Why are people who are good in science/math seen as more intelligent than...

Pre-College Issues High School Life
181

<p>Okay ‘Jersey 13’, I’m obviously not an idiot. I am sure you have spelt a word or two wrong in your life time. Is it such a crime that I actually study the SAT prep books, hence the vocabulary? </p>

<p>Perhaps I should rephrase what I said: CREATIVE writing and ANALYTICAL writing are two completely different things. Go do your research, something you analytical thinkers love to do so much, and tell me which type of writing mathematicians/scientists are best at; expository/analytical or creative?</p>

182

<p>

Define “obviously.”

Irrelevant, and - once again - unwarranted.</p>

<p>Unless you can provide an objective standard for the quality of creative writing, the point is moot.</p>

183

<p>

Yes I do spell words wrong on occasion. Not when there is an automatic spell check though. </p>

<p>

Once again, mathematical prowess and creative writing ability are not mutually exclusive. You haven’t answered my question either, how do you define “a great piece of creative writing”?</p>

184

<p>

</p>

<p>You said you didn’t think mathematical thinkers could write creatively. I was wondering why you think they can now.</p>

185

<p>Obviously: unmistakable. </p>

<p>Not irrelevant at all. No such thing as a moot point, I’m afraid. everything has some form of validity.</p>

<p>@ThisCouldBeHeavn: I think you’re intelligent enough to know what I meant.</p>

186

<p>

</p>

<p>Yep, there’s a clear difference between your Lewis Carrolls and your Charles Dodgsons</p>

187

<p>I think we’re being ■■■■■■■…</p>

188

<p>I promise, you aren’t being ■■■■■■■. I’m just one of the many ****ed off creative/liberal thinkers that believe that one group is no more intelligent than the other.</p>

189

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think you should use rhetorical devices if you’re not prepared to use them properly.</p>

190

<p>

Then answer my question and define “a great piece of creative writing”.</p>

191

<p>

</p>

<p>does that sound like…</p>

<p>

</p>

192

<p>

Then your claim was wrong. Either you are in fact an idiot or Jersey13 was mistaken. If the latter, then by your own definition your non-idiocy was not obvious.

I like to eat pineapples. Therefore, you are wrong and mathematicians are all brilliant creative writers.

Eh, maybe. I actually don’t think so though.</p>

193

<p>A great piece of writing could be anything that isn’t defined as expository or analytical writing.</p>

<p>@NoImagination: I meant that there is no such thing as a moot point beyond reasonable conception.</p>

194

<p>Most novels contain a fairly large amount of exposition.</p>

195

<p>

So your definition is anything that isn’t expository/analytical? Well then analytical thinkers certainly create “great creative writing” all the time.</p>

196

<p>I hate pineapples.</p>

197

<p>yes, but that exposition is exposition of fictional, or creatively altered events that are the authors own, original thoughts.</p>

198

<p>

There once was a cat named Bart. He liked to eat tuna fish. One day, Bart caught a big yellowfin tuna. However, the mean dog Skip took the fish away. But Bart believed in the value of conflict deescalation by nonviolent means, and he compromised with Skip to split the fish. They became friends and lived happily ever after :)</p>

<p>Great writing, indeed.</p>

199

<p>^ The next Fitzgerald!</p>

200

<p>you clearly have ‘noimagination.’ this argument is pointless, it’s like talking to a brick wall with no original thought.</p>