Standard Deviation of PISA
jacobisrael
Following are the results of the PISA test which show the US scores 8
standard deviations [read: "generations"] lower than Japan in math:
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/16/33683931.pdf
That's what you might call a quantum difference );
It's also notable from the chart on page 5 that 5/6th of Japanese
students scored higher than 551, which is 4 points higher than Korea's
median score of 547, and that less than 1% of Korean students scored
higher than 551.
But 5/6ths of Korean students scored higher than 544, which is one
point higher than Flanders' score of 543. Thus there was not much of an
overlap between Flanders' highest scores and Korea's lowest scores.
But 5/6h of Flanders' students scored higher than 538, which is one
point higher than New Zealand's score of 537 and 2 points higher than
Finland's score of 536. So the lowest scoring one sixth of Flander's
students scored in the range of the median students in New Zealand and
Finland.
But 5/6ths of New Zealand's students scored higher than 534, which is 1
point higher than Australia's and Canada's scores of 533. So the lowest
scoring 1/6th of New Zealand's students scored in the range of the
median students in Australia and Canada.
But 5/6ths of Canada's students scored higher than 531.6, which is 2.6
points higher than the median students in Switzerland and the UK. With
such a narrow standard deviation (1.4), 97.5% of Canada's students
scored higher than the median scores of Switzerland and the UK.
But 5/6ths of the UK's students scored higher than 526, which is 9
points higher than France's score of 517. Less than 1% of the students
in both countries overlap each other, in the range of 521 to 524.
But 5/6ths of France's students scored higher than 514, which is 4
points higher than the median score of 510 in Sweden. One sixth of the
highest scoring Swedish students overlap one sixth of the lowest
scoring French students at 513 to 514.
But 5/6th of Sweden's students scored higher than 507.5, which is 4.5
points higher than Ireland's median score of 503. Less than 1% of
Sweden's lowest scoring students overlapped the top one sixth of
Ireland's students, at 505.7.
BUT--AND NOW WE'RE SOLIDLY DOWN IN MUD TERRITORY--97.5% of Ireland's
students scored higher than 497.6, which is 4.6 points higher than
"OUR" score of 493. Only because we have such a large standard
deviation (7.6) do a large number of our students (one sixth to be
precise) score higher than 500.6--A SCORE STILL LOWER THAN THE MAJORITY
OF EUROPEAN NATIONS.
Is it any wonder that we're now three generations behind former
third-world country Korea in semiconductor technology, and auto
manufacturing, and electronics design?
Comments?
John Knight
Russell...@wdn.com
Beyond the statistics, what's going on? Why would a
typical American student care to score well on a math test?
What does anyone propose to "fix" the problem? No Child
Left Behind? LOL! Would "fixing" the problem make any
difference to the relative level of manufacturing technology?
Not if it will be overwhelmed by other factors, which IMO it
would be. IOW the departure of high level manufacturing
from the U.S. is at most a weak function of the math test
scores of American students. Certainly math skills are at
best necessary but not sufficient condition.
Cheers,
Russell
David C. Ullrich
<jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Following are the results of the PISA test which show the US scores 8
>standard deviations [read: "generations"] lower than Japan in math:
>
>http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/16/33683931.pdf
>
>That's what you might call a quantum difference );
>
>[...]
>
>BUT--AND NOW WE'RE SOLIDLY DOWN IN MUD TERRITORY--97.5% of Ireland's
>students scored higher than 497.6, which is 4.6 points higher than
>"OUR" score of 493. Only because we have such a large standard
>deviation (7.6) do a large number of our students (one sixth to be
>precise) score higher than 500.6--A SCORE STILL LOWER THAN THE MAJORITY
>OF EUROPEAN NATIONS.
>
>Is it any wonder that we're now three generations behind former
>third-world country Korea in semiconductor technology, and auto
>manufacturing, and electronics design?
>
>Comments?
Not to worry - after all, Bush is the Education President,
he's gonna take care of all this shortly. (Right now he's
a little busy getting "intelligent design" into the
high-school biology class, but I'm pretty sure he's
coming back to math next.)
>John Knight
************************
David C. Ullrich
jacobisrael
BUT 5/6ths of US students scored higher than 485.4, which is 9.4 points
higher than Spain's median score of 476. Only 2.5% of Spanish students
scored over 482.2 which is 3.2 points lower than 485.4, below which
only 1/6th of US students scored.
BUT 5/6ths of Spanish students scored higher than 472.9, which is 15.9
points higher than Italy's median score of 478. Only 0.15% of Italy's
students scored higher than 466.3, yet only 0.15% of Spanish students
scored lower than 482 [read: there was almost no overlap].
BUT 97.5% of Italian students scored higher than 466.3, which is 5.3
points higher than Greece's score of 461. Only 1/6th of Greek students
scored higher than the lowest scoring 2.5% of Italian students.
BUT, 99.85% of Greek students scored higher than 430.2, which is a
WHOPPING 43.2 points higher than Mexico's median score of 387. Only
0.15% of Mexican students scored higher than 397.2, yet only 0.15% of
Greek students scored LOWER than 430.2, making it very dubious that any
Mexican student scored higher than any Greek student in that 33 point
spread.
BUT, 99.85% of Mexican students scored higher than 376.8, which is
another WHOPPING 42.8 points higher than Brazil's median score of 334.
Only 0.15% of Brazil's students scored higher than 345.1, making it
dubious that any Brazilian student scored higher than any Mexican
student in that 31.7 point spread.
Whew!!
Sincerely,
John Knight
Russell...@wdn.com
do about it, what difference will it make if they do? There
may be some Brazilian posting this some place else at this very
moment, bemoaning the poor performance of Brazilian students.
Some group will average best, some worst, and the differences
may be highly statistically significant. We could look at the
distribution of Olymic medals. What practical differences do
these things make, or are we just looking for something about
which to proudly beat our chests or hang our heads?
Cheers,
Russell
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> [statistical evidence that USA is doing really badly in Math]
I personally tend to believe anecdotal evidence more than statistics.
However in this particular case the anecdotal evidence agrees very
strongly with the statistical evidence.
I think that a good way to solve the problems in the USA is to send
observers to the countries where they are doing well, and see what it is
that they are doing so well. My sense is that our home grown solutions
to this very obvious problem just aren't making it.
I also think that we should look at aspects of the US education that are
successful. We are extremely good at producing high quality basket ball
and football players - what is it that we are doing in these areas that
we are not doing in math? Another organisation that seems to be
extremely effective in education is the US armed forces. Perhaps their
education goals are limited, but their training ideology "we want you to
learn this no matter what it takes" as opposed to some of their methods
"shout in your face every time you get it wrong" are definitely things
we could try adopting. Anyway, there is definitely something they are
doing right.
However, my suggested solution to our current education problems is this
- double the salaries for all teachers, and wait 50 years. Right now
most people with good math skills go into other other careers. People
with good math skills who do go into teaching tend to be highly
ideologically motivated, because really the salaries are very poor.
Stephen
Russell...@wdn.com
> jacobisrael wrote:
> > [statistical evidence that USA is doing really badly in Math]
>
> I personally tend to believe anecdotal evidence more than statistics.
> However in this particular case the anecdotal evidence agrees very
> strongly with the statistical evidence.
>
> I think that a good way to solve the problems in the USA is to send
> observers to the countries where they are doing well, and see what it is
> that they are doing so well.
Interestingly, while the students of Singapore do very well on
standardized test of physics knowledge, their knowledge translates
very poorly to the work place, and the government of Singapore
asked top American physics educators to go over and give them some
advice on cirriculum reform.
> My sense is that our home grown solutions
> to this very obvious problem just aren't making it.
>
> I also think that we should look at aspects of the US education that are
> successful. We are extremely good at producing high quality basket ball
> and football players - what is it that we are doing in these areas that
> we are not doing in math? Another organisation that seems to be
> extremely effective in education is the US armed forces. Perhaps their
> education goals are limited, but their training ideology "we want you to
> learn this no matter what it takes" as opposed to some of their methods
> "shout in your face every time you get it wrong" are definitely things
> we could try adopting. Anyway, there is definitely something they are
> doing right.
We have had extensive discussions of this for years on
sci.research.careers. An argument can be made that if people
with, say, Ph.D.s in math got the kind of salaries, media
adoration, groupies, etc. that pro basketball players get,
children might spend hours every day solving equations rather
than working on their jump shots. Probably wouldn't work, but
why not try? At least we'd get some rich mathematicians out of
the process. :-)
> However, my suggested solution to our current education problems is this
> - double the salaries for all teachers, and wait 50 years. Right now
> most people with good math skills go into other other careers. People
> with good math skills who do go into teaching tend to be highly
> ideologically motivated, because really the salaries are very poor.
>
> Stephen
Teachers should make more money, IMO, along with a lot of other
people, but doubling the salaries of teachers won't work as well
as doubling mathematicians' salaries.
Cheers,
Russell
jacobisrael
Your post is a real breath of fresh air!!
100% agreed--except for the part about education costs );
Our own home grown "solutions" to education have all been wrong, and
all you need to do to understand why is to look around the world at the
countries which CAN and DO educate their youth, at a MUCH lower cost
than we now do.
Your comment about DOD schools also hit home, because:
1) I just got back from a key high school reunion of DOD school
graduates which had an incredible video on this topic, narrated by
Chris Kristofferson and including comments from General Schwartzkopf.
2) The only 2 years I attended US public schools was a miserable
experience from an education point of view, with every other kind of
school all the way from Germany to Korea seeming to be lightyears ahead
of ours (this observation being made long before knowing the vast
differences in test scores).
There was a time when I believed that we must be doing something right
in education because our economy seemed to be working. PISA and TIMSS
proved me wrong--we've done exactly the right things we need to do to
destroy all education opportunities for our youth.
We spend $26,000 per student in Washington DC to "educate" them and
produce the nation's lowest performing students. We spend less than a
sixth as much ($4,000 per student) in North Dakota and produce the
nation's best students--on par with Korea and Netherlands, or even
slightly higher. Korea spends almost nothing for public education and
scored even higher than Japan in TIMSS (who scored a hundred points
higher than us). If there's a relationship between spending and
quality, the less public funds that are spent for education, the higher
the quality of that education [duh, this is called "free enterprise",
so would we actually expect less?].
Sincerely,
John Knight
ps--but back to the original point--PISA accurately points out that
there are literally a hundred standard deviations [generations?]
between the lowest scoring girl students in Peru and the highest
scoring boy students in the Netherlands.
Bob LeChevalier
>I think that a good way to solve the problems in the USA is to send
>observers to the countries where they are doing well, and see what it is
>that they are doing so well.
Central planning of their school systems with relatively little local
independence and parental control - things that are sacred cows in the
US.
School discipline that American kids and their parents would never
tolerate. (Remember when Singapore arrested an American kid for
vandalism and sentenced him to caning?)
More uniform populations, and relatively little student choice. What
choices there are, are earned by very high stakes tests that determine
a kid's entire life path often as early as 6th grade.
>I also think that we should look at aspects of the US education that are
>successful. We are extremely good at producing high quality basket ball
>and football players - what is it that we are doing in these areas that
>we are not doing in math?
Look at the salaries of our top basketball players and our top
mathematicians, and the answer will be obvious.
If our top scientists could hire agents to negotiate $20 million a
year salaries with only a 4 year college degree, more kids would want
to be scientists. As it is, they don't, and have little motive to
excel.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
jacobisrael
Would you say that one of the reasons Singapore has remained so far
ahead of everyone else in math and physics is because they're not
afraid to listen to others, and ask questions, about how they educate
their students? If only our teachers would do the same );
Agreed with your point about math teachers' salaries. We already spend
two to three times as much for public education as other countries who
DO score so much higher than us (and twice as much as a percent of GDP
as we spent just 5 decades ago when our test scores were 98 SAT points
higher), so why continue to follow a path which we already know doesn't
work?
The problem is the "equal pay act". Math teachers should be paid more
than home economics teachers just because they're worth more, and
because their subject is more important to the economy. If that means
cutting salaries of home economics teachers, so be it.
With regard to the comment that we seem to do well in things like
basketball, we can't forget that the US got a BRONZE Medal in
basketball this year, not even a Silver Medal, much less a Gold Medal,
because several other countries (where basketball is about as exciting
as watching the grass grow) BEAT THE HECK OUT OF US. 99% of the
sportsmen, dollars, media focus, and fan participation in Italy and
Venezuela (two of the teams who beat us) is dedicated to soccer, not
basketball. It's only the also-rans who play basketball there, but
their also-rans beat the pants off of our multi-billion dollar "dream
team".
For what reason do you believe we have the false perception that we're
good at teaching basketball? Seems that we have the same problem there
that we have with public education, namely so many false perceptions.
Sincerely,
John Knight
Richard Ulrich
<jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Following are the results of the PISA test which show the US scores 8
> standard deviations [read: "generations"] lower than Japan in math:
>
> http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/16/33683931.pdf
>
> That's what you might call a quantum difference );
>
> It's also notable from the chart on page 5 that 5/6th of Japanese
> students scored higher than 551, which is 4 points higher than Korea's
> median score of 547, and that less than 1% of Korean students scored
> higher than 551.
See page 17 if you want a distribution of *individual* scores.
I'm afraid that you are grossly misreading the chart, and
drawing invalid conclusions about samples -- Those
"SD" numbers are, very apparently, the SDs of the national
means. I say it is "apparent" because you can look at the
differences that are annotated as "significant" and the
ones that are not.
Each of those SDs would be half as big if the Ns were
all 4 times as large.
The amount of overlap is also apparent in the discussion
about other scales on the tests, after you consider that
all the scales show a similar range for their means.
[snip, additional invalid extrapolations about
non-overlaps of samples.]
--
Rich Ulrich, wpi...@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> Your comment about DOD schools also hit home.
I have to admit that the closest I have ever come to any kind of armed
service is to watch "Saving Private Ryan."
Nevertheless, when I watch various shows about US armed forces training
that I see on T.V., I am always impressed by how much the intructors
obviously care for their students (even though they try not to show it),
and how very much they really want them to succeed. It also impresses
me that when anyone is clearly not making it, there is no attempt to
fake them through the exercise, but rather they are sent back to more
remedial classes where they can catch up. Although there is a certain
sense of shame with being held back, it is not a life-breaking experience.
Stephen
jacobisrael
central governments as American children are. None of those three
"communist" countries prohibit their children from saying a simple
prayer to God the way that our central government does (which I believe
is the main force behind the 98 point drop in SAT scores since prayer
was banned here in 1963).
Not only does the almighty dollar not produce a great teacher or
student, but it also doesn't create a great basketball player. Our
multi-billion dollar "dream team" LOST to two countries (Italy and
Venezuela) who don't spend a dime on basketball [read: they're actually
amateurs, like they're supposed to be when they go to the Olympics].
Korea's public education spending is zilch, yet they scored 5 TIMSS
points higher than Japan (who spends 3% of GDP for education), who
scored 100 points higher than us (who spend 9% of GDP for education).
Even within the US, North Dakota scores at the top of all tests, but
spends a sixth as much per student as Washington, DC, who scores dead
last in everything (not to mention vying so often for the top spot as
the murder capitol of the world).
If there's a relationship, the lower the cost of public education, the
higher the quality of education.
John Knight
jacobisrael
Thanks for pointing out page 17, which I'm looking at right now.
Could you please clarify your point?
Are you saying the figures on page 5 are standard errors rather than
standard deviations (something that I thought they were at first)? If
you've found the key to page 17, could you post it here or let me know
where you found it?
In any event, your point is well taken, which is that the chart on page
17 suggests that the figures on page 5 could not possibly be correct.
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
I'm familiar with tend to forget that the ultimate objective of the
military is to break things and kill people, leaving little room for
coddling soldiers );
There's an element of truth to what you observed on TV, but the actual
implementation really can't be accurately portrayed.
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
A tremendous amount of propaganda is being directed at American
students regarding "racial" and "sexual" "equality", which this study
absolutely proves to be false. It may be that we've been dumbed down
so much that most can't even understand that point.
Even the web sites where this study is posted and examined make
comments about how the differences between boys and girls are so
trivial. But when the standard deviation in Korea is 2.8, then the 27
point difference between boys and girls becomes REAL "significant"
[read: ten standard deviations].
If this is correct, then there's no overlap between Korean boys and
girls in math skills, which is something that most Americans will
probably never believe.
Sincerely,
John Knight
Richard Ulrich
<jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Richard,
>
> Thanks for pointing out page 17, which I'm looking at right now.
>
> Could you please clarify your point?
>
> Are you saying the figures on page 5 are standard errors rather than
> standard deviations (something that I thought they were at first)? If
Yes, precisely.
> you've found the key to page 17, could you post it here or let me know
> where you found it?
The scaling key to 17 is just below the chart, with
lettering too small for me to read at the default -- view
the page at 200%. From what is shown there, the total
range shown by the bar for each country is 5% - 95%
>
> In any event, your point is well taken, which is that the chart on page
> 17 suggests that the figures on page 5 could not possibly be correct.
Well, the figures on page 5 could not possibly be
*sample* standard deviations. But it doesn't require
looking at page 17. - for one thing, the international
"significance" comparison (on page 5) proved they
were SDs of means.
I scanned for more evidence, looking for something like
page 17. I knew that something had to be grossly wrong
when your initial conclusions were so out-of-line with every
international comparison ever published.
Russell...@wdn.com
any time in college, to get a multimillion dollar basketball contract
these days.
Cheers,
Russell
Russell...@wdn.com
> Dear Russell,
>
> Would you say that one of the reasons Singapore has remained so far
> ahead of everyone else in math and physics is because they're not
> afraid to listen to others, and ask questions, about how they educate
> their students?
I don't know. I think we're comparing apples and oranges.
> If only our teachers would do the same );
>
> Agreed with your point about math teachers' salaries. We already spend
> two to three times as much for public education as other countries who
> DO score so much higher than us (and twice as much as a percent of GDP
> as we spent just 5 decades ago when our test scores were 98 SAT points
> higher), so why continue to follow a path which we already know doesn't
> work?
It is a multivariate problem. Ask Reef Fish about drawing
conclusions in these cases.
>
> The problem is the "equal pay act". Math teachers should be paid more
> than home economics teachers just because they're worth more, and
> because their subject is more important to the economy.
Ah, but that point is not established by the data, IMO. Show
me a mathematician that has a net worth of Martha Steward, who
is basically a glorified home economist. ;-) While you and I
may believe math is of greater value to the economy than home
economics, the economy decides that and votes with dollars.
> If that means
> cutting salaries of home economics teachers, so be it.
Actually I think teachers are generally underpaid.
> With regard to the comment that we seem to do well in things like
> basketball, we can't forget that the US got a BRONZE Medal in
> basketball this year, not even a Silver Medal, much less a Gold Medal,
> because several other countries (where basketball is about as exciting
> as watching the grass grow) BEAT THE HECK OUT OF US. 99% of the
> sportsmen, dollars, media focus, and fan participation in Italy and
> Venezuela (two of the teams who beat us) is dedicated to soccer, not
> basketball. It's only the also-rans who play basketball there, but
> their also-rans beat the pants off of our multi-billion dollar "dream
> team".
>
> For what reason do you believe we have the false perception that we're
> good at teaching basketball?
I don't know how good we are at teaching basketball. We're good
at playing basketball, but not as good relative to the rest of the
world as we used to be. I'll take a Nobel Prize in medicine over
an Olympic Gold medal anyway.
> Seems that we have the same problem there
> that we have with public education, namely so many false perceptions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> John Knight
Cheers,
Russell
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
But it does seem to me that the actual number of students who make it
big in basketball or baseball is extremely small - it might seem like a
quick way to riches, but my guess is that those who don't make it big
end up getting very little out of their experience.
On the other hand, people who try to make it big with math, but don't
make it to the top, still end up with very decent careers in
engineering, statistics, or indeed any other job requiring decent
thinking skills.
If only we could persuade our students that good math and writing skills
are very helpful in later life, then we would have helped them a lot.
Stephen
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> Dear Russell,
>
> A tremendous amount of propaganda is being directed at American
> students regarding "racial" and "sexual" "equality", which this study
> absolutely proves to be false. It may be that we've been dumbed down
> so much that most can't even understand that point.
You need to be careful here, because perhaps you are spoiling some of
the good points you have made hitherto.
First, with regard to the racial equality. It seems to me that if any
organisation has done extremely well with racial integration it is the
US armed forces. There may or may not be differences in ability between
races, but it is important, I think, to provide equal opportunity.
Next, with sexual differences - I do think that there are differences,
but sometimes I think they go in strange ways. For example, I am told
that 18 year old men tend to be better at math and sciences than 18 year
old women, but by the time they are 21 that the roles have been
reversed. This makes recruiting women particularly attractive to
universities, because they tend to achieve much better at the end. I
have certainly noticed in mathematics graduate schools that there are a
very large proportion of women. (This paragraph is most definitely an
unsubstantiated assertion, based simply on stories that I have heard 20
years ago, so if anyone knows that I am completely wrong, I would
appreciate hearing from them.)
Stephen
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
As an outside observer, the military training programs must be pretty
good, because in my opinion the soldiers performed outstandingly in the
recent Iraq War. For example, one hears of ambushes laid for the US
troops, which one would expect would largely wipe out the unit involved,
yet the allied casualties seem come in ones and twos rather than in
hundreds and thousands. Of course, every casualty is regrettable, but
the levels seem just so very much lower than similar battles from the
second world war or the Vietnam war, that I cannot fail to be extremely
impressed.
I also get the strong impression that the generals very genuinely care
for the wellbeing of the soldiers in their care.
I also feel that the military has performed extremely well in their
relations with the local population. Obviously it has not been perfect,
and the media have certainly highlighted these incidents, but in
comparison to say the Russian occupation of Berlin in 1945, the US
military come across as one of the most well disciplined and fair minded
soldiers that have ever existed in history.
Of course, all these observations are from an outsider, and may not be
right.
Stephen
Mark S.
report. The "standard deviations" reported on page 5 appear to "standard
deviations of the mean", not the standard deviation of the individual scores
that went into computing the mean.
The standard deviation of the mean is equal to SD/sqrt(n), and is a measure
of how accurately the mean has been determined, not the spread in the data.
If you read further in the report, you will find that the spreads in the
data for individual countries are much larger, as would be expected by
anyone familiar with test data.
Sincerely,
Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
Editor and Publisher
The Irascible Professor
http://irascibleprofessor.com
"jacobisrael" <jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123948856....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier
>Not even Russian, Chinse, or Cuban children are as controlled by their
>central governments as American children are.
Our central government has almost no control over children,
nincompoop. NO ONE really has control over our children, including
their parents. You are clueless.
> None of those three
>"communist" countries prohibit their children from saying a simple
>prayer to God the way that our central government does
Our central government does no such thing.
>(which I believe
>is the main force behind the 98 point drop in SAT scores since prayer
>was banned here in 1963).
Prayer was never banned here, nincompoop. Any child in the land can
say a prayer right now if they want to.
>Not only does the almighty dollar not produce a great teacher or
>student, but it also doesn't create a great basketball player.
In your worthless opinion, nincompoop.
>Korea's public education spending is zilch,
Did you pull that crap out of your strange orifice, nincompoop?
>yet they scored 5 TIMSS points higher than Japan
Noise level difference.
>(who spends 3% of GDP for education), who
>scored 100 points higher than us (who spend 9% of GDP for education).
Nonsense numbers, pulled out of your strange orifice. You haven't a
clue.
Bob LeChevalier
>On 13 Aug 2005 09:00:56 -0700, "jacobisrael"
><jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Following are the results of the PISA test which show the US scores 8
>> standard deviations [read: "generations"] lower than Japan in math:
>>
>> http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/16/33683931.pdf
>>
>> That's what you might call a quantum difference );
>>
>> It's also notable from the chart on page 5 that 5/6th of Japanese
>> students scored higher than 551, which is 4 points higher than Korea's
>> median score of 547, and that less than 1% of Korean students scored
>> higher than 551.
>
>See page 17 if you want a distribution of *individual* scores.
>
>I'm afraid that you are grossly misreading the chart, and
>drawing invalid conclusions about samples -- Those
>"SD" numbers are, very apparently, the SDs of the national
>means. I say it is "apparent" because you can look at the
>differences that are annotated as "significant" and the
>ones that are not.
>
>Each of those SDs would be half as big if the Ns were
>all 4 times as large.
>
>The amount of overlap is also apparent in the discussion
>about other scales on the tests, after you consider that
>all the scales show a similar range for their means.
The nincompoop has a history of pulling strange statistical
conclusions out of his strange orifice. I've been correcting his
ignorance for 6 years and haven't managed to dent it in the slightest.
http://www.geocities.com/fathersfiasco/quotations.html
has some of his infamous lines of the past.
lojbab
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> Not even Russian, Chinse, or Cuban children are as controlled by their
> central governments as American children are. None of those three
> "communist" countries prohibit their children from saying a simple
> prayer to God the way that our central government does (which I believe
> is the main force behind the 98 point drop in SAT scores since prayer
> was banned here in 1963).
I think that you are exercising a certain degree of hyperbolae here,
since there is no law prohibiting prayer in schools - it is just that
schools are not allowed to hold a formal time of prayer.
Nevertheless, it would seem that I agree with you at some level, since I
send my kids to a Christian school http://www.cfsknights.org/home.htm.
I might add that one of the things I really like about this school is
that it provides an extremely loving and nurturing environment for the
children who attend it.
Finally, let me point out this passage, which appears on this schools
web site (this is in response to one of your other posts):
THE IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSITY
The early church was characterized by diversity. It began on the day of
Pentecost with Jewish groups of differing languages, ethnic origins and
economic means. Before long previously hated Samaritans were included,
then Africans from Ethiopia, and finally Romans, Greeks, and gentiles
from who knows where. The mixture included slaves and their masters,
rich and poor, educated and uneducated. Of course, what they all had in
common was the revelation that there was forgiveness of sins in Jesus
Christ and that in Christ they were children of God. These new kinships
in Christ did not come without complications. Councils and edicts (Acts
15) and teachings and exhortations (Ga. 3:28) were necessary to help the
church learn to prosper in both its unity and its diversity. (See Romans
12, 14; 1 Cor. 1, 12; Eph. 2, etc.)
For CFS to fulfill its mission of preparing students for a lifetime of
Christian service, we must help students learn the importance of both
unity and diversity among God’s people. One of the best ways we can do
this is by achieving greater diversity within our student body.
We certainly have denominational diversity, as over 40 Christian
congregations are represented at CFS. We have some socioeconomic
diversity as our tuition assistance program makes it possible for some
families with very limited financial means to have their children
enrolled at CFS. More than 20 percent of the school’s current enrollment
receives some level of tuition assistance.
What about intellectual diversity? Although our Individual Instructional
Center serves about 10 percent of our students by providing academic
enrichment, tutoring, or alternative curricula, the lack of more
extensive special education resources makes CFS inaccessible to children
with more serious learning difficulties or disabilities. These children
comprise a significant portion of the body of Christ, and our current
students miss regular interaction with these whom I think God notes as
being worthy of special honor. (1 Cor. 13:2-25).
In regard to a racial and ethnic diversity, less than nine percent of
the CFS student body is non-Caucasian. We note in our advertisements and
admission policies that CFS seeks to serve a diversity of students with
varying ethnic, racial, and economic backgrounds. We recently received
authorization to expand our policies regarding acceptance of foreign
students from the Federal Office of Immigration and Naturalization
Services. However, we must also strive to increase our enrollment of
minority students and particularly African American students already
living in Columbia. We need recruitment strategies and more tuition
assistance funds to reach this underserved portion of our community.
It is not possible or even desirable for CFS to be all things to all
people, even within the Christian community. Nevertheless, it is
important for CFS to become what God wants it to be. Will you join with
us in teaching children that our differences in race, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, intellectual ability, and denominational
affiliations are part of God’s plan to mature us in Christ? At CFS we
are unwilling to compromise the truth of the gospel, but because of the
gospel, we want to open wide our arms to those whom He has called.
Russell...@wdn.com
> Russell...@wdn.com wrote:
> > Heck, some kids don't even need to get a four year degree, or spend
> > any time in college, to get a multimillion dollar basketball contract
> > these days.
>
> But it does seem to me that the actual number of students who make it
> big in basketball or baseball is extremely small
True.
> - it might seem like a
> quick way to riches, but my guess is that those who don't make it big
> end up getting very little out of their experience.
Probably also true.
> On the other hand, people who try to make it big with math, but don't
> make it to the top, still end up with very decent careers in
> engineering, statistics, or indeed any other job requiring decent
> thinking skills.
Maybe, maybe not. That has been the argument in sci.research.careers
for years. Certainly many do, some do not, and was it worth the
years of effort and investment on the part of those who don't make
it?
>
> If only we could persuade our students that good math and writing skills
> are very helpful in later life, then we would have helped them a lot.
>
> Stephen
I tend to agree, but OTOH some of the effort along those lines
involves promoting what I and others call "The Big Lie", that
there is or soon will be a severe shortage of scientists and
engineers in the U.S. I've personally been hearing that from
governmental and quasi-governmental organizations my entire
career (pushing 30 years now) and have not yet seen it.
Instead of true opportunity for jobs worthy of our brightest
students we have rounds of temporary postdocs, part-time
adjunct faculty appointments, computer admin positions, etc.
Cheers,
Russell
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>If only we could persuade our students that good math and writing skills
>>are very helpful in later life, then we would have helped them a lot.
>>
>>Stephen
>
> I tend to agree, but OTOH some of the effort along those lines
> involves promoting what I and others call "The Big Lie", that
> there is or soon will be a severe shortage of scientists and
> engineers in the U.S. I've personally been hearing that from
> governmental and quasi-governmental organizations my entire
> career (pushing 30 years now) and have not yet seen it.
> Instead of true opportunity for jobs worthy of our brightest
> students we have rounds of temporary postdocs, part-time
> adjunct faculty appointments, computer admin positions, etc.
I am really thinking at a different level - I am not trying to push
graduate math as the key to riches, but rather that a decent background
in high school math is a definite asset in the job market.
Stephen
Abe Kohen
>
> Not to worry - after all, Bush is the Education President,
> he's gonna take care of all this shortly.
Mr. Ullrich, our educational shortcomings have persisted under presidents of
both parties for way too long, and our educational goals and achievements
are at the local, not federal level.
Abe
(reading only sci.stat.math)
Abe Kohen
> jacobisrael wrote:
> > [statistical evidence that USA is doing really badly in Math]
>
> successful. We are extremely good at producing high quality basket ball
> and football players - what is it that we are doing in these areas that
> we are not doing in math?
We don't attempt to teach EVERYONE basketball or football. We take the elite
and concentrate our best efforts on them and only them.
Would we tolerate such a policy in math?
In many schools, math prodigies are held back to conform to an absurd "grade
level."
> Another organisation that seems to be
> extremely effective in education is the US armed forces.
The US armed forces do an excellent job at teaching K-12 children of
soldiers, across all racial groups. Something about discipline and caring
parents.
> However, my suggested solution to our current education problems is this
> - double the salaries for all teachers, and wait 50 years.
It would be nice, but who would pay for this?
> Right now
> most people with good math skills go into other other careers.
So perhaps math teachers should be paid more than history teachers?
Unfortunately, the unions are opposed to this concept.
Abe
(reading only sci.stat.math)
jacobisrael
Dear Stephen,
First, please permit me to correct your misperception about sex
differences in math skills. There's no standardized math test which
shows the phenomena that you described above. They all are consistent
on this point, which is that boys starting at age 13 outscore girls by
at least a standard deviation. There IS a phenomena on several
standardized reading and language tests where 13 year year old girls
outperform boys slightly, but by age 18 all these very same tests show
that boys outperform girls.
With regard to attempting to establish "equality" of any kind, either
racial or sexual, do you think it's at all possible that this is
precisely what caused SAT scores to drop 98 points, leaving us in dead
last place on 17 of 34 TIMSS subjects?
Two of the key things Japanese and Korean boys have going for them
[read: one of the reasons they consistently score 100 points higher
than our boys] is:
1) Single sex education, which means boys and girls aren't interfering
in each other's education.
2) Single race education, which means that there isn't an inferior
race demanding that all the education dollars be spent on a futile
attempt to "equalize" the outcome.
I know many "White men", myself included, who intended to make the
military a career and opted out because of the forced race mixing (yet
it was literally just last weekend that many of us learned exactly what
the UCMJ REQUIRES in this regard).
Maybe I was just lucky, but the DOD schools I went to weren't forcing
race mixing the way that our public schools have.
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
> Not to worry - after all, Bush is the Education President,
> he's gonna take care of all this shortly.
Mr. Ullrich, our educational shortcomings have persisted under
presidents of
both parties for way too long, and our educational goals and
achievements
are at the local, not federal level.
Abe
====================================
Do you think it's local educators who prohibit our children from saying
a simple prayer to God in OUR "public" schools--or was it the
anti-Christ, un-Godly Supreme Court that did that?
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
Agreed, education quality is a multivariate problem which depends on
far many other things other than money to improve.
Agreed that teaching math is more important to most of us than teaching
home economics--but disagreed that Marth Stewart makes her money by
teaching home economics. If economic success is the determinant, then
home economist Stewart is a pauper compared to software billionaire
Gates, or Sun Microsystems billionaire Scott McNealey.
Agreed that teachers are underpaid--but disagreed that overpaying
existing teachers could possibly improve anything.
Agreed that the Olympic teams that won Gold Medals for a solid 82 years
performed far better than the ones which brought home Bronze Medals
recently, and agreed that such medals are trivial compared to prizes
like the Nobel Peace Prize.
But could you explain what part of this statement is apples and
oranges? The following statement doesn't refer to Singapore, but since
Singapore scores so much higher than Japan, it's likely that even more
of their students complete calculus in high school:
<<<Hedrick Smith,"Rethinking America", July 15, 1995 points out that 6%
of U.S. and 40% of German and 94% of Japanese students study calculus
in high school.>>>
Knowing that, would it surprise you that 8 of the top ten patent
holders of ***US*** patents in 1996 were Japanese companies?
http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind98/c6/tt06-04.htm
International Business Machines Corp. 1,867
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha 1,541
Motorola Inc. 1,064
NEC 1,043
Hitachi, LTD 963
Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha 934
Toshiba Corporation 914
Fujitsu Limited 869
Sony Corporation 855
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. 841
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
The simple fact remains that, before the Supreme Court ruling in 1962
regarding school prayer, the vast majority of American students DID
pray to God in their public school classrooms, but now they do not.
Yet in every other country I've been to, children STILL DO say a prayer
to God (and in Korea, it's three times a day). So I disagree that this
is simply "a certain degree of hyperbolae".
Without getting too far off topic, had our students not been prohibited
from learning about God and Jesus in our "public" schools, it's likely
that most of them would see the error of the above policy instantly.
Here are just a few verses from God and Jesus which contradict that
policy:
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee [Abraham] and thy
seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be
a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen 17:7
Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto
Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel
for an everlasting covenant, 1Ch 16:16-17
He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel." Matthew 15:24
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into
the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye
not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye
go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:5-9
In the following verse, who are "a holy people", and who are "all the
peoples who are on the face of the earth"?
For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God; and Jehovah has chosen
you to be a people to Him, a special treasure out of all the peoples
who are on the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 14:2
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
Back when we used to make semiconductors in the US [last productive
plant in the US was in 1983], I could walk for a mile past rows of
desks in Silicon Valley and never see a "White" face. The names on the
name tags looked like spoons bouncing on the floor [wang, chin, fong,
everything but Smith or Fitzpatrick].
Almost all of those jobs are now offshore so it's not so obvious that
American White men no longer learn enough math to even work at
MacDonald's, much less Donald Douglass. So if you've gone for 30 years
without seeing the invasion of foreign engineers from China, Taiwan,
Japan, Korea, India, even Jordan and Iran, then you need to visit
whatever semblance of a semiconductor plant might be left in your town
and see if that's consistent with your statement above.
When Hedrick Smith,"Rethinking America", July 15, 1995 points out that
6% of U.S. and 40% of German and 94% of Japanese students study
calculus in high school, how could we possibly expect White men to
become the top engineers (or even any kind of engineers)?
If there's no shortage, why are there so many foreign engineers here?
Sincerely,
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>Without getting too far off topic, had our students not been prohibited
>from learning about God and Jesus in our "public" schools, it's likely
>that most of them would see the error of the above policy instantly.
>Here are just a few verses from God and Jesus which contradict that
>policy:
>
>And I will establish my covenant between me and thee [Abraham] and thy
>seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be
>a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen 17:7
>
>Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto
>Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel
>for an everlasting covenant, 1Ch 16:16-17
>
>He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
>Israel." Matthew 15:24
>
>"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into
>the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye
>not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye
>go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:5-9
>
>In the following verse, who are "a holy people", and who are "all the
>peoples who are on the face of the earth"?
>
>For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God; and Jehovah has chosen
>you to be a people to Him, a special treasure out of all the peoples
>who are on the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 14:2
None of which suggest that it is necessary or desirable to have
established religion or official prayer in public schools.
Bob LeChevalier
>Back when we used to make semiconductors in the US [last productive
>plant in the US was in 1983],
http://www.wcit.org/topics/imports/outsourcing_NYT_2--11-04.htm
<About 200 miles down the highway, in Austin, a far different story was
< unfolding. In early May, Samsung, the highflying South Korean
< electronics conglomerate, announced plans to spend $500 million to
< expand its seven-year-old semiconductor plant a few miles north of
< the city and to hire up to 300 workers, bringing its total work force
< there to more than 1,000.
Of course the location of semiconductor plants has nothing to do with
education, because the workers in semiconductor plants are generally
low-skill, low-pay.
>When Hedrick Smith,"Rethinking America", July 15, 1995 points out that
>6% of U.S. and 40% of German and 94% of Japanese students study
>calculus in high school, how could we possibly expect White men to
>become the top engineers (or even any kind of engineers)?
If only 6% of American kids study calculus, it is because we have a
free country and American kids don't WANT to study calculus.
They call it "freedom".
>If there's no shortage, why are there so many foreign engineers here?
Because there is no shortage anywhere else, either, and the engineers
get more money if they live and work here, and they get *freedom* if
they work here, (and because for the most part racist slime like you
have no power in this country).
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:
>> Stephen Montgomery-Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
>> >I think that a good way to solve the problems in the USA is to send
>> >observers to the countries where they are doing well, and see what it is
>> >that they are doing so well.
>>
>> Central planning of their school systems with relatively little local
>> independence and parental control - things that are sacred cows in the
>> US.
>
>I don't think that's true for, e.g., Finland or Canada scoring quite
>well in PISA.
I do. Virtually every country in the world has more central control
over education than we do.
Finland
http://www.edu.fi/english/pageLast.asp?path=500,4699,4847
<The broad national objectives and the allocation of teaching time to
< instruction in different subjects and subject groups and to pupil
< counselling are decided by the Government. The National Board of
< Education decides on the objectives and core contents of instruction
< by confirming the core curriculum. Based on these, each provider of
< education prepares the local basic education curriculum.
As I understand it, Canada's schools are controlled at the province
level, not at the local level. I don't believe that there is any
pretense at local or parental control.
Canada also has CEGEP, which seems more like our community colleges,
as a bridge from high school to college, rather than having all high
schools try to prepare kids for college. As a result, any testing of
17 year old students in Canada may not be testing all students.
(I will note that I have a personal theory as well, that high
latitudes, meaning cold winter months that leave kids stuck indoors
with nothing worth doing besides sedentary activities, tends to
encourage more time being spent on studying than warm countries.)
David C. Ullrich
Uh, thanks.
>Abe
>(reading only sci.stat.math)
Also reading only the first sentence of each paragraph - if you
read all of
"Not to worry - after all, Bush is the Education President,
he's gonna take care of all this shortly. (Right now he's
a little busy getting "intelligent design" into the
high-school biology class, but I'm pretty sure he's
coming back to math next.)"
you might realize I was joking. (Hard to believe the
first sentence wasn't sufficient for that - never mind...)
************************
David C. Ullrich
Art Kendall
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html
http://www.personnelselection.com/adverse.impact.htm
Art
A...@DrKendall.org
Social Research Consultants
University Park, MD USA
(301) 864-5570
Russell...@wdn.com
> Dear Russell,
>
> Agreed, education quality is a multivariate problem which depends on
> far many other things other than money to improve.
>
> Agreed that teaching math is more important to most of us than teaching
> home economics--but disagreed that Marth Stewart makes her money by
> teaching home economics.
Note I never said she "teaches" home economics, and note that I
also had a :-) after what I did say about her.
> If economic success is the determinant, then
> home economist Stewart is a pauper compared to software billionaire
> Gates, or Sun Microsystems billionaire Scott McNealey.
Are they mathematicians? AFAIK Gates isn't.
>
> Agreed that teachers are underpaid--but disagreed that overpaying
> existing teachers could possibly improve anything.
It would improve that fact that they are underpaid. It might
encourage people who would be better teachers to go into the
profession.
> Agreed that the Olympic teams that won Gold Medals for a solid 82 years
> performed far better than the ones which brought home Bronze Medals
> recently, and agreed that such medals are trivial compared to prizes
> like the Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> But could you explain what part of this statement is apples and
> oranges?
Different countries have different systems, priorities, histories,
etc. Basically a short phrase for the multivariate nature of
the problem.
> The following statement doesn't refer to Singapore, but since
> Singapore scores so much higher than Japan, it's likely that even more
> of their students complete calculus in high school:
>
> <<<Hedrick Smith,"Rethinking America", July 15, 1995 points out that 6%
> of U.S. and 40% of German and 94% of Japanese students study calculus
> in high school.>>>
>
> Knowing that, would it surprise you that 8 of the top ten patent
> holders of ***US*** patents in 1996 were Japanese companies?
> http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind98/c6/tt06-04.htm
>
> International Business Machines Corp. 1,867
> Canon Kabushiki Kaisha 1,541
> Motorola Inc. 1,064
> NEC 1,043
> Hitachi, LTD 963
> Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha 934
> Toshiba Corporation 914
> Fujitsu Limited 869
> Sony Corporation 855
> Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. 841
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John Knight
Cheers,
Russell
Bob LeChevalier
>> If economic success is the determinant, then
>> home economist Stewart is a pauper compared to software billionaire
>> Gates, or Sun Microsystems billionaire Scott McNealey.
>
>Are they mathematicians? AFAIK Gates isn't.
Gates never completed his college education.
Russell...@wdn.com
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Russell...@wdn.com wrote:
> >> If economic success is the determinant, then
> >> home economist Stewart is a pauper compared to software billionaire
> >> Gates, or Sun Microsystems billionaire Scott McNealey.
> >
> >Are they mathematicians? AFAIK Gates isn't.
>
> Gates never completed his college education.
>
> lojbab
I know, but he could, in principle, be a mathematician anyway,
but he isn't. He is another excellent example of a rich non-
mathematician.
Cheers,
Russell
jacobisrael
"An analysis of these data by ethnic group, reported in Section 5,
shows that this small overall increase actually reflects very
substantial gains by Blacks and Latinos combined with little or no gain
by Whites"
An issue that may have been addressed in this report but which I didn't
find in my brief review of it is that the "races" [read: mestizos]
referred to as "blacks" and "Latinos" have a higher composition of
"White" [read: Caucasian] genes now than they did 30 years ago. Since
we know that the mixture of Negroids with an IQ of 65 with Caucasoids
with an IQ of 100 produced mestizos with 25% Caucasoid genes and an
average IQ of 80, it would be reasonable to attribute all of this
increase in IQ's of blacks to this known increase in Caucasoid genes in
the black "race".
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
1) American parents have no control over their children?
2) The Supreme Court which banned school prayer in the US in 1962 has
no "control" over our children?
3) The central government of Russia, where children ARE permitted to
and DO say a prayer to God in their PUBLIC classrooms, DOES have
"central control" over children which is adverse to their well-being?
4) Venezuela's basketball team beat ours because Venezuela spends more
for basketball than the NBA?
5) American children are just as likely to pray now as they were
before the Supreme Court banned school prayer in 1962?
6) The cost of education as a percent of GDP in the US did NOT double
since 1959?
John Knight
jacobisrael
If we had local control of education in the US, our children WOULD be
REQUIRED to say a simple prayer to God in their "public" school
classrooms, three times daily, just as they do in almost any other
country around the world, "free" or otherwise. I've personally
witnessed school prayer in PUBLIC classrooms in Germany, France,
Ireland, China, Cuba, Russia, Korea, Japan, and Tawian, and know for a
fact that it's OUR children who no longer benefit from such a simple
right.
Anyone who doesn't believe, for example, that Russian children DO have
school prayer in their classrooms, just ask, and I'll put you directly
in contact with my translator in Russia who's own son I've witnessed IN
his classroom WITH his fellow classmates PRAYING to God.
It's OUR children who're NOT provided this RIGHT, not "privelege",
compliments exclusively of a "supreme court" which thinks it's God.
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
The interactive tool on the PISA web site at
http://pisaweb.acer.edu.au/oecd/oecd_pisa_data_s2.php reports that the
lowest scoring student in PISA is a student in Peru who:
1) Goes to a public school, who scores minus 119 points relative to
private schools, at 274.
2) Is a girl, minus 16 points.
3) Has her mother help her with here homework several times per week,
minus 25 points.
4) Has no TV, minus 49 points.
5) Has no telephone, minus 53 points.
The highest scoring student is a student in the Netherlands who:
1) Is in a private school (as 85% of their students are), plus 40
points.
2) Is a boy, plus 11 points.
3) Has a father who completed college, plus 29 points.
4) Is at a school where a student is not likely to be transferred for
behavioral problems, plus 83 points.
5) Has not attended a sporting event (compared to one who does once
or twice annually), plus 10 points.
6) Is at a school where teachers don't decide which courses are
offered, plus 25 points.
7) Has an internet connection, plus 36 points.
8) Uses a word processor several times per month (compared to never
using one), plus 110 points.
9) Enjoys reading, plus 30 points.
There are obviously many other criteria to be considered, and this
doesn't imply that there's any cumulative effect. For example, the
girl student in Peru who scores 53 points lower than average because
she doens't have a telephone might also not have a TV (and thus already
scored 49 points lower just because of this factor). And the boy
student in the Netherlands who scores 110 points higher because of his
use of a word processor might also be the same student who scores 10
points higher because he doesn't attend sporting events, scores 25
points higher because he attends a school where the teacher doesn't
decide the courses, scores 36 points higher because he has an internet
connection, and scores 30 points higher because he enjoys reading.
How do you believe all of this effects the Netherlands' standard
deviation of 2.5? Is it possible that this disputes the notion that
their standard deviation is as small as 2.5?
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
so we'd expect to see a lot of overlap between them, which of course we
do. That system hasn't been influenced very much by Japanese, Korean,
other Asian or Oriental, Indian, Muslim, African, Russian, or jewish
education, and thus there's not a lot of similarity there. All
attempts to distort that European model to make it fit other ideologies
or societies have done nothing but reduce its effectiveness and
quality. That's not to say that there aren't some things that they do
that we need to take a closer look at, though.
Would you agree that it's encouraging that private schools in the
Netherlands scored 20 points higher than private schools in Japan and
24 points higher than private schools in Korea?
Sincerely,
John Knight
Gerry Myerson
"jacobisrael" <jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Following are the results of the PISA test which show the US scores 8
> standard deviations [read: "generations"] lower than Japan in math:
>
> http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/16/33683931.pdf
>
> That's what you might call a quantum difference );
Since a quantum is the SMALLEST possible amount of whatever
is under discussion, you might want to choose a different metaphor.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Richard Ulrich
<jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Rich,
>
> The interactive tool on the PISA web site at
> http://pisaweb.acer.edu.au/oecd/oecd_pisa_data_s2.php reports that the
> lowest scoring student in PISA is a student in Peru who:
>
> 1) Goes to a public school, who scores minus 119 points relative to
> private schools, at 274.
[snip, high and low 'factors']
Okay, those do support the well-known factors of
higher education and socio-economic class of parents,
plus parental concern.
>
> There are obviously many other criteria to be considered, and this
> doesn't imply that there's any cumulative effect. For example, the
> girl student in Peru who scores 53 points lower than average because
> she doens't have a telephone might also not have a TV (and thus already
> scored 49 points lower just because of this factor). And the boy
- and it doesn't say whether this phone-less student is
living in poverty and having to work part time. Or, is the
sample more selective than that?
[snip, more effects, mostly socio-economic ... ]
>
> How do you believe all of this effects the Netherlands' standard
> deviation of 2.5? Is it possible that this disputes the notion that
> their standard deviation is as small as 2.5?
Their s.d. is as small as 2.5 because their sample is large.
THAT 2.5 is still a description of the sample mean, and
has little to do with individual variation. See page 17
for individual variation, which is approximately as large
in each and every country charted.
In various posts -
You do seem to have an overly concrete notion of
"intelligence" and how that relates to achievement.
I suggest reading up on the Flynn-effect -- which shows
that IQ, as measured, is increasing about 3 points per
decade. There's obviously a large social component,
and that component has not been pinned down.
I suggest reading Stephen Jay Gould's book, Mismeasure
of Man. There's an important message in it, about the
tendency to "believe what you want to believe is true",
especially when it fills emotional needs. [The main
refutation of SJG is not really a refutation, but points
out that "truth" is hard to identify; and how do we know
that SJG is not doing the same thing? - Well, some motives
are more transparent than others.... ]
--
Rich Ulrich, wpi...@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
jacobisrael
Agreed, that people like Gould have a hard time separating truth from
fiction, and I agree with the following criticism of Gould's book:
===================================================
In a book whose title clearly stated their opinion, Not in Our Genes,
Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin (1984) went even further, implying that the
self-deluded prejudice was intentional (p. 52).
The systematic distortion of the evidence by nineteenth-century
anatomists and anthropologists in attempts to prove that the
differences in brain size between male and female brains were
biologically meaningful, or that blacks have smaller brains than whites
has been devastatingly exposed in a detailed reevaluation by Stephen J.
Gould.
However, Gould's (1978, 1981) charge that Morion (1849) doctored his
results to show Caucasian racial superiority has been called into
question. A random sample of the Morton collection was remeasured by
Michael (1988), who found that very few errors had been made and that
these were not in the direction that Gould had asserted. Instead,
errors were found in Gould's own work.
Michael (1988, p. 353) concluded that Morton's research "was conducted
with integrity... [while] Gould is mistaken." As we shall show,
"politically correct" and "egalitarian" conclusions in favor of the
null hypothesis do not hold. Modern studies confirm many of Broca's
(1861) and Morion's (1849) observations.
We emphasize at the outset that enormous variability exists within each
of the populations to be discussed. Because group distributions overlap
substantially on the variables in question, with average differences
amounting to between 4% and 34%, it is highly problematic to generalize
from group averages to individuals. Nonetheless, as we show,
significant among-group variation in brain size and cognitive ability
does exist. This is not to say, as some readers might implicitly
assume, that brain-size/cognitive-ability differences are due entirely
to genetic factors. Individual brain size (and cognitive ability) can
be affected by nutrition and early experience (Eysenck, 199 la, 1991b;
Lynn, 1993b). We later describe a twin study of Whites and Blacks, boys
and girls, estimating that only about 50% of cranial size variation is
due to genetic factors (Rushton & Osbome, 1995).
We also emphasize that nearly all relationships reported in this paper
are correlational. Although we report on parallel relationships between
brain size and cognitive ability across age, sex, socioeconomic, and
racial groups, causal relationships cannot be demonstrated without
longitudinal analysis of individuals. Moreover, it is important to note
that we primarily report on those menial abilities measured by
intelligence tests, although occasionally we use grades and educational
or occupational level. "Practical" and "social" intelligence (Stemberg,
1988), or "knowledge," separate from fluid or general (g) intelligence,
are typically not included in our discussion.
Herein, we use the terms East Asian, European, and African to denote
people either from or derived from these geographic areas, that is, to
denote people from the three major geographic races of humankind.
Sometimes the literature refers to these populations as Orientals,
Whites, and Blacks (also as Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids;
Stringer & Andrews, 1988). Further, we sometimes use modifiers (e.g.,
European Americans, White Canadians) and sometimes national ethnic
group names (e.g., Irish, Guatemalan Indian) to describe some samples
more precisely.
====================================================
It's notable that PISA shows that Israel scored 22 standard deviations
lower than our alreadly miserably low scores, eh?
Sincerely,
John Knight
ps--even if the gap were just 6 standard deviations, if the curves of
the US and Israel are Gaussian Distributions, then theoretically not a
single Israeli would have scored as high as the lowest scoring
American. Do you believe the curves fit a Gaussian Distribution?
pps--could this be the problem with Gould's calculations? Is it
possible that he really can't do the math? Did he make an honest
mistake because he can't separate truth from fiction? Is he just being
intentionally misleading, or dishonest? Is he in a state of denial
about the types of truths revealed by PISA? Will people continue to
believe writings like his rather than scientific studies like PISA?
Will the newsmedia ever correct the errors they made in repeating
Gould's errors, and ignoring the factual evidence like PISA?
jacobisrael
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2000/2001517b.pdf which
reports:
Religious schools score 50 NAEP points higher than public schools in
Lousiana and 26 points higher than non-public schools in Rhode Island.
Religious schools of every state score higher than the public schools
of that state (from 3 to 31 points higher).
The top five percentile of public school students in California score
lower than the median religious school students in Texas and White
public school students in Washington, DC.
Public school students in Washington, D.C. score 49 points or more
lower than public school students in Iowa, Minnesota, Montana,
Nebraska, and North Dakota (234 vs. 284).
Public school students in top scoring state Nebraska score higher than
France but lower than Hungary, whereas Nebraska's religious school
students scored on par with Taiwan and Korea.
Lousiana's public school students scored lowest in the country, but
their religious school students scored on par with France.
California & New England, whose 8th graders consistently score in the
lowest tenth to fiftieth percentile, consistently spend the most per
student for education.
Not only do religious schools produce far better students than public
schools, but they cost less than a third as much per student to
operate.
Do you think children are allowed to pray in religious schools? Do you
*really* thing this has nothing to do with the quality of education
they get [read: do you really think that they're STUPID to practice
such "nonsense"]?
John Knight
jacobisrael
Perhaps the 100 standard deviations which exist between a girl student
in a public school in Peru and a boy student in a private school in the
Netherlands could be more accurately described as a "generation"?
That is to say, there are 100 "generations" between these two types of
students?
Isn't it notable that only 0.15% of the students in any one country
score more than three "generations" higher than the median score for
their country? The 102 point difference between public schools of
Mexico and Peru might seem trivial on the surface, but being as this is
33 "generations", there isn't much room for overlap between these two
countries, is there? Similarly, the 163 point gap between a girl
student in a public school in Israel and that boy in the private school
in Netherlands, a whopping 54 "generations", means there could be no
overlap, right?
Sincerely,
John Knight
Mike Kent
> In the following verse, who are "a holy people", and who are "all the
> peoples who are on the face of the earth"?
>
> For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God; and Jehovah has chosen
> you to be a people to Him, a special treasure out of all the peoples
> who are on the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 14:2
White Anglo-Saxon Evangelical Protestant Republicans?
Mike Kent
> Dear Stephen,
>
> The simple fact remains that, before the Supreme Court ruling in 1962
> regarding school prayer, the vast majority of American students DID
> pray to God in their public school classrooms, but now they do not.
Really?
Between 1953 and 1964 I attended public schools in
Auburn, Alabama
Norfolk, Virginia
Clewiston, Florida
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Phoenix, Arizona
(and overseas for two years in a USAF school), and I don't recall
public prayer in ANY of them.
jacobisrael
1/2 right.
Cut off the last half, add "Celtic" and "kindred people", and you're
home free.
Nobody else on the rest of the planet adheres to "the Torah" as closely
as they do--even though many of them don't adhere to it as closely as
they should.
Sincerely,
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>Let's see if we can understand your perspective, lojbab:
>
>1) American parents have no control over their children?
Did I say that? Not really!
>2) The Supreme Court which banned school prayer in the US in 1962 has
>no "control" over our children?
That's certainly true.
>3) The central government of Russia, where children ARE permitted to
>and DO say a prayer to God in their PUBLIC classrooms,
They certainly weren't prior to 1992. I rather doubt that many of
them do now.
American kids are permitted to say prayers to God in their PUBLIC
classrooms. Free speech and all that. School officials are not
permitted to lead or encourage such prayer (or to forbid such prayer
or even to discuss such prayer).
>DOES have "central control" over children
They certainly did prior to 1992. They undoubtedly still have more
central control than does our society, which has none. It is hard not
to have more control than zero.
>which is adverse to their well-being?
Who made a claim that central control had anything to do with
well-being? Not me.
American society rejects central control as a matter of principle,
whether it is for "well-being" or otherwise, because "central control"
is understood to mean "not free".
>4) Venezuela's basketball team beat ours because Venezuela spends more
>for basketball than the NBA?
I make no claims regarding how much money any body spends for
basketball or why any team beats any other team in basketball. I
don't much CARE why any team beats any other team in basketball - it
is, after all, just a game.
>5) American children are just as likely to pray now as they were
>before the Supreme Court banned school prayer in 1962?
I suspect that they are as likely if not more likely to CHOOSE to pray
now. But I made no such claim.
>6) The cost of education as a percent of GDP in the US did NOT double
>since 1959?
I made no claim about percentages of GDP except that you pulled your
silly numbers out of your strange orifice, as you usually do.
Bob LeChevalier
>Then you haven't seen the NAEP data from
>http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2000/2001517b.pdf which
>reports:
>
>Religious schools score 50 NAEP points higher than public schools in
>Lousiana and 26 points higher than non-public schools in Rhode Island.
Religious schools ARE non-public schools, nincompoop.
> Religious schools of every state score higher than the public schools
>of that state (from 3 to 31 points higher).
Not relevant.
> The top five percentile of public school students in California score
>lower than the median religious school students in Texas and White
>public school students in Washington, DC.
>
> Public school students in Washington, D.C. score 49 points or more
>lower than public school students in Iowa, Minnesota, Montana,
>Nebraska, and North Dakota (234 vs. 284).
>
> Public school students in top scoring state Nebraska score higher than
>France but lower than Hungary, whereas Nebraska's religious school
>students scored on par with Taiwan and Korea.
>
> Lousiana's public school students scored lowest in the country, but
>their religious school students scored on par with France.
Your silly numbers have nothing to do with anything, much less
reality.
> California & New England, whose 8th graders consistently score in the
>lowest tenth to fiftieth percentile, consistently spend the most per
>student for education.
California, with one of the highest costs of living in the country,
spends LESS THAN the national average per student expenditure, and has
done so for almost 30 years since Proposition 13.
>Not only do religious schools produce far better students than public
>schools,
No they don't.
>but they cost less than a third as much per student to operate.
No they don't. Furthermore, the expenditures of private schools have
increased significantly faster than the expenditures for public
schools
>Do you think children are allowed to pray in religious schools?
Duh.
> Do you
>*really* thing this has nothing to do with the quality of education
>they get
Yes.
>[read: do you really think that they're STUPID to practice such "nonsense"]?
No. I think *you* are really stupid to think that this has any
relevance.
Indeed, I think that your stupidity knows no bounds.
Bob LeChevalier
>It's also not true for ANY other country.
>
>If we had local control of education in the US, our children WOULD be
>REQUIRED to say a simple prayer to God in their "public" school
>classrooms,
No they wouldn't.
>three times daily, just as they do in almost any other country around the world,
Absolute bullshit.
>"free" or otherwise. I've personally
>witnessed school prayer in PUBLIC classrooms in Germany, France,
>Ireland, China, Cuba, Russia, Korea, Japan, and Tawian,
Your observations have nothing to do with reality, nincompoop.
>and know for a
>fact that it's OUR children who no longer benefit from such a simple
>right.
Having government require children to do *anything* does not
constitute a "simple right".
>Anyone who doesn't believe, for example, that Russian children DO have
>school prayer in their classrooms, just ask, and I'll put you directly
>in contact with my translator in Russia who's own son I've witnessed IN
>his classroom WITH his fellow classmates PRAYING to God.
Yawn. Anyone who would waste time translating your stuff into Russian
must be as insane as you are.
>It's OUR children who're NOT provided this RIGHT, not "privelege",
It would be neither a right nor a privilege to have government
required to compel children to pray.
>compliments exclusively of a "supreme court" which thinks it's God.
I know of no supreme court that thinks it's God. Nor do you.
Bob LeChevalier
>Perhaps the 100 standard deviations which exist between a girl student
>in a public school in Peru and a boy student in a private school in the
>Netherlands could be more accurately described as a "generation"?
No. There is nothing generational about such a difference. The only
generation that is occurring is that which your strange orifice is
doing when you pull these silly numbers out of it.
>Isn't it notable that only 0.15% of the students in any one country
>score more than three "generations" higher than the median score for
>their country?
It isn't true, so it could not be notable.
Herman Jurjus
[snip]
> The highest scoring student is a student in the Netherlands who:
>
> 1) Is in a private school (as 85% of their students are), plus 40
> points.
Private schools? In the Netherlands? 85%? Afaik, there are negligibly
few private schools in the Netherlands. Would you care to give some more
details? What could be meant with 'private schools', here?
Thanks in advance,
--
Cheers,
Herman Jurjus
jacobisrael
private schools in the Netherlands (which score 40 points higher than
their public schools) is 15%, not 85%. It's actually Belgium where the
majority (74%) of their students attend private schools which score 69
points higher than their public schools, a great indicator of the
freedom of choice that Belgian parents have regarding education of
their children (and why they scored so high, at 539).
Just like in the US (where the private schools of every state score
considerably higher than the public schools of that state in NAEP), the
private schools of most PISA countries scored considerably higher than
the public schools of that country:
Albania +92
Argentina +96
Austria +8
Belgium +69
Brazil +91
Switzerland +28
Chile +47
Czech Republic -12
Germany +62
Denmark -6
Spain +35
Finland +3
France +6
UK +96
Greece +100
Hong Kong -76
Hungary +21
Indonesia -28 points (half in private schools)
Ireland +29 (60% in private schools)
Israel +38 (22% in private schools)
Italy +3
Japan -5 (30% in private schools)
Korea +4 (52% in private schools)
Luxembourg -27
Mexico +76 (15% in private schools)
Macedonia +70
New Zealand +68
Peru +119
Poland +15
Portugal +25
Sweden -12
Thailand -19 (19% in private schools)
US +40 (5% in private schools)
The notable exceptions are Sweden and Denmark (where Arab immigrants
attend private schools), Japan (where most foreigners attend private
schools), Thailand and Indonesia (both countries with massive
multiculturalism problems), Czech Republic, and Hong Kong.
The fact that more than half of Koreans are in private Christian
schools is proof of the freedom of choice that Korean parents have (and
why Koreans score even higher than Japan in tests like TIMSS). But the
fact that 30% of Japan's students are in private schools is an
indicator that Japanese parents, relative to US parents, still have a
lot of latitude about how their children are educated (plus they don't
have to pay taxes to fund public schools that people of other races
attend).
Our form of forced public education, where parents who want their
children to attend private schools are still taxed to pay for the
public schools their children don't attend, is the worst form of
communism on the planet (and why even Whites in our public schools
score so much lower than Whites in most European nations).
The notable exceptions are White-only states like North Dakota whose
scores are so much higher than the national NAEP average that if they
participated in PISA independently, they would score even higher than
Japan and Korea, and possibly as high as Singapore. They also have a
murder rate 1/360th that of our nation's capitol, Washington, DC, which
spends 6 TIMES as much per student to "educate" them.
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
middle of the rice paddies, and we all laughed about how silly it was
to build pianos in Korea. Within a mile of that plant is now the
Samsung semiconductor plant, which is a generation ahead of Japanese
semiconductor plants, which are a generation or two ahead of anything
we've ever built on our shores. This is why Micron Technology in
Idaho, whose products say "made in the USA", actually have this Samsung
plant in Taegu build all their memory chips. This is how it is for
most of the 50% of the world's semiconductors which are marked "made in
the USA".
A number of us who lived in Taegu got together last week for the first
time in several decades, and marvelled about our tunnel vision--and
about how fast this nation whose children we've personally witnessed
praying to God (three times daily) in their CHRISTIAN schools took over
manufacturing of all kinds, not just semiconductors.
Here's what Mr. Jefferson thought about "religious freedom", and the
use of "public property" for "religious purposes":
"In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion,
with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without
either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple,
one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian,
Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker,
listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all
mix in society with perfect harmony."
Note that religious freedom to our Founding Forefathers meant NO
INTERFERENCE from non-Christians, AND from government.
He's right, and you're wrong.
John Knight
jacobisrael
Sorry to have gotten side-tracked from your excellent observation about
page 17.
I've found nothing that suggests that this represents standard
deviations, and little else to help me understand it. What it appears
to be, and this may be wrong, is the actual spread of the test takers.
Since PISA self-selected for certain criteria, this is not a simple
random sampling. For example, they knew about the differences in
scores between private and public schools before-hand and attempted to
select students who were representative. Thus the graph on page 17
reflects all the test takers, which of course doesn't change the actual
standard deviation of the test results.
For example, the data shows that 68.26% of Korean students scored
between 544.2 and 549.8, which doesn't even imply that no student
taking the test would have scored as low as 400 or as high as 670.
These of course would be outliers, so it's a bit misleading to include
them in the graphs, which is why page 17 doesn't seem consistent with
the standard deviations listed there.
Sincerely,
John Knight
Cary Kittrell
> On 13 Aug 2005 09:00:56 -0700, "jacobisrael"
> <jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Following are the results of the PISA test which show the US scores 8
> > standard deviations [read: "generations"] lower than Japan in math:
> >
> > http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/16/33683931.pdf
> >
> > That's what you might call a quantum difference );
> >
> > students scored higher than 551, which is 4 points higher than Korea's
> > median score of 547, and that less than 1% of Korean students scored
> > higher than 551.
>
> See page 17 if you want a distribution of *individual* scores.
>
> I'm afraid that you are grossly misreading the chart, and
> drawing invalid conclusions about samples -- Those
> "SD" numbers are, very apparently, the SDs of the national
> means. I say it is "apparent" because you can look at the
> differences that are annotated as "significant" and the
> ones that are not.
>
> Each of those SDs would be half as big if the Ns were
> all 4 times as large.
And anyone with even a passing familiarity with Gaussian
distributions and biometrics could have dismissed the
original post out of hand on encountering any statment such
as:
Following are the results of the PISA test which show
the US scores 8 standard deviations lower ...
Eight standard deviations down? Not in this world.
That incomprehension absolutely screams off the page at you.
Someone with an IQ eight standard deviations below the
mean would have an IQ of MINUS 20.
Someone who was eight standard deviations lighter than
the average weight of Americans would weigh MINUS 66 pounds.
Someone eating eight standard deviations fewer carbohydrates
than average would have to eat a diet containing MINUS 32 percent
carbohydrates.
There is indeed a problem with mathematical comprehension
underscored by this post. Just not the one that was
intended.
-- cary
Richard Ulrich
<jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Rich,
>
> Sorry to have gotten side-tracked from your excellent observation about
> page 17.
>
> I've found nothing that suggests that this represents standard
> deviations, and little else to help me understand it. What it appears
> to be, and this may be wrong, is the actual spread of the test takers.
Um. You are announcing a vast ignorance here.
What do you think that the standard deviation *is*?
What have you been attempting to describe, in all
those comments that mis-use the standard error (as
we usually call it) instead?
The chart shows the 5% - 95% range, which is about 4
SDs, by the whole length of each bar. The inner lines
mark the percentiles at 10, 25, 75, and 90, according to
the legend. The picture does not show anything odd
about how they are placed, such as lumping of scores.
Mexico has a large 5-95% range, 255-525. That's 270
points, which implies a SD of about 68, which seems
fairly typical. Greece has a large range, 260-620; 360
points translates to a SD of 90.
Given this information, and knowing that (for instance)
an IQ test with a SD of 16 has a test-retest accuracy of
not better than 4 points, it is probably true that the
accuracy of the PISA2000 testing is not better than
15 or 20 points, for an individual student being tested.
> Since PISA self-selected for certain criteria, this is not a simple
> random sampling.
On the one hand, it was not intended as a random
sampling, but *some* sort of systematic sampling. The initial
page says that there were 265,000 students from 32 countries.
Flanders was represented by 3890 students from 124 schools.
So there were unequal numbers in different countries.
On the *other* hand, there was, no doubt, some varieties
of self-selection that defeated whatever was attempted,
and there was lack-of-independence by having some set
(selection, too) from each school.
The national SDs shown on page 5 would be closer to
1.0, it seems, if the estimates were taken by a simple manner
of using the within-variance divided by N -- since the
within-SD is no more than 80, and the typical sqrt(N)
must be 80 or more (given the sample size I cited).
Without reading the paper in depth, I conclude that the
authors *did* do a rational job of estimating those SDs
as a random-effect between schools, etc., rather than
as a fixed-effect across students.
> For example, they knew about the differences in
> scores between private and public schools before-hand and attempted to
> select students who were representative. Thus the graph on page 17
> reflects all the test takers, which of course doesn't change the actual
> standard deviation of the test results.
Page 17 *shows* the actual range of scores - totally inconsistent
with numbers like 3 or 4 as "standard deviation of the [individual]
test results."
>
> For example, the data shows that 68.26% of Korean students scored
> between 544.2 and 549.8,
No. That extrapolation is dumb. That is contrary to common sense.
It has been pointed out by me and by others, several times now,
in several ways.
> which doesn't even imply that no student
> taking the test would have scored as low as 400 or as high as 670.
> These of course would be outliers, so it's a bit misleading to include
> them in the graphs, which is why page 17 doesn't seem consistent with
> the standard deviations listed there.
If you are going to discuss "statistically", you ought to
learn more about statistics. A "standard deviation" is a
general term. By the chart on page 5, it is used to compare
means of countries, labeling differences as significant
on that page. By the sizes that it takes to be "significant",
they *have* to be SDs estimated for means of countries,
and not for subjects taking the test.
If you are going to discuss *any* issue in depth, you ought
to read more widely than you have; and apply more
common sense in putting together your conclusions.
Good luck.
jacobisrael
This is not "IQ". Nobody said anyone had an "IQ" 8 standard deviations
below the mean. This is the standard deviation of TEST SCORES, which
ARE related to "intelligence"--BUT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH "IQ TESTS".
In order to create his "IQ TESTS", Wechsler eliminated 95% of the
pertinent test questions in order to "normalize" men's and women's
"IQ"s. This is the moral equivalent of analyzing someone's physical
skill by eliminating how fast they run, how much they bench press, how
far they can swim, how high they can jump, and reporting ONLY the ratio
of their body weight to their height. IT TELLS YOU NOTHING MEANINGFUL.
The designers of PISA did NOT exclude such question, so what PISA
proved is that each of the world's education systems teaches people
with very different academic skills in a manner which produces separate
and very distinct results--JUST AS YOU WOULD EXPECT.
Nobody expects a girl in Peru to outscore a boy in the Netherlands--and
PISA is the statistical proof of that expectation.
Can a girl from Peru go to the Netherlands, enter their education
system, and test as high as a boy in the Netherlands? PISA says NO.
Can she improve her score even ONE point? My bet is that she cannot.
Yes, she may benefit from learning more information--but the wall to
wall differences in scores between boys and girls (a difference of
several standard deviations in some countries) proves this could not
possibly improve her analytical skills one bit.
John Knight
Cary Kittrell
> Cary,
>
> This is not "IQ". Nobody said anyone had an "IQ" 8 standard deviations
> below the mean. This is the standard deviation of TEST SCORES, which
> ARE related to "intelligence"--BUT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH "IQ TESTS".
Then it's a good thing that I wasn't saying that, innit?
What I WAS saying is that anyone familiar with normal distributions,
variance, and standard deviation would have thought five times
before buying into the idea that any sufficiently large population
could vary from any other sufficiently large population by
EIGHT standard deviations -- in any biometric measure you can think
of. The IQ, weight, and dietary examples were just that: examples
intended to give you some feeling for how absurd your initial claim
was.
As to what was wrong with the details of your claim, Richard Ulrich
has dissected that quite ably in his post, q.v.
-- cary
jacobisrael
I'm sure the Flemish know the difference between standard error and
standard deviation, being as they scored 50 points higher than us on
this very subject. Please note that their chart says "standard
deviation".
For most countries whose public schools score so much lower than their
private schools, this is a bimodal distribution and the standard error
isn't based on a smooth Gaussian Distribution. But what this data says
about Korea (where the difference in scores between public and private
schools is only 4 points) is that 68% of Korean students scored between
544 and 550.
This might seem impossible to us, but that's because we don't
understand how intense a Korean education is, and how much easier it is
to teach students who aren't of "multiculatural" backgrounds. That
still means that almost a third of Korean students scored higher or
lower than that range, which explains the large band on page 17.
Since 68% of Japanese students scored between 551 and 563, and since
their curve too is so close to a Gaussian Distribution, about a sixth
of Japanese students scored lower than 551, putting them in the range
of the top Korean students.
TIMSS was a very different scenario, because on that test, Korea scored
higher than Japan, by 5 points. This may be because the Japanese
constitute the top management of PISA and may have picked subjects they
knew were more familiar to Japanese than to Koreans.
Sincerely,
John Knight
jacobisrael
The only reason we have the world's highest standard deviation, at 7.6,
is beause we have so many uneducables. Applied across almost 300
million Americans, 204 million score between 485 and 501, 48 million
score lower than 485, and 48 million score higher than 501.
Can you guess which 48 million score lower than 485--and how much lower
than 485 they score?
John Knight
Bob LeChevalier
>When I lived in Taegu,
Was that before or after you went to prison?
>A number of us who lived in Taegu got together last week for the first
>time in several decades, and marvelled about our tunnel vision--and
>about how fast this nation whose children we've personally witnessed
>praying to God (three times daily) in their CHRISTIAN schools
Since the public schools in Taegu aren't "CHRISTIAN schools", I rather
doubt it. The Taegu American School is run by the Defense Department.
There are some private Christian schools in Taegu (e.g. GCS Daegu),
which might or might not go in for a lot of prayer, but the South
Korean population is only 26% Christian.
>Here's what Mr. Jefferson thought about "religious freedom", and the
>use of "public property" for "religious purposes":
>
>"In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion,
>with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without
>either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple,
>one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian,
>Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker,
>listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all
>mix in society with perfect harmony."
No Christian Identity fanatics. You wouldn't have been welcome.
>Note that religious freedom to our Founding Forefathers meant NO
>INTERFERENCE from non-Christians, AND from government.
Government has no reason to interfere with what goes on in a church or
meeting-house. But the public schools are themselves part of
government, so it would be self-contradictory to have government not
involved in a government activity.
Bob LeChevalier
>Sorry to have gotten side-tracked from your excellent observation about
>page 17.
>
>I've found nothing that suggests that this represents standard
>deviations, and little else to help me understand it. What it appears
>to be, and this may be wrong, is the actual spread of the test takers.
>Since PISA self-selected for certain criteria, this is not a simple
>random sampling. For example, they knew about the differences in
>scores between private and public schools before-hand and attempted to
>select students who were representative. Thus the graph on page 17
>reflects all the test takers, which of course doesn't change the actual
>standard deviation of the test results.
>
>For example, the data shows that 68.26% of Korean students scored
>between 544.2 and 549.8,
The data shows no such thing, nincompoop.
>which doesn't even imply that no student
>taking the test would have scored as low as 400 or as high as 670.
>These of course would be outliers, so it's a bit misleading to include
>them in the graphs, which is why page 17 doesn't seem consistent with
>the standard deviations listed there.
You are utterly clueless.
Let's start by using the international report and not the report for
Flanders that you referenced, and let's use the 2003 data rather than
the 2000 data, because one can download the numbers in a spreadsheet
rather than try to read them off a bar graph.
For 2003
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/48/33995376.xls
Table 2.5b
Korea
for males
2.5% of Korean males scored below 358
7.1% scored between 358 and 420
14.6% scored between 420 and 482
22.3% scored between 483 and 544
25.9% scored between 545 and 606
18.9% scored between 607 and 668
9.7% scored above 668
for females
2.7% of Korean females scored below 358
8.3% scored between 358 and 420
19.6% scored between 420 and 482
26.7% scored between 483 and 544
23.6% scored between 545 and 606
13.4% scored between 607 and 668
5.7% scored above 668
If you download the text for that chapter
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/41/33917867.pdf
you can read that Korea's math scale score was 542 with a std err of
3.2 (Figure 2.16b)
This is slightly lower than the 547 with std error of 2.8 in the
report for 2000 that you are incapable of understanding. Note how
that standard error says nothing about the distribution of scores for
the kids.
Bob LeChevalier
>I'm sure the Flemish know the difference between standard error and
>standard deviation, being as they scored 50 points higher than us on
>this very subject. Please note that their chart says "standard
>deviation".
It's a translation, nincompoop. Translators can make mistakes in
translating technical terms.
>For most countries whose public schools score so much lower than their
>private schools, this is a bimodal distribution and the standard error
>isn't based on a smooth Gaussian Distribution. But what this data says
>about Korea (where the difference in scores between public and private
>schools is only 4 points) is that 68% of Korean students scored between
>544 and 550.
The chart on page 17 of that report says otherwise, nincompoops.
>This might seem impossible to us,
It does, since it would require the report to contradict itself.
>but that's because we don't
>understand how intense a Korean education is, and how much easier it is
>to teach students who aren't of "multiculatural" backgrounds.
That would have nothing to do with the matter.
>That
>still means that almost a third of Korean students scored higher or
>lower than that range, which explains the large band on page 17.
The band on page 17 shows a LOT more than a third of Korean students
scoring higher or lower than that range.
>Since 68% of Japanese students scored between 551 and 563,
No they didn't, nincompoop.
Bob LeChevalier
>But that's what a standard deviation is, by definition.
>
>The only reason we have the world's highest standard deviation, at 7.6,
>is beause we have so many uneducables.
No. It is because we had a small sample size.
>Applied across almost 300
>million Americans, 204 million score between 485 and 501, 48 million
>score lower than 485, and 48 million score higher than 501.
>
>Can you guess which 48 million score lower than 485--and how much lower
>than 485 they score?
Given your mathematical illiteracy, I doubt that you would break 100.
Richard Ulrich
<jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Rich,
>
> I'm sure the Flemish know the difference between standard error and
> standard deviation, being as they scored 50 points higher than us on
> this very subject. Please note that their chart says "standard
> deviation".
Any standard error *is* a standard deviation.
Didn't someone say that before?
If it were mine, I might have labeled the table otherwise, but
"SD" fits in with showing the non-overlap of certain of the
*national means*, which is one overt purpose of the table.
Look at the several tables. See how they are segmented to
show the higher and lower *countries*, based on those SDs?
[... snip, repetition of nonsensical extrapolations.]
By the way, any test of educational achievement is a
moderately good surrogate for a test of IQ.
- Thus, the implication of your extrapolations -- as
someone else posted earlier -- is that there must be
negative IQs; or, maybe, each country has a tested IQ
range of a couple of points, at most.
Your repeating this nonsense is particularly unwelcome,
IMHO, in the stats groups. Other folks probably think badly
of you for it, too.
Secret Squirrel
ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:ddqg0s$j89$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
> And anyone with even a passing familiarity with Gaussian
> distributions and biometrics could have dismissed the
> original post out of hand on encountering any statment such
> as:
>
> Following are the results of the PISA test which show
> the US scores 8 standard deviations lower ...
>
>
> Eight standard deviations down? Not in this world.
> That incomprehension absolutely screams off the page at
> you.
>
>
> Someone with an IQ eight standard deviations below the
> mean would have an IQ of MINUS 20.
MINUS 20 IQ? What would be an example of that? Someone,
who by his mere presence, dumbs down any discussion in which
he's involved?
SAY....!!??
> There is indeed a problem with mathematical comprehension
> underscored by this post. Just not the one that was
> intended.
After having taken a look at the pdf file, it's bloody obvious.
The bar charts showing the variation show more overlap, even
between the highest scoring countries and the lower scoring
ones, than divergence. People who score well above-average
in a low-scoring country are likely to be still above-average
in a high-scoring one, John's protests notwithstanding.
I also see that my teacher friends' criticism--that the
test is done on 15-year olds, not people who've finished
high school--has merit. There are differences in the
curricula of the nations being tested, and it really doesn't
matter much *when* you learn something, just that you
learn it before you leave school. Testing 15-year olds will
introduce bias by itself.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQwEsgT/rA6+b3AyhAQEPUgf8CnRu148WhxVWX9lljhd2YODPWIcB6hBu
sRVYPXCcuU81Q/fk1KfpUeAxq+oHtRjKWqhlVw5z/MKF4tf2mcNYlbtBGu5gg+WN
pkBO+WbO10WEPvK2LkmZ4y9VMxnPS4o8paPWN2yF8D6XFu5lVtaCEwo0l61Q/2YY
3iEbCr7ir37md+OAmsoP/QOUbOZm6EqKWF3Dt9EVyxHl9nJ0GkCXcOnhQlAt4jRf
i96YNdsi4xVFW/SMSFFYkm87UgzHT1CIWU16VlPuhY6xfC3QBUu05XK0eWgkKu9B
E6YShPD4SZZO1G7/wkd0uc+kzp+uXqEcxMJbBUE7HyaFapVq5imvcQ==
=VUJ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jacobisrael
twisting in the wind, unable to make a single valid point, so
frustrated that they have no choice but to resort to known and proven
feminazi LIES.
No matter how much you "interpret" what Mr. Jefferson said through your
jew-colored glasses, you CANNOT change a single word he wrote, which is
that "free exercise of religion" to him IS PRECISELY the use of
"public" property for RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, so long as they were
CHRISTIAN purposes. You cannot get out of that a right of government
to PROHIBIT a single CHRISTIAN practice.
That cannot change, and will not change.
The other thing that's really enjoyable about your desperation is that
no matter how many insults and ad hominems you come up with, your
"right" to impose niggers and jews on me and mine will never exceed our
right to associate freely with precisely WHOM we chose. It's as simple
as that--NO MAMZERS ALLOWED.
John Knight
ps--and jews, niggers, and latrinos are mamzers, just like the
Peruvians who scored dead last in PISA, just like the "Israelis" who
scored closer to Africa than to Singapore in TIMSS.
Cary Kittrell
For those who tuned in late, John "eight standard deviations" Knight
has a long history of coming into the group speaking like the
voice of sweet reason, decorous of manner, deliberate in response ...
and ultimately exits -- for some period, anyhow -- screaming, frothing,
and emitting showers of sparks in all directions.
This is the first time I've seen the deterioration take place so
quickly.
Quite remarkable.
-- cary
jacobisrael
when a third of American 12th grade girls scored lower on a portion of
TIMSS than if they'd just guessed. Or when Cary suggests that such a
narrow standard deviation is a test score can somehow result in a
negative IQ. By definition, IF two thirds of the test takers score
between 544 and 550 on a test, then the median is 547 and the standard
deviation is 3. If someone in that population group scores 535, then
by definition they are scoring four standard deviations lower than the
median for that group. That's a fact of life that cannot be changed,
not even with Cary's negative intelligence.
Just because that score of 535 is 113 points (and 37 of THESE standard
deviations) higher than the 422 that jews in Israel's public schools
got doesn't mean that jews have "negative" IQ's--although that is
awfully close to or even lower than the "feeble minded moron" status
that jews complained about in the following:
<<<Gould's most inflammatory allegation consists of blaming IQ testers
for magnifying the toll of those lost in the Holocaust (p. 263). Here
he has followed the lead of Leon Kamin's (1974) The Science and
Politics of IQ. The Kamin-Gould thesis is that early IQ testers claimed
their research proved that Jews as a group scored low on their tests
and that this finding was then conveniently used to support passage of
the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 which then denied entry to
hapless Jewish refugees in the 1930s. Gould goes so far as to claim
(1996, pp. 195-198; 255-258) that Henry H. Goddard (in 1917) and Carl
C. Brigham (in 1923) labeled four-fifths of Jewish immigrants as
"feeble-minded ... morons">>>
If Wechsler's "IQ test" accurately measures the "IQ" of jews--then why
did such a widely publicized and available scientific study like PISA
put them back in "feeble minded moron" territory?
John Knight
jacobisrael
Assume 681 of 1,000 test takers score between 544 and 550 in a perfect
Gaussian Distribution:
1) What's the median of their scores?
2) What's the standard deviation?
3) How many standard deviations below the median would be a score of
523.
4) How many of THESE standard deviations did Israel score lower than
the median?
4) Is this a "negative IQ" to you?
Show your work.
Don't cheat.
Asking Jamie Powell or the 400 pound porker is cheating.
Not replying within 24 hours is an admissiont that you don't know.
John Knight
Cary Kittrell
> Here's a simple quiz for you, cary.
>
> Assume 681 of 1,000 test takers score between 544 and 550 in a perfect
> Gaussian Distribution:
The correct answer is: not in this world.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
> Actually, there is such a thing as negative intelligence, and that's
> when a third of American 12th grade girls scored lower on a portion of
> TIMSS than if they'd just guessed.
Remarkably, if one looks at John's analysis of these scores, one
quickly notices that on some questions, more girls got the
wrong answer than actually took the test:
http://christianparty.net/timss12thmath.htm
> Or when Cary suggests that such a
> narrow standard deviation is a test score can somehow result in a
> negative IQ. By definition, IF two thirds of the test takers score
> between 544 and 550 on a test, then the median is 547 and the standard
> deviation is 3.
If two thirds of test takers scored within a 7 point range out
of several hundred points, then either the sample size was approximately
two (2), or else the answers were written on the blackboard.
Your example is like saying "Given that all American men weigh between
159 and 163 pounds, then clearly..."
-- cary
quasi
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <1124241478.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "jacobisrael" <jacob1s...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Here's a simple quiz for you, cary.
>>
>> Assume 681 of 1,000 test takers score between 544 and 550 in a perfect
>> Gaussian Distribution:
>
>The correct answer is: not in this world.
>
>-- cary
>
Such a narrow range of scores is so implausible as to invalidate any
further analysis of the data without first explaining why 2/3 of the
scores where so close.
quasi
Gray Shockley
> Here's a simple quiz for you, cary.
If it's from John White Knight (a leisure time activity of David
Duke and Peter Judas Peters) it's gotta be simple.
Of course, the later in the evening, the more that John White Knight
has prepared for his driving down Alhambra.
Johnny is one of those thingies that gives white trash such a bad
name.
++ gray
Bob LeChevalier
>You don't know how ENJOYABLE it is to watch big fat 400 pound mamzers
>twisting in the wind, unable to make a single valid point, so
>frustrated that they have no choice but to resort to known and proven
>feminazi LIES.
Of course I do. I after all get to read and respond to your posts,
nincompoop. (or should I say "big fat 400 pound mamzer twisting in
the wind")
>No matter how much you "interpret" what Mr. Jefferson said through your
>jew-colored glasses, you CANNOT change a single word he wrote, which is
>that "free exercise of religion" to him IS PRECISELY the use of
>"public" property for RELIGIOUS PURPOSES,
There was no mention of "free exercise of religion" in the quote.
>so long as they were CHRISTIAN purposes.
There wasn't any mention of "Christian purposes" either, and certainly
not what you Identitical nincompoops think are "Christian purposes".
Chartered any boats to Madagascar yet, nincompoop?
>You cannot get out of that a right of government to PROHIBIT a single CHRISTIAN practice.
Of course not. Governments have powers, not rights.
>The other thing that's really enjoyable about your desperation is that
>no matter how many insults and ad hominems you come up with, your
>"right" to impose niggers and jews on me and mine will never exceed our
>right to associate freely with precisely WHOM we chose. It's as simple
>as that--NO MAMZERS ALLOWED.
Who would WANT to associate freely with subhuman racist slime
nincompoops like you.
>ps--and jews, niggers, and latrinos are mamzers, just like the
>Peruvians who scored dead last in PISA, just like the "Israelis" who
>scored closer to Africa than to Singapore in TIMSS.
Nope. YOU are dead last. And your inferiority is the reason you find
it necessary to insult your superiors.
By the way, we found a nice all-"white" island just suitable for you.
It's in the Antarctic climes, so you have little worry that it will
ever be anything other than "white".
Bob LeChevalier
>Assume 681 of 1,000 test takers score between 544 and 550 in a perfect
>Gaussian Distribution:
Why should one assume something that wouldn't ever happen?
Bob LeChevalier
>Actually, there is such a thing as negative intelligence,
... then you exhibit it. You actually drain intelligence from your
surroundings
>and that's
>when a third of American 12th grade girls scored lower on a portion of
>TIMSS than if they'd just guessed.
Nope.
> Or when Cary suggests that such a
>narrow standard deviation is a test score can somehow result in a
>negative IQ.
Cary suggested no such thing. But if you understood such a thing, you
probably have achieved that unique trait.
>By definition, IF two thirds of the test takers score
>between 544 and 550 on a test, then the median is 547 and the standard
>deviation is 3.
That is not "by definition". You forgot the part about the perfect
Gaussian distribution.
You also cannot find a test and a population group that exhibit such
an unusual set of test scores.
>Just because that score of 535 is 113 points (and 37 of THESE standard
>deviations) higher than the 422 that jews in Israel's public schools
>got
You have no idea what the "jews in Israel's public schools" got since
the scores are not reported by religion. You seem to have forgotten
that there are Moslems and the occasional Christian there as well.
>If Wechsler's "IQ test" accurately measures the "IQ" of jews
IQ tests don't measure anything accurately.
Just remember that Marilyn vos Savant claims the highest recorded IQ
test score.
>--then why
>did such a widely publicized and available scientific study like PISA
>put them back in "feeble minded moron" territory?
For the same reason that it put the Christian Identitical nincompoops
like yourself in the "subhuman racist slime" territory.
Oh, sorry - you did that to yourself, presumably between prison
stints.
Eric Bohlman
news:a7o5g1ph0qqjkis4o...@4ax.com:
> "jacobisrael" <jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Assume 681 of 1,000 test takers score between 544 and 550 in a perfect
>>Gaussian Distribution:
>
> Why should one assume something that wouldn't ever happen?
Because unlike Mr.-off-his-meds, you aren't confused about the difference
between a sample standard deviation and the standard error of a sample
estimate of the mean. You're handicapped by your reliance on the
definitions of statistics as determined by statisticians, which is always
more limiting than being able to make up your own statistical rules.
Pseudoscience is more appealing than real science because it lets you make
shit up.
Cary Kittrell
Oh, it's quite obvious why 2/3 of the scores were so close --
that way, John didn't actually have to DO any math (and believe
me, longterm readers of this froup have seen horrifying collisions between
John and exponentials in the past...)
Look at it this way: suppose John had phrased it "Assume that 68.27% of..."
See?
Pretty pathetic, eh?
[although for John Knight, this showed remarkable self-restraint. I wouldn't
have been surprised had he said "Assume 99.73% of test takers score
between 544 and 550 ..."]
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Heh. If the Israeli government isn't covertly paying John to post
the stuff he does, then they're overlooking a great, great opportunity.
-- cary
jacobisrael
compatriot other than the most creative arm waving and jumping up and
down and whining? Of course you aren't going to answer the question,
because that would have gotten you too close to the truth.
On the GRE Quantitative test (administered to 255,523 US citizens in
1996-1997 by the Graduate Record Examination Board), the obviously
lowing scoring "person" taking this test were the 2,642 of 16,523
nigger women who scored lower than 300, and and the highest scoring
test takers were the 816 of 5,097 Asian men who scored higher than 655.
The gap between these two groups is supposedly a mere 2 1/2 standard
deviations.
BUT--when their brain sizes are measured, the gap between the AVERAGE
is 255 cc's (1,472 cc's vs. 1,217 cc's). The problem is that this is a
standard deviation of SEVEN (7).
Which is accurate? Why is there a standard deviation of only 2 1/2
between the lowest scoring nigger women and the highest scoring Asian
men, but a standard deviation of SEVEN between the AVERAGE of nigger
women brain sizes and the AVERAGE of Asian men brain sizes?
John Knight
jacobisrael
truth about that pathetic race of psychopathic murderers.
John Knight
jacobisrael
following data:
<<<Rushton (1988a) showed that Morton's data, even as reassessed by
Gould (1978, p. 508, Table 6), indicated that in cubic inches,
Mongoloids = 85.5, Caucasoids = 84.5, and Negroids = 83.0, which
convert to 1,401, 1,385, and 1,360 cm3, respectively. Rushton (1995, p.
115, Table 6.1) also showed that the same racial differences held after
a subsequent tabulation by Gould (1981), following an admission by
Gould (1981, p. 66) of his own "embarrassing" error in calculating his
1978 figures. In both his 1978 and 1981 writings, Gould dismissed the
differences as "trivial." But, as noted, differences of 1 cubic inch
(16 cm3) in brain size are not trivial in that they contain literally
millions of neurons and hundreds of millions of synapses.>>>
John Knight
ps--here's a hint: the gap between nigger women and Asian men is SEVEN
(7) standard deviations.
man_in_...@yahoo.com
> Give us an idea of what you think the standard deviation is for the
> following data:
>
> <<<Rushton (1988a) showed that Morton's data, even as reassessed by
> Gould (1978, p. 508, Table 6), indicated that in cubic inches,
> Mongoloids = 85.5, Caucasoids = 84.5, and Negroids = 83.0, which
> convert to 1,401, 1,385, and 1,360 cm3, respectively. Rushton (1995, p.
> 115, Table 6.1) also showed that the same racial differences held after
> a subsequent tabulation by Gould (1981), following an admission by
> Gould (1981, p. 66) of his own "embarrassing" error in calculating his
> 1978 figures. In both his 1978 and 1981 writings, Gould dismissed the
> differences as "trivial." But, as noted, differences of 1 cubic inch
> (16 cm3) in brain size are not trivial in that they contain literally
> millions of neurons and hundreds of millions of synapses.
"Millions" and "hundreds of millions" of cells isn't
as much as it sounds at first.
Also, Rushton basically "readjusted" for height.
Funny thing is, Gould already had. And Rushton's
readjustments were basically done to fit stereotypes.
Funny thing THERE is, in the States at least, your
average black male is actually about a centimeter
shorter than your average white male. No real
difference in females.
This is also why he removed two races entirely from
Morton's analysis; Indians generally have widely
different body sizes. (Plains tribes tend to be
the tallest people in the world. OTOH, in places
like Peru, only pygmies are shorter.) So do Pacific
islanders. (Compare Samoans to Negritos some time.)
But then again, Rushton also cites anonymous French
Army surgeons from over a century ago.
Bob LeChevalier
>Give us an idea of what you think the standard deviation is for the
>following data:
Since there is no sample size provided, there is no way to determine
it.
><<<Rushton (1988a) showed that Morton's data, even as reassessed by
>Gould (1978, p. 508, Table 6), indicated that in cubic inches,
>Mongoloids = 85.5, Caucasoids = 84.5, and Negroids = 83.0, which
>convert to 1,401, 1,385, and 1,360 cm3, respectively. Rushton (1995, p.
>115, Table 6.1) also showed that the same racial differences held after
>a subsequent tabulation by Gould (1981), following an admission by
>Gould (1981, p. 66) of his own "embarrassing" error in calculating his
>1978 figures. In both his 1978 and 1981 writings, Gould dismissed the
>differences as "trivial." But, as noted, differences of 1 cubic inch
>(16 cm3) in brain size are not trivial in that they contain literally
>millions of neurons and hundreds of millions of synapses.>>>
There is no evidence provided that the number of neurons per cubic
inch is constant for all brains.
>ps--here's a hint: the gap between nigger women and Asian men is SEVEN
>(7) standard deviations.
Number pulled out of your strange orifice, as usual.
But the gap between you and normal human beings is TOTAL deviation.
Bob LeChevalier
Gray Shockley
> "jacobisrael" <jacob1s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You don't know how ENJOYABLE it is to watch big fat 400 pound mamzers
>> twisting in the wind, unable to make a single valid point, so
>> frustrated that they have no choice but to resort to known and proven
>> feminazi LIES.
>
> Of course I do. I after all get to read and respond to your posts,
> nincompoop. (or should I say "big fat 400 pound mamzer twisting in
> the wind")
With Knight-o-say-can-you-see breaking as well as twisting in the
wind.
>> No matter how much you "interpret" what Mr. Jefferson said through your
>> jew-colored glasses, you CANNOT change a single word he wrote, which is
>> that "free exercise of religion" to him IS PRECISELY the use of
>> "public" property for RELIGIOUS PURPOSES,
>
> There was no mention of "free exercise of religion" in the quote.
Little Joni Knight-rider doesn't let truth stand in her/his/its way.
In fact, little Joni is probably passed out on Alhambra by this
time. Working on being a safe driver, dontchaknow. As well as, of
course, preventing lung cancer. (Damn! Knights of the KuKluxKlan
(David "Puke" Duke's Knights (Joni) seem to be heavily into "loving
their fellow men - dontcha wonder if Joni was in the same prison as
His Duke?).
>> so long as they were CHRISTIAN purposes.
>
> There wasn't any mention of "Christian purposes" either, and certainly
> not what you Identitical nincompoops think are "Christian purposes".
> Chartered any boats to Madagascar yet, nincompoop?
>
>> You cannot get out of that a right of government to PROHIBIT a single
>> CHRISTIAN practice.
>
> Of course not. Governments have powers, not rights.
Not in Joni's Fourth "Empire".
>> The other thing that's really enjoyable about your desperation is that
>> no matter how many insults and ad hominems you come up with, your
>> "right" to impose niggers and jews on me and mine will never exceed our
>> right to associate freely with precisely WHOM we chose. It's as simple
>> as that--NO MAMZERS ALLOWED.
>
> Who would WANT to associate freely with subhuman racist slime
> nincompoops like you.
Doesn't Yellow Jon sound like Martin Lindstedt?
I wonder that Jon has anything to say without coaching from his
Marti.
First Dead Willie and, then, jailed Marti.
Poor, poor Jon Knight. To have lost both his father (or mother - as
the case might be) figures. I wonder that Dumb Knifghty can even
blow on.
>> ps--and jews, niggers, and latrinos are mamzers,
Are you really Martin Lindstedt? You write just as "he" does. And we
know that you hate women and only love your fellow "men" (or as
close as you will "come" to them).
>> just like the
>> Peruvians who scored dead last in PISA, just like the "Israelis" who
>> scored closer to Africa than to Singapore in TIMSS.
Ah, but Joni Sweet Thing - we don't have any of your test scores at
all. And /everyone/ can see the strings.
Perhaps you're a Peruvian TriSexual? After all, you sure despise
women. And men. And children. Can there be nothing left except for
boys perverted on the same model as you and yourin?
After all, Sweet Joni - you're not much of a person, much less a
man. Being an alcoholic really isn't /that/ impressive, Boy Gulper.
Gray Shockley
----------------------------------
Say Good Knight, Gracie.
Gray Shockley
(in article
<1124291381.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Which is accurate? Why is there a standard deviation of only 2 1/2
> between the lowest scoring nigger women and the highest scoring Asian
> men, but a standard deviation of SEVEN between the AVERAGE of nigger
> women brain sizes and the AVERAGE of Asian men brain sizes?
>
> John Knight
Still trying to build up your ego, Boy?
There are knights, damn knights and statistical knights.
You be one inferior boy.
It's no wonder you hate women so much. The most feminine of them is
more man than you.
Is "Tom Jones" singing your song, not quite a man knight?
Gray Shockley
-------------------
Willie, Marty & Joni