlands.
With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sto someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
But I'd imagine that "A bird in the bush is worth two in the hand" would be instantly understandable, regardless of your understanding of idioms.
It's possible, I was just throwing it out there, but Americans and the English language in general rely on so much context in our words that it makes it difficult for ESL learners to really understand wtf we're saying.
Study seems to indicate that, while the US has below average literacy, the impact of socio-economic background seems to be the highest out of any country on the survey.
Per the rating system they use, the study graphs show that there are actually comparable numbers of high-functioning adults in the US compared to a lot of those other countries, though certainly not comparable to the highest contenders. I suspect, based upon the above, that would be mostly those from better backgrounds than others. The biggest problem with the US statistics appears to be that the average US adult is less capable than the average adult globally, not to mention the lows being among the lower lows. The article is being somewhat misleading then. I feel like it should have read, "Average US adult is dumber than the average human." Even as it reads now, it seems to imply that people in the US are actually getting stupider as they age.
Of course, I've not yet gone through the entire study yet, but it seems pretty well done. The NY Times article though, not so much. But it's US news, so it was written by dumber than average humans, right?
Alfndrate wrote: With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sto someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
I'm pretty sure there's idioms in every single language.
d-usa wrote: I'm trying to do what I can to bring the average up with my Mensa membership!
[/elitist]
I remember getting an invitation to apply to Mensa back in high school. I want to say it was about the same time I got my Who's Who invitation. They both went to the same location.
hotsauceman1 wrote: It also doesnt help that American Is the hardest flipping language to learn
Not sure if serious......
He's actually right;: it is the hardest. Reason being is that our tense structure (past, present, future) sucks horrible balls. I read the book. I read the book. One is past, one is present, depend on how you pronounce "read". "Red" vs "reed", in this case. Or "take" and "took" vs "bake" and..."baked"? Similar base word, with only the first letter being different, but the past tense is completely different. That's why our language is so hard compared to something like Spanish or French. As many of us are English speakers, we take for granted how we already know the correct terminology. But many others who don't have English as their first language can find it confusing because it is!! English is one of the hardest languages to learn. You've just learned something new today.
hotsauceman1 wrote: It also doesnt help that American Is the hardest flipping language to learn
Not sure if serious......
He's actually right;: it is the hardest. Reason being is that our tense structure (past, present, future) sucks horrible balls. I read the book. I read the book. One is past, one is present, depend on how you pronounce "read". "Red" vs "reed", in this case. Or "take" and "took" vs "bake" and..."baked"? Similar base word, with only the first letter being different, but the past tense is completely different. That's why our language is so hard compared to something like Spanish or French. As many of us are English speakers, we take for granted how we already know the correct terminology. But many others who don't have English as their first language can find it confusing because it is!! English is one of the hardest languages to learn. You've just learned something new today.
hotsauceman1 wrote: It also doesnt help that American Is the hardest flipping language to learn
Not sure if serious......
He's actually right;: it is the hardest. Reason being is that our tense structure (past, present, future) sucks horrible balls. I read the book. I read the book. One is past, one is present, depend on how you pronounce "read". "Red" vs "reed", in this case. Or "take" and "took" vs "bake" and..."baked"? Similar base word, with only the first letter being different, but the past tense is completely different. That's why our language is so hard compared to something like Spanish or French. As many of us are English speakers, we take for granted how we already know the correct terminology. But many others who don't have English as their first language can find it confusing because it is!! English is one of the hardest languages to learn. You've just learned something new today.
I think Hulk was questioning why the language was called "American", rather than questioning how clumsy of a language English is. I could be wrong though.
hotsauceman1 wrote: It also doesnt help that American Is the hardest flipping language to learn
Not sure if serious......
He's actually right;: it is the hardest. Reason being is that our tense structure (past, present, future) sucks horrible balls. I read the book. I read the book. One is past, one is present, depend on how you pronounce "read". "Red" vs "reed", in this case. Or "take" and "took" vs "bake" and..."baked"? Similar base word, with only the first letter being different, but the past tense is completely different. That's why our language is so hard compared to something like Spanish or French. As many of us are English speakers, we take for granted how we already know the correct terminology. But many others who don't have English as their first language can find it confusing because it is!! English is one of the hardest languages to learn. You've just learned something new today.
Given the talk in this thread I went to a quasi-Expert (he's still in college so take the following for what it is with that in mind). The problem with English is that our rules are extremely strict. English is one of the most inflexible of languages on Earth. The rules are extremely precise in a language where individual words are very imprecise. It's difficult for people coming out of other languages, some of which have virtually no rules on grammar, language to adapt to something where structure and phraseology is so strict but definitions are so loose.
So that's what he says XD According to him our idioms are actually more easily understood than those of certain other languages (Arabic and Chinese).
hotsauceman1 wrote: It also doesnt help that American Is the hardest flipping language to learn
Not sure if serious......
He's actually right;: it is the hardest. Reason being is that our tense structure (past, present, future) sucks horrible balls. I read the book. I read the book. One is past, one is present, depend on how you pronounce "read". "Red" vs "reed", in this case. Or "take" and "took" vs "bake" and..."baked"? Similar base word, with only the first letter being different, but the past tense is completely different. That's why our language is so hard compared to something like Spanish or French. As many of us are English speakers, we take for granted how we already know the correct terminology. But many others who don't have English as their first language can find it confusing because it is!! English is one of the hardest languages to learn. You've just learned something new today.
I have a feeling if you ask a German person if English or Japanese is harder I'll bet he/she will say Japanese is harder, how hard a language to learn depends almost entirely on how similar it is to the language(s) you already speak so English maybe extremely hard for a Korean person but they'll probably have a much easier time learning Japanese than say an English speaker would.
It probably doesn't help that you guys call it "math" rather than "maths", as it should be
It was also entertaining seeing all the poor and confused grammar in the news report about how poor Americans did in a study of their maths and English skills
Average canadian IQ is pretty good, standing at 97, putting us at the 25th rank worldwide.
Lowest is equatorial guinea, with 59.
Those sorts of stats are generally bull-gak. Firstly, IQ is actually measured as compared to an "average" of 100, and that average is determined country by country - so any list of countries IQ would be all 100s. Secondly, it's really hard to compare IQ across cultures and languages because of the nature of the test - IQ is supposed to be a basic measure of Intelligence, but the test in its standard lay out is biased strongly towards those in first world westernized nations.
With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" sto someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
But I'd imagine that "A bird in the bush is worth two in the hand" would be instantly understandable, regardless of your understanding of idioms.
It's possible, I was just throwing it out there, but Americans and the English language in general rely on so much context in our words that it makes it difficult for ESL learners to really understand wtf we're saying.
I'm just going to go ahead and say.
Lolno. English is pretty darn easy on the whole scale of things and you are hardly the only ones who use stupid sayings.
All those low wage workers from south of the US border got employed for an obvious reason. You go to school around the age of 5 and stay there until about 17. You spend most of your time at school sitting down indoors. You go home and watch tv, maybe do homework, talk with friends who are pretty much all the same age as you.
Who after that wants to go and work in a field picking grapes or potatoes. How about sitting at a conveyer belt in a factory doing manual sorting and processing?
If those jobs aren't important then why the fuss about bringing people from less educated and impoverished backgrounds to do those jobs?
I supose what I'm asking is should educated be restricted to the really intelligent and have an 'ignorance is bliss' approach to those who are not. Don't get people's expectations up and they'll do those repetitive semi-skilled jobs. Otherwise you end up with increasing domestic welfare bums while still importing poor people from other countries to do the jobs the locals should be doing but wont because they've spent the better part of their early years being told they should expect a better life than they're capable of achieving.
Neither China nor India appear on that list and they are both hugely strong in manufacture and growth so what does that list really represent?
In regards IQ, it uses a variety of tests which can be tailored to whatever country they're in. IQ test things like math solving abilities, pattern recognition, language ability, logic. So long as someone is educated then they can sit a test.
Sub-saharan countries traditionally do poor on these tests compared to east asian countries and northern europe who do well. Those tests corespond well to the study mentioned in this thread.
Similarly, people with sub-saharan ancestry in the USA (probably the most studied group of this origin) do not score as high in IQ tests compared to people of european and asian background. That is true across all income ranges. I believe there was a report to this effect recently from Ohio which stated that black children from rich families scored on average lower than non-black children from poorer families. This is a consistent finding suggesting that some groups simply aren't as smart as other groups, something that should be considered when letting large groups of people into a country.
cadbren wrote: This is a consistent finding suggesting that some groups simply aren't as smart as other groups, something that should be considered when letting large groups of people into a country.
It's suggesting, if anything, that the test is biased in favour of white westerners. But don't let that get in the way of your xenophobic comments, go ahead and turn this thread into one of "those" threads too.
Alfndrate wrote: With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" to someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
I'm pretty sure there's idioms in every single language.
There are indeed idioms in every language, but English is a language that relies heavily on the turn of phrases, idioms, and heavy contextual clues to get it's point across. Other languages tend to put endings on verbs and nouns which changes them, we don't have this in English (beyond changing tense and whether it's singular or plural) we also have words that are spelled the same that mean different things (like refuse and refuse, or wound and wound).
Lolno. English is pretty darn easy on the whole scale of things and you are hardly the only ones who use stupid sayings.
That's because you speak a Germanic language, which is similar to English in 1) how it's taught and 2) how it's structured syntactically. Give English to a non-Germanic language speaker and it becomes more difficult.
You know. I also went to rather rubbish schooling for....3/4's of my Primary Education. My Elementary School was near the most ghetto fething part of Prince George.
My Middle School also was a piece of gak. Terrible teachers. Dangerous bully's. Thank Thor it closed down and got replaced with a french immersion school.
Alfndrate wrote: With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" to someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
I'm pretty sure there's idioms in every single language.
There are indeed idioms in every language, but English is a language that relies heavily on the turn of phrases, idioms, and heavy contextual clues to get it's point across. Other languages tend to put endings on verbs and nouns which changes them, we don't have this in English (beyond changing tense and whether it's singular or plural) we also have words that are spelled the same that mean different things (like refuse and refuse, or wound and wound).
Lolno. English is pretty darn easy on the whole scale of things and you are hardly the only ones who use stupid sayings.
That's because you speak a Germanic language, which is similar to English in 1) how it's taught and 2) how it's structured syntactically. Give English to a non-Germanic language speaker and it becomes more difficult.
Give Dutch to a non-Germanic speaker and watch heads explode.
cadbren wrote: All those low wage workers from south of the US border got employed for an obvious reason. You go to school around the age of 5 and stay there until about 17. You spend most of your time at school sitting down indoors. You go home and watch tv, maybe do homework, talk with friends who are pretty much all the same age as you.
Who after that wants to go and work in a field picking grapes or potatoes. How about sitting at a conveyer belt in a factory doing manual sorting and processing?
If those jobs aren't important then why the fuss about bringing people from less educated and impoverished backgrounds to do those jobs?
I supose what I'm asking is should educated be restricted to the really intelligent and have an 'ignorance is bliss' approach to those who are not. Don't get people's expectations up and they'll do those repetitive semi-skilled jobs. Otherwise you end up with increasing domestic welfare bums while still importing poor people from other countries to do the jobs the locals should be doing but wont because they've spent the better part of their early years being told they should expect a better life than they're capable of achieving.
Neither China nor India appear on that list and they are both hugely strong in manufacture and growth so what does that list really represent?
In regards IQ, it uses a variety of tests which can be tailored to whatever country they're in. IQ test things like math solving abilities, pattern recognition, language ability, logic. So long as someone is educated then they can sit a test.
Sub-saharan countries traditionally do poor on these tests compared to east asian countries and northern europe who do well. Those tests corespond well to the study mentioned in this thread.
Similarly, people with sub-saharan ancestry in the USA (probably the most studied group of this origin) do not score as high in IQ tests compared to people of european and asian background. That is true across all income ranges. I believe there was a report to this effect recently from Ohio which stated that black children from rich families scored on average lower than non-black children from poorer families. This is a consistent finding suggesting that some groups simply aren't as smart as other groups, something that should be considered when letting large groups of people into a country.
You don't think it could possibly be that social pressures have an effect on people's IQ the average black person in America generally gets lower quality education than the average white man and has a harder life in general, never mind that's there's plenty of debate on whether IQ actually measures one's intelligence or if intelligence can be measured.
hotsauceman1 wrote: It also doesnt help that American Is the hardest flipping language to learn
Not sure if serious......
He's actually right;: it is the hardest. Reason being is that our tense structure (past, present, future) sucks horrible balls. I read the book. I read the book. One is past, one is present, depend on how you pronounce "read". "Red" vs "reed", in this case. Or "take" and "took" vs "bake" and..."baked"? Similar base word, with only the first letter being different, but the past tense is completely different. That's why our language is so hard compared to something like Spanish or French. As many of us are English speakers, we take for granted how we already know the correct terminology. But many others who don't have English as their first language can find it confusing because it is!! English is one of the hardest languages to learn. You've just learned something new today.
Not sure if serious...
100% serious Daedalus. I went to grad school to be an English teacher, and we had this drilled into us in our "English as a second language" course.
cadbren wrote: This is a consistent finding suggesting that some groups simply aren't as smart as other groups, something that should be considered when letting large groups of people into a country.
It's suggesting, if anything, that the test is biased in favour of white westerners. But don't let that get in the way of your xenophobic comments, go ahead and turn this thread into one of "those" threads too.
What xenophobic comments, I said that it's better to have intelligent immigrants than just leave the borders open for unskilled workers.
If you actually read what I said then you would have noticed that I said asians do well on these tests too, they actually score slightly higher as a group which blasts your 'white westerners' nonsense out of the water. Groups with sub-saharan ancestry consistently score lower on these tests when compared to groups of people with european and asian ancestry. Why does that even need to be controversial?
Frazzled wrote: No after saving your country twice, its English American.
After you fled from England
Virginia Company fled from nothing!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cadbren wrote: Why does that even need to be controversial?
We know ethnicity isn't tied to intelligence, so the question becomes why different groups do differently on such tests, and separating the question from the answer is problematic, and usually proffered by groups most wouldn't want to be associated with.
We know ethnicity isn't tied to intelligence, so the question becomes why different groups do differently on such tests, and separating the question from the answer is problematic, and usually proffered by groups most wouldn't want to be associated with.
Only groups like far right ones discuss them publically is why, yet people keep doing these studies and coming up with data suggesting differences based on race and governments keep supporting laws and programmes that help people of specific racial backgrounds.
If race doesn't matter or even exist, then why even do studies that show group X is doing poorly compared to group Y when the only real criteria for defining those groups is physical appearance?
Robots would be ideal but who does the work in the meantime. Part of the problem with people in developed countries not doing labouring work anymore is that years at school makes them only want to do high prestige jobs.
There are machines that can pick grapes, sort cans, but they're expensive to buy compared to a low paid workforce.
Thing is, if machines do get used for everything in the future then what do people end up doing? Playing games?
We know ethnicity isn't tied to intelligence, so the question becomes why different groups do differently on such tests, and separating the question from the answer is problematic, and usually proffered by groups most wouldn't want to be associated with.
Only groups like far right ones discuss them publically is why, yet people keep doing these studies and coming up with data suggesting differences based on race and governments keep supporting laws and programmes that help people of specific racial backgrounds.
If race doesn't matter or even exist, then why even do studies that show group X is doing poorly compared to group Y when the only real criteria for defining those groups is physical appearance?
Those studies don't suggest what you seem to think they suggest.
No one has said there are not different races or ethnic groups, nor that they don't matter, just that we know that when it comes to ridiculous statements such as "African people aren't as intelligent other people" are load of crap. These issues have far more to do with culture then innate human qualities. No one defines those groups purely by physical appearance either, well, no one outside groups like Stormfront and their ilk.
So it is now some kind of scientific breakthrough to realize that dumb kids grow up to be dumb adults?
Wow, how much money did the guy get to figure that one out?
And you know what I find ironic? Liberals have been running the education system for years, and are only getting a tighter grip, and for some reason things aren't getting better....
SickSix wrote: So it is now some kind of scientific breakthrough to realize that dumb kids grow up to be dumb adults?
Wow, how much money did the guy get to figure that one out?
And you know what I find ironic? Liberals have been running the education system for years, and are only getting a tighter grip, and for some reason things aren't getting better....
That's... not quite the moral of the study, having personally read at least some of it.
Also, you're not taking into account human nature. From what I can tell, being intelligent is not really a priority to a large amount of the populace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cadbren wrote: Robots would be ideal but who does the work in the meantime. Part of the problem with people in developed countries not doing labouring work anymore is that years at school makes them only want to do high prestige jobs.
There are machines that can pick grapes, sort cans, but they're expensive to buy compared to a low paid workforce.
Thing is, if machines do get used for everything in the future then what do people end up doing? Playing games?
"Drive trucks to deliver goods" was one that immediately popped into mind that robots cannot yet do.
Those studies don't suggest what you seem to think they suggest.
I don't think you know what you seem to think that I think about this, I think that you think what I seem to think about this. Notwithstanding that, how about telling us what you think the authors and initiators of these studies are trying to say?
statements such as "African people aren't as intelligent other people" are load of crap.
No one has said African either and there must be reason that much of that continent does so poorly, it can't be that all the countries there have crappy cultures which is what you're suggesting.
These issues have far more to do with culture then innate human qualities. No one defines those groups purely by physical appearance either
If that were true then those studies would be talking about the people from this neighbourhood and that having lower achievement levels, they don't, they define it by race. The concern is that black kids are being left behind, not that the kids of Hampton Court or wherever are being left behind. Those studies mention race as the defining characteristic of the study group. If this were a problem of culture, of particular communities then no need to mention the makeup of the groups involved. What comes across is that the same group is doing less well academically than the groups around them in all socio-economic ranges.
If you don't think it's biological, then why does the same problem exist amongst the same type of people when so much has been spent to improve the situation? How would you reverse the trend of low academic achievement, thug culture, irresponsible fathers?
Alfndrate wrote: With that being said, what makes English a difficult language to learn is the nuances, turn of phrases, and idioms we have. When I say, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" to someone that doesn't know what I'm talking about I get blank stares because they're caught up on the concept of birds in hands (whether I have one or not).
I'm pretty sure there's idioms in every single language.
There are indeed idioms in every language, but English is a language that relies heavily on the turn of phrases, idioms, and heavy contextual clues to get it's point across. Other languages tend to put endings on verbs and nouns which changes them, we don't have this in English (beyond changing tense and whether it's singular or plural) we also have words that are spelled the same that mean different things (like refuse and refuse, or wound and wound).
Lolno. English is pretty darn easy on the whole scale of things and you are hardly the only ones who use stupid sayings.
That's because you speak a Germanic language, which is similar to English in 1) how it's taught and 2) how it's structured syntactically. Give English to a non-Germanic language speaker and it becomes more difficult.
I don't know, I feel rather competent in English, and it certainly wasn't half as hard as Spanish with its crazy insane tenses. And while I'm okay with English, learning German is just such a pain.
There are a lot of false friends in French too. I guess I don't remember any in Spanish, but then again, I don't remember much of my Spanish anyway...
No one has said African either and there must be reason that much of that continent does so poorly, it can't be that all the countries there have crappy cultures which is what you're suggesting.
Might have something to do with a couple centuries of colonization, but idk.
I'd also suggest you either learn, or relearn statistics as they relate to sociology. Just because a group is identified by their race doesn't mean race itself is the reason they do worse academically. 'Blacks' can easily be replaced with 'urban poor' 'historically disenfranchised' 'culturally marginalized' or any other number of terms. The down side is that every single one leads to people confusing correlation with causation (which is exactly what Ahtman was getting at in the first place).
"Drive trucks to deliver goods" was one that immediately popped into mind that robots cannot yet do.
That technology exists now. There was a Top Gear episode where they raced a remote controlled US Army truck over rough terrain. It was remote controlled but also had the ability to drive itself. Similar technology also exists in drones and smart weapons.
It's not that much of a stretch to have an automated loader to drop off goods. What they can't do is enter the premises and carry the goods to a more specific location like an office yet. You'd need the office lackey to go fetch the goods from the roadside/cargo bay.
Cars that drive themselves are already being used. Heathrow airport in London has had them for a couple of years now for business passengers between the carpark and terminal.
SickSix wrote: And you know what I find ironic? Liberals have been running the education system for years, and are only getting a tighter grip, and for some reason things aren't getting better....
Yes, because conservative meddling in educationl has never turned out badly before.
Ah! One thing that was hard nailing down in English was the intonations. You have really weird rules about where accents are put in a sentence and in a word, and the whole sentence will seem really weird if you misplace them, becoming almost laughable.
In French, we rarely ever accent anything but the last syllable of rythmic groups built around where breathing falls naturally, with the exception of the last syllable of a sentence which we never accent to indicate the end (and in a conversation, the occasion for the other to responde). We also have a couple other intonation schemes, to mark a question for example, but they are really instinctual.
We know ethnicity isn't tied to intelligence, so the question becomes why different groups do differently on such tests, and separating the question from the answer is problematic, and usually proffered by groups most wouldn't want to be associated with.
Only groups like far right ones discuss them publically is why, yet people keep doing these studies and coming up with data suggesting differences based on race and governments keep supporting laws and programmes that help people of specific racial backgrounds.
If race doesn't matter or even exist, then why even do studies that show group X is doing poorly compared to group Y when the only real criteria for defining those groups is physical appearance?
To the extent that IQ tests are a valid measure of anything, the studies, when corrected for cultural factors, show no genetic component in intelligence in different so-called "races".
SickSix wrote: And you know what I find ironic? Liberals have been running the education system for years, and are only getting a tighter grip, and for some reason things aren't getting better....
Yes, because conservative meddling in educationl has never turned out badly before.
Yeah, because liberals were really responsible for No Child Left Behind, the worst program school districts have ever seen. Yeah...good call there. A conservative idiot came up with that gem.
SickSix wrote: And you know what I find ironic? Liberals have been running the education system for years, and are only getting a tighter grip, and for some reason things aren't getting better....
Yes, because conservative meddling in educationl has never turned out badly before.
Yeah, because liberals were really responsible for No Child Left Behind, the worst program school districts have ever seen. Yeah...good call there. A conservative idiot came up with that gem.
While I completely agree with the "worst program school districts have ever seen" the bill was proposed by Bush, but it was co-authored by 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats. and was passed in both the House and Senate almost unanimously (about 90% For in both houses of Congress), a conservative idiot may have come up with that gem, but it was both sides of the aisle that fethed up that program.
No one has said African either and there must be reason that much of that continent does so poorly, it can't be that all the countries there have crappy cultures which is what you're suggesting.
Why isn't that an acceptable explanation? After all many African nations, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa, have comparable historical profiles; especially regarding colonialism, poverty, and conflict.
If you don't think it's biological, then why does the same problem exist amongst the same type of people when so much has been spent to improve the situation?
Well, for one thing, simply spending a lot of money to fix a particular problem has very little bearing on whether or not said problem will be fixed. For example, while the US educational system as a whole is a complete mess, the programs designed to help people from impoverished backgrounds are uniquely terrible.
Another thing to consider is that parents, regardless of background, often want their children to have lives similar to their own. So you see parents with professional degrees pushing their kids towards professional degrees, parents who work manual labor pushing their kids towards manual labor, and parents who exploit the welfare system pushing their kids to do the same.
Is there a way to combat this? Possibly, but it is very difficult given that parents are almost always the most significant influence on their children.
I really wish state schools would do away with that major. If you want a liberal arts degree, then you should go to a liberal arts college. At least then you can major in something less generic.
No one has said African either and there must be reason that much of that continent does so poorly, it can't be that all the countries there have crappy cultures which is what you're suggesting.
Might have something to do with a couple centuries of colonization, but idk.
You really don't which is why you're guessing, but nice try and keep it up.
I'd also suggest you either learn, or relearn statistics as they relate to sociology.
Save your rancour for those that published these findings, if you have issue with how groups are portrayed take it up with them. They don't talk about urban poor because poor urban blacks fare poorly when compared to poor urban whites, hispanics, asians etc. They come last everytime except in rates of criminal activity. And here's the thing, by even categorizing people by race then you're always going to have one group doing better than another. You could use BMI instead and suddenly you'd have either the fat or the skinny group doing better than the other. Why do some sports team dominate while others can barely get a competent team together? We're not all the same, either physically or mentally.
No one has said African either and there must be reason that much of that continent does so poorly, it can't be that all the countries there have crappy cultures which is what you're suggesting.
Why isn't that an acceptable explanation? After all many African nations, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa, have comparable historical profiles; especially regarding colonialism, poverty, and conflict.
The problem with that is that those places were in constant states of tribal warfare before colonialism. The slave trade benefitted from the number of tribes prepared to capture their enemies and sell them. Colonialism was a period of relative stability in the area which introduced modern infrastructure including schools and hospitals and roads. Liberia which saw no colonisation but got developement support from the USA is no better than it's neighbours.
You're also contradicting yourself. You claim that the local cultures are crappy and need replacing, yet that is what colonialism was doing. It was lifting a tribal, semi nomadic group of peoples into the modern world, the process was never finished.
the programs designed to help people from impoverished backgrounds are uniquely terrible.
Another thing to consider is that parents, [...]parents who exploit the welfare system pushing their kids to do the same.
Is there a way to combat this? Possibly, but it is very difficult given that parents are almost always the most significant influence on their children.
The answer would be to reduce welfare and force people to do those unskilled jobs that currently are requiring large amounts of foreign workers to come and do. We have the same problem in my country and we're getting into the 5th or 6th generation of unemployed in some families - they have no work ethic to pass down because none of them have worked - they will have to be forced into work at some point because their numbers are growing.
You really don't which is why you're guessing, but nice try and keep it up.
See sentence 1 of my response below.
cadbren wrote: Save your rancour for those that published these findings, if you have issue with how groups are portrayed take it up with them.
And here I thought Americans sucked at critical reading...
Did you even read my post?I have nothing against how groups are portrayed in sociological study per se. Rather, I appreciate how hard categorizing them really is. I'll save my rancour for those who assume conclusions based solely on the word a study uses identifies a group of people even when studies by and large suggest everything but race as the actual cause of the problems they examine.
If you really think Africa lags behind the rest of the world because its full of black people, and not because of 500 years of exploitation by foreign powers, constant internal conflict, and being relatively isolated for most of history by a continent spanning desert preventing cultural diffusion (all these things resulting naturally in less cultural development), I'll save my rancour. Pity is a better emotion.
I blame...everyone else but me! *runs away to read it in shame*
Ok I'm reading it now, where is all this sub-saharan stuff coming from? Because the study seems to focus on
Spoiler:
Japan Finland Netherlands Sweden Australia Norway Estonia Slovak Republic Flanders (Belgium) Canada Czech Republic Average Denmark Korea England/N. Ireland (UK) Germany United States Austria Poland Ireland France Cyprus1 Spain Italy
None of them being sub-saharan nations. I wanted to see what studies cadbren is referencing I enjoy stats...I know, I'm sick in the head, but I find them interesting and I want to see...and then point out just where he is interpreting it incorrectly
Liberia which saw no colonisation but got developement support from the USA is no better than it's neighbours.
Well, aside from all of the former slaves that several American groups sent over for the purpose of establishing colonies of freed, American slaves. Colonies which, after unification, denied citizenship to native "Liberians".
You're also contradicting yourself. You claim that the local cultures are crappy and need replacing, yet that is what colonialism was doing. It was lifting a tribal, semi nomadic group of peoples into the modern world, the process was never finished.
I never said that they needed to be replaced. Please do not attempt to speak for me.
At any rate, I think you're being a bit generous regarding the purpose of colonialism. Colonialism was never about altering the culture of particular place, rather its purpose was to secure a profit for the colonizing nation. This invariably altered the culture of the area subject to colonization, but whether or not that was for better or worse is difficult to say.
The answer would be to reduce welfare and force people to do those unskilled jobs that currently are requiring large amounts of foreign workers to come and do. We have the same problem in my country and we're getting into the 5th or 6th generation of unemployed in some families - they have no work ethic to pass down because none of them have worked - they will have to be forced into work at some point because their numbers are growing.
I never indicated that a dependent class was a problem. Again, please do not speak for me.
The issue I was addressing was familial pressure as regards the relative achievement of selected groups, and how that serves as a point against the notion of variation in intelligence due to biology.
cadbren wrote: And here's the thing, by even categorizing people by race then you're always going to have one group doing better than another. You could use BMI instead and suddenly you'd have either the fat or the skinny group doing better than the other.
Most likely, yes.
Thankfully we have tests of statistical significance to determine whether or not such variation is important.
Ok I'm reading it now, where is all this sub-saharan stuff coming from? Because the study seems to focus on
Spoiler:
Japan
Finland
Netherlands
Sweden
Australia
Norway
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Flanders (Belgium)
Canada
Czech Republic
Average
Denmark
Korea
England/N. Ireland (UK)
Germany
United States
Austria
Poland
Ireland
France
Cyprus1
Spain
Italy
None of them being sub-saharan nations. I wanted to see what studies cadbren is referencing I enjoy stats...I know, I'm sick in the head, but I find them interesting and I want to see...and then point out just where he is interpreting it incorrectly
I wouldn't waste too much time trying to find it. Rather than discuss the study, people are much satisfied inventing their own.
Ok I'm reading it now, where is all this sub-saharan stuff coming from? Because the study seems to focus on
Spoiler:
Japan
Finland
Netherlands
Sweden
Australia
Norway
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Flanders (Belgium)
Canada
Czech Republic
Average
Denmark
Korea
England/N. Ireland (UK)
Germany
United States
Austria
Poland
Ireland
France
Cyprus1
Spain
Italy
None of them being sub-saharan nations. I wanted to see what studies cadbren is referencing I enjoy stats...I know, I'm sick in the head, but I find them interesting and I want to see...and then point out just where he is interpreting it incorrectly
I wouldn't waste too much time trying to find it. Rather than discuss the study, people are much satisfied inventing their own.
Oh I'm not trying to find it, cadbren should provide it if he wants his argument to have any weight. The 'several studies support' while providing no references is how a (failing) first year would word their work.
Now, This is an honest to goodness question. No deception here.
If american schools and american colleges are SO BAD then why do International students from india, arabia, china, korean and japan come here for book learnin?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Now, This is an honest to goodness question. No deception here.
If american schools and american colleges are SO BAD then why do International students from india, arabia, china, korean and japan come here for book learnin?
I imagine it's mostly elementary and high school level education is of lower quality in comparison to many other developed nations although I maybe wrong, plus even if the US is lagging behind education wise it's still probably much better than most if not all developing countries education.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Now, This is an honest to goodness question. No deception here.
If american schools and american colleges are SO BAD then why do International students from india, arabia, china, korean and japan come here for book learnin?
Not conflating our Universities/Colleges with our primary schools, would be one way to start answering that question. We have excellent post-secondary educational opportunities and options.
You really don't which is why you're guessing, but nice try and keep it up.
See sentence 1 of my response below.
cadbren wrote: Save your rancour for those that published these findings, if you have issue with how groups are portrayed take it up with them.
And here I thought Americans sucked at critical reading...
Thank you for explaining the problem, I agree with you.
If you really think Africa lags behind the rest of the world because its full of black people, and not because of 500 years of exploitation by foreign powers, constant internal conflict, and being relatively isolated for most of history by a continent spanning desert preventing cultural diffusion
500 years? Slaves have been taken from south of the Sahara since ancient Egypt first records the practice.
While the desert acts as a barrier to mass movement, the caravans across it ensure connectivity. Salt, spices and other materials were major commodities. Certainly there was enough exchange for musical instruments like the sitar to be introduced to the local population where it developed into the early banjo and was taken to the USA by the slaves.
Oh I'm not trying to find it, cadbren should provide it if he wants his argument to have any weight. The 'several studies support' while providing no references is how a (failing) first year would word their work.
You can choose to consider what I have to say as made up if you like. I'm not invested in this enough to want to bother looking up the relevent papers for you to dismiss them as unrepresentative, taken out of context or whatever other prepared explanation you might have. I don't get credits for this, this is entertainment for me as it is for you. I believe what I do and you believe what you do, only time will show who has a better handle on things.
Oh I'm not trying to find it, cadbren should provide it if he wants his argument to have any weight. The 'several studies support' while providing no references is how a (failing) first year would word their work.
You can choose to consider what I have to say as made up if you like. I'm not invested in this enough to want to bother looking up the relevent papers for you to dismiss them as unrepresentative, taken out of context or whatever other prepared explanation you might have. I don't get credits for this, this is entertainment for me as it is for you. I believe what I do and you believe what you do, only time will show who has a better handle on things.
So your response to someone asking for your proof is 'I don't have any'
You can choose to consider what I have to say as made up if you like. I'm not invested in this enough to want to bother looking up the relevent papers for you to dismiss them as unrepresentative, taken out of context or whatever other prepared explanation you might have. I don't get credits for this, this is entertainment for me as it is for you. I believe what I do and you believe what you do, only time will show who has a better handle on things.
500 years? Slaves have been taken from south of the Sahara since ancient Egypt first records the practice.
So you know this and you still don't think that it had a effect on development?
While the desert acts as a barrier to mass movement, the caravans across it ensure connectivity. Salt, spices and other materials were major commodities. Certainly there was enough exchange for musical instruments like the sitar to be introduced to the local population where it developed into the early banjo and was taken to the USA by the slaves.
I didn't say they weren't connected at all. Culture develops faster when multiple cultures are in close proximity to each other. It forms a chain effect. The Sahara desert is a void where only a few major cities existed off the coastline. There were trade routes through it evident in the archeological record but it's like comparing marbles to bowling balls. After the fall of the Roman Empire all trade across the Sahara virtually stopped for several centuries until the Moors started it again. It stopped again due to constant conflicts within the Muslim world and went on and off until European colonization began in the 16th century.
The Sahara desert is a massive geographic barrier to cultural diffusion. That's not a statement that there was zero, its a statement that while the Middle East and Europe benefited from a massive trade chain across the Eurasian continent that spread goods and ideas as far away as China, Africa sat relatively isolated in comparison.
You can choose to consider what I have to say as made up if you like. I'm not invested in this enough to want to bother looking up the relevent papers for you to dismiss them as unrepresentative, taken out of context or whatever other prepared explanation you might have. I don't get credits for this, this is entertainment for me as it is for you. I believe what I do and you believe what you do, only time will show who has a better handle on things.
The issue is that the vast majority of studies say the opposite of what you say (anyone who has been to college and taken a sociology class learns this fast, so its not uncommon knowledge). If you don't want to spend your time digging for citations that's fine (I don't bother either) but don't expect people to take you seriously when you make a fringe claim.
