Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Different Types of Intelligence

Do you know your IQ?
Traditionally speaking, we all know that the conventional measure of a person's intelligence is their IQ. This stands for "Intelligence Quotient" and it usually reflects the score on a Stanford-Binet test for intelligence.
Supposedly, a person of average intelligence should score approximately 100, while a developmentally-challenged person would score less than that, and a highly intelligent person would be expected to score higher than that. A score of 130 or higher was generally considered a "genius" and so that became the entrance requirement for being invited into Mensa, the high-IQ society originally based in England.
In fact, it has even been laid out as to what types of career and scio-economic status a person is qualified for and can hope to achieve based upon their IQ score.
In the 1981 book, "Straight Talk About Mental Tests", Dr. Arthur Jenson has even created a table to show how far you can expect to go in life with your IQ. The following is an excerpt.

IQ Range Freq. Educability Employment Options
Below 30 >1% illiterate unemployable. Institutionalized
30 to 50 >1%? 1st-3rd Grade Simple, non-critical house chores.
50 to 60 ~1%? 3rd-6th Grade Very simple tasks, close supervision.
60 to 74 3.5%? 6th-8th Grade "Slow, simple, supervised."
74 to 89 20% 8th-12thGrade Assembler, food service, nurse's aide
89 to 100 25% 8th-1-2 years College. Clerk, teller, Walmart
100 to 111 50% 12th-Grade-Coll. Degree Police officer, machinist, sales
111 to 120 15% College to Master's Manager, teacher, accountant
120 to 125 5% College to Non-Tech PhD. Manager, professor, accountant
125 to 132 3% PhD at 3rd-Tier Schools Attorney, editor, executive.
132 to 137 1% No limitations. Eminent professor, editor
137 to 150 0.9% No limitations. Leading math, physics professor
150 to 160 0.1% No limitations Lincoln, Copernicus, Jefferson
160 to 174 0.01% No limitations Descartes, Einstein, Spinoza
174 to 200 .0099% No limitations Shakespeare, Goethe, Newton

However, originally, the IQ test score was never meant to be used this way at all. It was first developed in France in 1904 by Alfred Binet and assisted by Theophile Simon. It was then called the Simon-Binet test, and used only as a means of sorting school children into groups of normal development, and those who needed more help. That was it's original and only purpose. Binet cautioned many times that it was not to be used as a method to measure intelligence ABILITY, and should never be used as “a general device for ranking all pupils according to mental worth.”. In fact, he said that it is not a measure of intelligence, but rather simply a measure of development for children and that was why the age of the child being measured was part of the calculation. For example, if he found that 70% of 8 year olds could pass a certain test, then that would be considered the average intelligence for an 8 year old. Different tests were given for different ages. If an 8 year old could pass the test for a 10 year old, then the score is divided by the chronological age and multiplied by 100 to get the final IQ. 10/8 X 100 = 125. Therefore, logically, a child that performed above average for his age would have an above average score on the IQ test, and vice versa.

Of course the American school system administrators didn't listen to his warnings and caveats, and saw this as a wonderfully easy way to rank the intelligence of children, so it was adopted and modified and translated into English by H.H. Goddard as a way to screen applicants for entry into his school - the Vineland Training School of New Jersey.
He invented some terms that he associated with various rankings on the Simon-Binet IQ scale. Working down from the top, was "Normal", "Moron", "Idiot", and finally, "Imbecile". Now you know where those terms came from.

Goddard was influential in affecting the immigration policies of the US of the time. He lobbied hard against allowing those of lesser mental faculties to be allowed to enter the country. His 'findings' were that most people other than northern Europeans were of inferior intelligence, and he even classified 87% of all Russian immigrants as being at the "moron" level, and so they and thousands of others were deported in 1913 and 1914 as a way to try to keep out inferior people.

However, no one ever seemed to question the fact that the test was given in English and was based upon American cultural references - all of which would be completely foreign to people who did not speak English or who were unfamiliar yet with American culture. It is a perfect example of how unfair these tests were, and are, and how they can so easily be misunderstood and misused.

Then there was another adaptation by Lewis M. Terman of Stanford in 1916 which thereafter became known as the "Stanford-Binet" test and it was this version which became enshrined into our culture over the past century as a way to measure the actual intelligence, that is the mental value, of a person. When you hear the term "IQ Test" today, that typically refers to the co-called "Stanford-Binet Scale".

It has even been touted as once of the crowning scientific achievements of the 20th century.

But as it's original designers warned, it is woefully inadequate to the task. Binet said that you cannot measure mental capacity like measuring a linear surface, because it is not linear. He would no doubt be shocked to learn that a form of it is still being used 100 years later as a means to measure the mental capabilities of ADULTS! To be fair, it has evolved over the years and is now more sophisticated, but still it is limited and abused in it's current application. The 'test' is actually a series of tests that measure the abilities of the person being tested to remember and properly understand and use vocabulary, to remember facts, to calculate arithmetic, to perform pattern recognition tasks, and to execute logical processes. It does cover a number of mental processes, and so it seems to have some use at measuring the easily measurable aspects of a person's ability to function mentally.

But I feel it is incomplete, and that it is an unreliable tool for truly measuring the mental capabilities of a person.

In more recent times, there have been some researchers who have suggested different kinds of intelligences besides that measured by the standard Stanford-Binet IQ tests. Some have suggested physical intelligence, emotional intelligence, and so on. I would say though that some of the so-called 'intelligences' are closer to what I would consider to be skills, rather than intelligences. I think the difference is whether it truly represents a way of thinking and whether it is natural or learned. I would suggest that if it can be learned, then it is more properly named a 'skill'. Using that criteria, many of these so-called intelligences would not qualify.

I propose that there are 7 intelligences. The current Stanford-Binet IQ test represents 3 different intelligences, plus 4 more besides. The 7 intelligences together make up the total mental acuity of each of us and represents the potential effectiveness of our thinking abilities. Also, I believe it is important to recognize that a person may score differently from time to time based on various factors such as how tired they are, how much pressure they are under at the moment, health issues, food that is currently in their system, drugs or chemicals in their system, and also things they have learned since the last test. So it is important to take measurements over a span of different times to get an average reading to find a fair and useful assessment. The 7 intelligences I suggest are the following:
1) Logical Intelligence
2) Pattern Recognition Intelligence
3) Memory Intelligence
4) Language Intelligence
5) Emotional Intelligence
6) Mechanical Intelligence
7) Creative Intelligence

Lets look at each of them in turn.

Logical Intelligence

This form of intelligence is covered under existing IQ tests. It represents the ability of the test taker to solve problems using inductive or deductive reasoning. This intelligence can recognize and eliminate non-sequiturs, and it can solve mathematical problems. This is at the core of analysis, which is useful in everyday life in almost every situation to some degree. This is an extremely important form of
intelligence, but it is sometimes mistaken for the ONLY form of intelligence, which I consider to be rather unfair and short-sighted.

Pattern Recognition Intelligence
This form is also included in the classic IQ tests, and represents the ability of a person to detect patterns and anticipate what will happen next. It is the ability to extrapolate and compare. It becomes very valuable for troubleshooters of any ilk from computer programmers to diesel mechanics to scientists. Any form of trouble shooting involves the ability to recognize and compare patterns of behavior and then make logical deductions based on the observations and analysis.

Memory Intelligence
This is the natural ability to store words, facts, and processes, and then recall them at will. Some people are blessed with a 'photographic memory' which means that their brain can easily memorize every thing they see. When they recall it later, they say it is like looking at a photograph. They can remember an entire book by calling up each page and reading from the image in their mind. I personally have a terrible
natural memory, so this one really fascinates me.

Language Intelligence
Some people have "the gift of gab" as it has been called. They can talk smoothly and entertainingly about anything at all. They find it easy to get along with people because they express themselves well. They make good salespeople, good teachers, good guides, and they make good radio and television hosts. However it is not limited to spoken words. Some people may be too shy to be that gregarious, but they are just born to be a poet. They have a gift for using words to great effect. A natural
ability to bring tears and joy to others through well-chosen words. Often, a person with a high intellect in this are also has the ability to learn other languages easily. Anyone can learn more languages, but it is easier for some than others. It is more than a skill. It is a natural aptitude for language in all forms. It is a way of parsing out the world, and expressing complex ideas and concepts in language terms, and so it properly belongs as an intelligence.

Emotional Intelligence
This is a much-touted form of intelligence in recent years, due in part to a book by the same name. I have read this book and it does seem to be a legitimate form of intelligence. It is essentially described as the ability of a person to recognize their own emotional states and to exercise control over them.
It can be measured in people as young as 4 years old using the "marshmallow test". The child is put in a chair at a table and the adult tells the child that the marshmallow on the table in front of them is theirs if they want it. However, if they can wait until the adult comes back into the room, then they can have all the marshmallows they want. But if they choose to take this marshmallow, then they will not be given any more. Then they are left alone in the room, but they are observed by camera. The more time that goes by, the more tempting the marshmallow in front of the child becomes. They can get a measure of it by seeing how long the child can resist.
This measures the childs ability to control their behavior despite their instincts and urges. Of course, it presupposes that the child likes marshmallows.

A person who has a high emotional intelligence can overcome panic in an emergency, or can overcome tiredness or boredom or fear, and focus all their attention on solving a certain problem at hand. This ability to focus one's attention despite emotional distractions gives this intelligence it's power. A calm, focused person of average logical ability might solve a challenging problem before a highly logical person who is emotional distraught and distracted.

Mechanical Intelligence
Some people simply have a higher ability than others in this category. Some people have an innate ability to see a physical mechanical solution to a problem and then solve it. Often these people are said to be "good with their hands". But it is more than just dexterity or flexibility or strength. It is a way of thinking. It is a physical, mechanical inventiveness. A way to see how things work and fix them in unique inventive ways if they are broken. These people often become inventors.

Creative Intelligence
The creative leap. The intuitive genius. This is the hardest one to understand and measure because who can tell when one creative solution is more creative than another? Some people have a strong natural ability to come up with unique, unorthodox solutions to problems, or unique perspectives.
Obviously, this kind of intelligence is strong in the arts. Creative people often express themselves artistically because it is the most direct way to express the creative urges and thoughts and feelings. Music, poetry, literature, sculpture, painting, photography - all the artistic paths allow ways for the highly creative mind to exercise it's abilities and creative intelligence.
A person who does not have high logical intelligence or strong emotional intelligence, can still find solutions through unorthodox perspectives and pure creative leaps of intuition. I believe that all the intelligences are valuable, but this one may be the most rare and most valuable of all.


So there you have it. In my opinion, the combination of all seven of these intelligences represents more precisely the overall intellectual capabilities of an individual. If one person is lower in one area and higher in another, and another person score the reverse, they might average out to the same overall intellectual ability because often, one form of intelligence compensates for another, as one ability compensates for a lack in another.

What we need now is a reliable way to measure all these intelligences fairly for everyone. Only then will we have a true measure of intelligence that is useful for the purpose we try and stretch the old-fashioned IQ tests to cover.

One thing I'd like to point out is that all of this only assesses the potential intelligence of a person, not necessarily the actual effective intelligence of a person. For any of these intelligences to be effective, they must be applied. Sherlock Holmes was more effective than his 'smarter' brother mycroft, because he actually got out and applied his intelligence, while Mycroft stayed back in his London club and observed at a distance.

8 Comments:

At 10/18/2006 11:26 AM, Blogger Igor said...

So, Val, have you finally come to grips with human's (yours as well as mine) inability to visualize 4D objects?

 
At 10/18/2006 12:46 PM, Blogger Val Serrie said...

Not quite, Igor.
What I see in my mind really does seem like a four dimensional figure, and it also resembles the tesseracts shown on that link you provided.
However, I have a feeling that I am unable to explain my inner perception well enough to you, to make you see what I see. Your description of what I see internally does not match. That seems like only a surface rendering of something more intricate and complex.

But that's my fault, not yours. I don't feel like I'm being stubborn, but maybe I'm wrong.
But certainly, it's not worth debating any more on this point. If you want to say it is impossible, then go ahead - you are welcome to. I will not argue.
Physics for me is just an interest, but for you it was your vocation. Logic tells me to defer to your better information.

 
At 10/18/2006 7:38 PM, Blogger Igor said...

YES, it is VERY WORTH debating, because if you really can do this - than you are an extremely precious, unique person and you MUST step forward and draw attention to your unique gift. No joke or sarcasm here. And if you are mistaken (that's what I am pretty sure of) - then it would allow you to advance your own knowledge and understanding, of yourself - the very least.

Would you say that none of the above is worth any future consideration? I hope, not.

---

Now, that's really difficult situation - obviously, if I cannot visualize 4D, while you can - you are at loss trying to explain it. Still, there are several signals in your words that give me some kind of link to try to move the discussion from the state of: "Yes, I can! No, you cannot!":

I picture a ball, a 3-D sphere, moving from point a to point b through the air and the mind's camera takes a time-exposure to see the extended extruded object this creates. Since time is the 4th dimension anyway, this relates to time since the object has length, width, depth, and now, duration through space. But consider it as a spatial construct of that same shape. To me, that would be a 4-D sphere.

can you answer the following questions:

1) if you can see the 4th spatial dim, why do you think of time-duration as a substitute? when I visualize 3D object from a 2D one, I don't use any substitutes for the 3rd dimension - I just "see" how the 2D object extends into 3rd dimesion - statically. Why time and/or movement?

2) what you have just described is a 3D (curved) cylinder with spherical ends to me - may be as "mesh" structure. Still you are sure you see a 4-sphere. Now, when you visualize that 3D cylinder I talk about - how would that picture in your mind be different from the 4-sphere you started with? Or are those the same mental images, just your logical self attach different labels to them?

 
At 10/18/2006 9:11 PM, Blogger Val Serrie said...

Okay, Igor, I will try again. My feeble, non-physicist, layman's description of how I see it. Maybe it will simply give you more handles to be able to refute it. Either way...

I will try to explain it two more ways.

Simple Way:
Have you used 3-D modelling/rendering software before? Imagine a wireframe model of a sphere in twenty frame locations in a series. It is twenty 3-D objects. Imagine it as one object, but the object shifts through itself. It has twenty simultaneous edges, existing concurrently. It is very difficult to imagine in 3-D space because nothing looks like that in this space, sooooo.....

More Complicated way:
Imagine the Earth. It is about 25,000 miles in circumferance, and any spot on the surface rotates back around the exact same spot in one day. So it travels (at the equator at least), 25,000 miles in 24 hours, therefore the spot you stand on on the surface is travelling over 1,000 miles per hour, correct?
Now imagine the Earth is also in rotation around the Sun, 93 million miles away. It travels at 68,000 miles per hour in it's trip around the sun. Now imagine the sun itself is travelling along as part of the Orion arm of the Milky Way galaxy, and the galaxy rotates, and we are travelling just slightly faster than our neighbors, so we are actually coming off the leading edge of the arm even though we are out nearer the tip of it. Then the Milky Way galaxy itself is shooting out away from it's siblings in the local group (Andromeda, and Large and Small Magellanic clouds)and the local group is shooting out away from all other galactic clusters at very high speeds through the void pf deep space.

Translate all those vectors simultaneously into one direction of movement. Now imagine the room you are in ALL shifting in that direction - very fast. Almost simultaneously.
The room, and all the objects in it all shift suddenly in a direction off to the left, say.
Imagine a ball as one of the objects in that blurred shift.
It is not merely a moving 3-D ball in a statis 3-D room, and calling the movement the 4th dimension (that was only a mechanism I was using to try to explain it)
Now the ball and the room move together. There is 4-dimensional object within 4-dimensional space.
I use time and motion to try to illustrate in visual terms. The 4th dimension is the extrapolation out into the direction of sudden shift - but it it so fast that the object and the room all exist together in all the positions at once.
In this sense, this piece of the model is maybe similar to how the electron of a hydrogen atom seems to be a shell around the nucleus, but in fact it is just one very busy little electron trying to be everywhere at once and creating an effect of omnipresence.

But I think by telling that example, I have pulled the metaphor off-track.
Like I said - this is difficult to explain in conventional terms.

Now I shall tell you something that will make you laugh at me.

I have had two experiences in real life that are similar - and are similarly difficult to explain. In both cases, I saw this effect. In one case, it was during a meditation class (in Toronto where you are, by the way.) about 15 years ago.
I was in my mind standing behind myself when I opened my eyes and saw simultaneously from two positions at once. I saw both from the seated position and from the standing position behind me from where I had shifted my awareness to. (I told you you would laugh)
Anyway, the corner of the room I looked at stretched down and away, and I remember thinking it looked like when you stand between two mirrors that face each other and the image is reflected into each other into infinity. It was like that.

The other time was earlier. In the 1980s. I had been lying in bed and had just finished reading two different physics books and I got up to go to the bathroom to get ready for work. While I brushed my teeth I was assembling in my mind the concepts from both books and connecting them together. When I finally came to the conclusion, I was stepping into the tub and suddenly the realization about reality hit with sudden clarity, and everything around me started to disintegrate and fall away. A little like waking up from a dream. And I remember thinking that NO - I would reject that notion and go back to my understanding on the world as it appears and continue operating within the rules, within the 3-dimensional construct, etc. and that brought me back.
But as it was all slipping away for that moment, I remember seeing my leg and foot reaching into the shower-tub, and it was stretching away off into another direction down and away - similar to the corner of the room.

Now you say - "Hallucination!" and "What drugs were you on?" no drugs. Just experience. Entirely from thinking and being wide open to a possibility.

Laugh if you like. But I tell you my experiences faithfully, in order to give you the same chance to understand these experiences that I had.

About the 4-D object and environment - Sorry if I cannot explain any better. I am working at the limits of my ability to express the dimensional shift in the words that I know.

v

 
At 10/18/2006 10:15 PM, Blogger Igor said...

Of course it is VERY difficult to explain !!!! What the hell did you expect ???!!!

1)

2D->3D : I am imagining a 2D man living on a 2D plane (x,y). I am seeing him pointing with his arm in many different 2D directions. Now I am imagining how I take him, unstick him from his (x,y) plane and his arm is now pointing in the (0,0,z) direction. I am freezing this mental picture. And now I can say that my mental picture of his pointing into 3D space is different (as a picture) from any of his pointings within his 2D plane.

2D->4D : now, I am imagining a little 3D man living in a 3D room-space. I am imagining him pointing in different directions (x,y,z). Now, I tell myself - he and his room shifts in the 4th dimension. I am imagining him pointing in that 4th dimesion of the shift. Freeze! BUT! The picture itself, that I am having in my mind is equivalent to his pointing in some particular 3D direction. I just know that, in this particular case, it's the 4th dim. direction he's pointing to, but the picture itself is exactly the same as some 3D pointing.

what about you?

2) your experience during meditation - it's common, as far as I know. As a freshman I did boxing, and our coach trained us to meditate - deep to get an understanding of what meditation is so we can induce a "light" version of the same thing during a fight - to quicken our reactions. AFAICS, during attempting deep meditation superimposition of sensory perceptions is rather common (I saw it kind of dreams while awake) - but! - ha-ha! - it meant (as they told me) that I was doing meditation a wrong way! though my perceptions were mostly tactile, not visual... you are lucky - cause tactile superimpositions are really ... weird... especially when they are detached from the sensory organs - the skin...

not my area of expertise, anyway...

cannot write anything worth reading about your second experience...

btw, have you ever tried so-called sensory deprivation "bath" ? I have !!!! ;-)))

3) why do you think I am going to laugh at you?

Yes, I am VERY pissed off when you say smthing like "science says that [in bigbang] energy and matter cannot be created from nothing" and that "proves that there must be a god-creator", because you definitely sound like a layman when talking about bigbang and stuff,

so I can be rolling up my eyes and so on, still I take all you write in your blog at face value and, as a result, I have very high opinion about you, and I use your wisdom you generously put in your blog for myself - hope you don't mind -

- why do I criticize your physics exercises then? exactly because I have high opinion about you and I am pretty sure you, even being a layperson in physics, you are able to get the real understanding of what you love to talk about - even if limited within a particular subject! Or, at least, to understand that your conclusions derived from Mr.Hawking's writing are ... pre-mature ...

 
At 10/18/2006 10:33 PM, Blogger Igor said...

have you read books by Greg Egan? My guess - you'd like the "Quarantine".

 
At 10/18/2006 11:37 PM, Blogger Val Serrie said...

Igor,
First, thank you for not laughing. I assumed that as a physicist you would only take concrete, tangible things as suitable for discussion. That was an unfair assumption on my part, apparently. And your mention of tactile sensations from meditation - very interesting!

To your points and questions.

1)I like your little pointing man scenario. It illustrates the problem very well and brings us to the crux of the problem very easily. From the position of the little 3-D man point in x,y,z coordinates in his cube, to add another dimension, I was talking about a sudden shift of the whole cube in a direction, and you rightfully point out that any direction I shift it in is still covered by some combination of x,y,z dimensional components. Therefore it is still 3-D. You are correct. I was just trying to use that as an analogy to try to imagine another dimension as another angle of displacement. But you keep resolving it to 3D directions. I see it as a direction to which the little man is blind because his little 3-D room is moving through it and he cannot see that reference set. I see objects at this level as non-'solid' - at least not 'solid' in the conventional 3-d sense. They merge and superimpose upon each other to see them - just as a picture of a 3-D cube on a 2D piece of paper has the 3rd dimension physically overlayed on the other two.

Maybe I need to pick a completely different paradigm. What about if I say that the observer suddenly gets closer to the little 3-D man, or further away. Or if I say the man starts to change color, and his position in the visible light range of the EM spectrum is his displacement in the higher dimension, or if he suddenly emits sound, and the volume of it is his measure. Or the frequency of it is his measure. Of if he begins to vibrate, and the speed of his vibration is his measurement or "direction" on the higher dimension. These do not conflict with X,Y,Z measurements of 3D space but seem to be other properties besides spatial dimensions.

But it is difficult to imagine sound or color as a spatial dimension so language breaks down here. I cannot explain it any more precisely. In physics, there is the concept of superstring theory which provides mathematically for tiny little sub-sub-sub-atomic strings smaller than quarks to vibrate in 10 physical dimensions. The math requires it. But then it is easier in mathematics. You simply add another reference index to add another dimension. A 4-dimensional array is simply embedded/stacked. Like a page from a book is 2-D, the book of pages is 3-D, and a stack of books is 4-D. The 3-D is a subset of the 4-D in the same way that the 2-D is a subset of the 3-D. But stacked and embedded dimensions are the mathematical and computer programming approach to this. But it is hard to visualize for most people. Somehow, I see an image of this string shaking in 10 dimensions that makes sense though. For me it is shaking in weird ways, and superimposing upon itself
and the superimpositions create the appearance, the effect of different materials, different properties.

But then, as I will easily admit, I am not a professional physicist like you. I have no degree in physical science as you do. I am merely a fan of physics (and physicists like you!). I have only read perhaps 20 books or so so far,(Hawking, Feynman, Gribbon,Zukav, Gibilisco, etc.) plus I read papers when they are submitted to various journals such as Scientific American, Science, Popular Science, New Scientist, Nature, etc., plus I go and read websites that document things in the fields of physics, and news stories that are related, etc. So I keep up on things in the field at that level, but my math is not at the level of solving advanced equations. I understand the concepts and many of the theories, but not the underlying math - unless the math is relatively simple (like the math that shows why we cannot cross the speed of light. That I understand.) So I defer to you and your greater knowledge in this field.

And thank you for the other things you said. Appreciated. I am very glad if you can get anything worthwhile out of my blog.

And no, I haven't read Greg Egan before.

Right now, at this moment, I am about to start a new job where I must be suddenly an expert in a whole new technology - (UML Unified Modeling Language, inlcuding a new language, new conventions, new symbologies, new ways of drawing 13 different types of business and systems modeling diagrams, and new terminology AND new technology as it is translated into code and architecture for new systems by software tools.) I have only had a week, and have been going through 4 rather large in-depth books to learn this. So I am busy absorbing a new technology and business process analysis methodology, so I haven't had time for recreational reading, since I have also still been doing my existing fulltime job. I can only do so much.

In fact, this article on the different types of intelligences was something I just wrote up yesterday because I was procrastinating on getting back into my studies on UML. I was being naughty! LOL. Ah well, back to the books....

 
At 10/19/2006 12:36 PM, Blogger Igor said...

1) 4D - I'll be back, got a couple of ideas...

2) now, pls don't fall over to the other side - don't overestimate my physics knowledge! I'm no PhD in physics, and I don't even remember when it was the last time I wrote anything in tensors for real. yes, as a kid, I fed on feynman's lectures on P. , yes I was taught as a physisist in Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology - at the time - an equivalent of Caltech, but after perestroika/soviet collapse, Physics and I parted our ways...

In physics it is absolutely irrelevant who told you a particular thing: me, Mr.Hawking, or Mr.Einstein Himself - you judge the value of what was told yourself with your own knowledge of math, physics, previous experiense, etc.

It is the total disdain for "authority on truth" that made Physics what it is today - the Science.

good luck with UML. I hate that stuff.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home