brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
John Knight
"mat" <mats_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43525ce3.02070...@posting.google.com...
> > So you are saying that the size of a particular part of the brain may be
> > correlated with enhancement in a particular form of intelligence.
>
> Well, no actually that is not what is said. What the author says is
> that Einstein had an unusually large parietal region which may point
> to such region being involved in 'intelligence', from which does not
> follow the definitive conclusion big brain = ++intelligence
>
>
> So, given
> > that you are only interested in differences > or = to 2 SD's from the
> > control mean (males with an IQ of 116), we must assume that this
increase in
> > the *size* of one part of Einstein's brain was either at the expense of
the
> > size of another part of his brain, or was not enough to push his
otherwise
> > average/small brain to 2SD's larger than the mean of your controls.
> >
> > Are all abnormally large sizes of a given part of the brain correlated
with
> > abnormally (and to an equivalent extent) small sizes of another (e.g.
> > neighbouring) part of the brain, so that the size-differences cancel
each
> > other out ? I assume that this is not the case.
> >
> > Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that there are n forms of
intelligence
> > that are each associated with one particular part of the male brain,
then
> > surely it is conceivable, and it will often occur, that some of these
parts
> > will be, say, 5% larger than the male population mean, and some will be
5%
> > smaller -- and sometimes parts will be 10% or 15% or even 20% larger or
> > smaller than the mean. It seems to me obvious that, in some
individuals,
> > the sum of these differences will result in a brain that is
significantly
> > larger or smaller than the mean, and that we should expect this to be
> > correlated, respectively, with a higher or lower IQ, since the IQ is the
sum
> > of scores in sub-tests of various forms of intelligence.
>
> well thats also making the huge assumption that everything else (such
> as cell density remains the same) maybe its particular circuit
> arrangements that are responsible for intelligence and not neuron
> number per se. You are unfairly taking tentative data and conjectures
> due to the original author and making definitive conclusions from them
>
> >
> > I would be very grateful to hear your comments on these matters."
> >
> > What I am leading up to here is that the above webpage tries to ignore
size
> > and concentrate on structure, for the simple reason that the two authors
are
> > both female, and we all know that the average female brain is smaller
than
> > the average male brain. If the female brain is smaller than the male
brain,
> > then this must be either because all of its parts are scaled-down
versions
> > of the equivalent parts of the male brain, or because there are
> > size-differences of various sorts between the various parts of the two
types
> > of brains (including even the absence of one or more parts of the brain
in
> > the male or the female brain), such that these differences, in toto,
result
> > in a female brain that is smaller than its male equivalent.
> >
> > If the fact that one part of Einstein's brain is 15 % larger than the
mean
> > for a sample of brains that output a mean IQ of 116 is causally
connected to
> > his "genius" (or whatever word you want to use), then there is a prima
facie
> > case to investigate, as regards the size-difference between male and
female
> > brains. In other words, if size mattered for Einstein versus the rest
of
> > us, we would not be wasting our time following up the idea that it might
> > matter for male brains vs female brains. I gather from the radio
interview
> > I heard that big men don't have bigger brains than small men, and big
women
> > don't have bigger brains than small women -- so it's not a question of
> > body-size that's at issue here.
>
> You cannot on the one hand take the example of Einstein as an 'unusual
> case' to make your point and then subsequently generalise that to
> every other male who is clearly not Einstein. You also assume that
> the control data is correlated such that bigger brains => higher IQ,
> which may not in fact be true at all from, the sparse info given. Not
> only are you supposing enough about the Einstein data (did he actually
> have a high IQ?, it is not certain even though he was a "genius") but
> also a great deal about the controls
>
> > Now, it may well be that women's mean IQ is found to be the same as
men's
> > mean IQ, but, in view of the above discussion, that result would have to
be
> > a bit suspect.
>
> Again you are drawing too much from the data, the increased size may
> have nothing to do with Einsteins intelligence and may simply be
> coincidental (given that you are only looking at one case)
>
>
> I have read other research which shows that Einstein had no more
> neurons than the average but did have an unusually elvated number of
> glial cells. Perhaps this increased partietal cortex was due to this,
> but perhaps this is a highly unusual reason for having an increased
> brain size, the most common difference between women and men simply
> being changes differences in cell/volume ratios.
>
> You are trying to connect two facts as causal without any evidence for
> it. Einstein was also dyslexic, is the posterior parietal enlargment
> (given its involvement in vision) instead responsible for this with
> some weird circuitry in the frontal lobes responsible for is
> intelligence??
It's likely that the only "intelligent" thing Einstein ever did was to
plagiarize the works of the people whose brains *should* be used in this
comparison, so to use Einstein's brain as a control sample is meaningless
http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
The simple fact that all standardized tests support precisely what Mr.
Zohrab posted, whereas "IQ tests" don't, suggests that the politicization of
"IQ tests" is deceiving a LOT of people.
John Knight
ps--following are just a few examples from
http://christianparty.net/timss.htm
In the following 12 subjects, no country scored lower than American 12th
Grade Girls who scored:
22 points lower than American boys and 90 points lower than Greek girls in
Numbers & Equations.
41 points lower than American boys and 123 points lower than Cypriot girls
in Calculus.
31 points lower than American boys and 121 points lower than French girls in
Geometry.
34 points lower than American boys and 139 points lower than Norwegian girls
in Physics.
53 points lower than American boys and 130 points lower than Norwegian girls
in Mechanics.
21 points lower than American boys and 152 points lower than Swedish girls
in Electricity & Magnetism.
6 points lower than American boys and 37 points lower than Norwegian girls
in Heat.
18 points lower than American boys and 86 points lower than Swedish girls in
Wave Phenomena.
20 points lower than American boys and 92 points lower than Swedish girls in
Modern Physics.
31 points lower than American boys and 117 points lower than French girls in
Advanced Math.
23 points lower than American boys and 65 points lower than Swedish girls in
General Science.
11 points lower than American boys and 77 points lower than Dutch girls in
General Math.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS math
problems.
Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS physics
problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Among American students on other standardized tests:
In the quantitative section of the Graduate Record Exam:
Mexican boys score 3 points higher than White girls.
Mexican boys score 59 points higher than girls who major in education.
The average boys' score is 72 points higher than average girls' score.
Foreign boys score 171 points higher than American girls.
Asian boys score 234 points higher than black girls.
Boys who major in engineering score 251 points higher than girls who major
in education.
In the verbal section of the Graduate Record Exam:
Asian boys score 5 points higher than White girls.
Mexican boys score 23 points higher than girls who major in education.
Boys who major in humanities score 114 points higher than girls who major in
education.
White boys score 124 points higher than black girls.
In the analytical section of the Graduate Record Exam:
Mexican boys score 8 points higher than girls who major in education.
Indian boys score 15 points higher than girls who major in education.
Hispanic boys score 27 points higher than girls who major in education.
Asian boys score 79 points higher than girls who major in education.
White boys score 99 points higher than girls who major in education.
Boys score 46 points higher than girls in SAT math.
Boys score 2 points higher than girls in ACT math.
Boys score 5 points higher than girls in NAEP math.
Boys score 53 points higher than girls in TIMSS physics.
Boys score 41 points higher than girls in TIMSS calculus.
Swiss boys score 47 points higher than Swiss girls in TIMSS calculus.
Boys score 17 points higher than girls in IAEP math.
John Knight
"Tom Breton" <te...@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
news:m3eleeq...@panix.com...
> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> writes:
>
> > "Tom Breton" <te...@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > But the *information* is out there. Credit to Leonardo
> > > <Leonard...@newsguy.com> in <9mift...@drn.newsguy.com> for the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > > When Wechsler was developing his IQ test, he found
> > > > that out of 105 tests assessing skills in solving
> > > > maze-puzzles, involving the most heterogeneous
> > > > populations throughout the world, 99 showed an
> > > > incontrovertible male superiority. (Wechsler resolved
> > > > this type of problem by eliminating all those tests
> > > > that resulted in findings of significant sex
> > > > differences.)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Is this true? Is this how the IQs of men and women were "equalized"--by
> > throwing out 94% of the test?
>
> I reported it exactly the way it was told to me. I consider the
> report credible, but I have no further information, sorry.
>
> --
> Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
On the contrary, thanks for possibly helping to solve a real dilemma.
It's really the only way to explain that incomes, test scores, crime rates,
and a whole host of other economic and social statistics track amazingly
well with brain size, but that IQs are way off on a tangent.
If this 94% of the test which was thrown out were to be included, the odds
are REAL good that the resulting scores would fall right into line.
However--in attempting to track down the original cite, or any other
reference to this little trick Wechsler played, there seems to be zero on
the net. It would really be nice to see exactly what it is that he did,
wouldn't it?
Sincerely,
John Knight
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote in message
news:3D2A32F8...@gwi.net...
> John Knight wrote:
>
> > Is this true? Is this how the IQs of men and women were "equalized"--by
> > throwing out 94% of the test?
> >
which DO
> > correlate with brain size http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm
> >
> > John Knight
>
> IQ scores correlate very well with GRE scores. in the order of 0.86 IIRC
> --
Most of the corrlations I've gotten are in the range of 0.6, so it would
really be appreciated if you could provide a reference to the above.
One of the things that causes such low correlation is the outlier in the
brain size of Black men. Their incomes, test scores, and IQs are lower than
their brain size indicates that they should be.
If Black men's brains are removed [no pun intended], then it's closer to
0.8.
John Knight
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > us, we would not be wasting our time following up the idea that
it
> > might
> > > > > > matter for male brains vs female brains.
> > > > >
> > > > > do you know of an easy way for a male's brain to become female? or
> > vice
> > > > > versa?
> > > > >
> > > > That must be one of the most irrelevant questions I have ever come
> > across in
> > > > a discussion. Please stick to the topic, if that doesn't embarrass
you
> > too
> > > > much.
> > >
> > > Please hide your own embarrasment. Unless there is some way to equate
> > > the samples, it is not scientificly justifiable to compare apples to
> > > oranges. You acknowledge that male brains can't become female and
vice
> > > versa so males should be compared to males and females should be
> > > compared to females.
> > >
> > I must be dreaming ! Are you trying to tell me that you can't compare
the
> > weight of one hundred apples with the weight of one hundred oranges,
unless
> > you know of some genetic way to convert the one into the other ?
>
> your ignorance is showing.
> if you want to make a claim about how a particular apple is unique among
> it's class, it is pointless to compare it to objects outside it's class.
>
You seem to be ignoring Peter's original point about the differences in
average size between male and female brains. To be specific, it's of much
concern to his point that the male brain contains an average of 3 1/2
billion or 18% more brain cells than the female brain, and that their sizes
are correspondingly different.
The purpose of this thread is what you're claiming is "pointless". It's
useful to include known outliers in the data if they're not unique in some
way, but because it's known that "Einstein's papers" were written one or two
decades earlier in Europe by other men whom he never cited, using his brain
size as a control sample is exactly the wrong thing to do. He's a member of
the race which has one of the smallest brain sizes as well.
Peter will get closer to the truth if he sticks to the averages across race
and sex, particularly if the standard deviations at
http://christianparty.net/brainsize.htm are correct.
John Knight
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2A32F8...@gwi.net...
>
>>John Knight wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is this true? Is this how the IQs of men and women were "equalized"--by
>>>throwing out 94% of the test?
>>>
>>>No wonder the IQ tests don't correlate with things like GRE scores,
>>
> which DO
>
>>>correlate with brain size http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm
>>>
>>>John Knight
>>
>>IQ scores correlate very well with GRE scores. in the order of 0.86 IIRC
>>--
>
>
> Most of the corrlations I've gotten are in the range of 0.6, so it would
> really be appreciated if you could provide a reference to the above.
0.6 is not a low correlation--it explains over one third of the
variation in scores. In any other field, an R of this size would be
considered robust.
my resources are at the office, I'll dig them out today.
--
====================================================
You can't make someone love you, but you can let
yourself be loved by someone.
Mark D. Morin
> You seem to be ignoring Peter's original point about the differences in
> average size between male and female brains. To be specific, it's of much
> concern to his point that the male brain contains an average of 3 1/2
> billion or 18% more brain cells than the female brain, and that their sizes
> are correspondingly different.
Reference?
John Knight
news:3d2b2dc3...@news.btinternet.com...
> "Peter Douglas Zohrab" <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> painstakingly noted:
>
>
> >Maybe so, but that is not relevant to the present discussion. If you are
> >saying that Einstein's brain was the anomalous (please note the spelling
of
> >this word) subject, that is inappropriate to this discussion, since his
> >brain was presumably not part of the sample on the basis of which the
> >generalisation was made that female brains are smaller than male brains.
>
> J P Rushton (The National Review, September 15, 1997) pointed out that
> any debate over the relation between brain size and intelligence was
> over.
>
> Subsequently, of course, discoveries using Magnetic Resonance
> Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the
> living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (0.44)
> between brain size and intelligence. And there is more. The
> National Collaborative Perinatal Study, as reported by Sarah
> Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter measured
> at birth significantly predicts head perim-eter at 7 years --
> and head perimeter at both ages predicts IQ. Recent studies
> also show that head size and IQ vary with social class.
>
>
> It is, of course, relationships between brain size/IQ and sex
> and race which, understandably, arouse the most anxiety. Some
> critics have even suggested a social taboo on discussion and
> research in these fields. That would run counter to the entire
> tradition of scientific inquiry.
>
>
> You appear to have come up against the "social taboo" he mentions.
> This is the type of research that Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson
> want prohibited.
What's truly amazing in this Constitutional republic is that we've even
permitted communists/feminists like Gloria Steinem and Jese Jackson to not
just direct such research, but to tell us what we can and can't discuss in
public forums and universities.
THAT is hard to understand. The last thing we need is dedictated communists
like them flagrantly banning free speech. And of course the real reason they
even try is because they already know (or at least sense) what the TRUTH is,
don't they?
John Knight
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
news:3D2ABC38...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
> John Knight wrote:
>
> > You seem to be ignoring Peter's original point about the differences in
> > average size between male and female brains. To be specific, it's of
much
> > concern to his point that the male brain contains an average of 3 1/2
> > billion or 18% more brain cells than the female brain, and that their
sizes
> > are correspondingly different.
>
> Reference?
>
The url was posted previously, but following are several articles from that
reference.
John Knight
http://christianparty.net/brainsize.htm
Men Have 3 1/2 Billion or 18.1% More Brain Cells than women!
Men have more brain cells than women, study finds
Copyright (C) 1997 Nando.net
Copyright (C) 1997 Agence France-Presse
COPENHAGEN (July 28, 1997 10:04 a.m. EDT) - Men have 16 percent more brain
cells than women, but the extra gray matter does not make them any smarter,
Danish researchers report.
Neurologists Bente Pakkenberg of Kommunehospitalet and Hans Joergen
Gundersen of Aarhus University analyzed the brains of 94 Danes who died
between the ages of 20 and 90.
Their final tally, reported in the Journal of Comparative Neurology, was
that men have an average of 22.8 billion brain cells, compared to 19.3
billion for women.
"We were surprised by the difference," Pakkenberg told AFP. "We did not
think it was so big, even though men's brains weigh more." That disparity is
150 grams, she said.
The research team used a technique that analyzed the brain layer by layer
and gave a more accurate cell count, she said.
But Pakkenberg insisted the difference in cell number does not show up in
tests measuring male and female intelligence.
"In these tests it is possible that men are better at some things than
women, but in general they are not more intelligent," she said.
Copyright (C) 1997 Nando.net
522,000 men and 522,000 women take the SAT each year. Men with 3 1/2
billion more brain cells each, who score an average of 53 points higher. It
is scientifically impossible to prove that this is because of
"discrimination" and not because of their collective 1.8 quadrillion more
brain cells. Men collectively score 27.6 million more SAT points than
females, which is 65.2 million brain cells for each extra SAT points There
is utterly no way for anyone to KNOW or to prove that these two variables
are independent of each other.
To agree that the analyses and calculations necessary to take the SAT take
place in the brain is correct. To agree that the precise process by which
this occurs is not well understood is correct. To know that these extra 3
1/2 billion brain cells constitute 18.1% of the male brain's mass is
correct.
But there is no analytical process whatsoever by which it can be proven that
there is absolutely no causation for this precise correlation. There is no
way to know that not even one single one of these extra 1.8 quadrillion
brain cells contributed to even a 0.001% increase in the SAT score of at
least one male. How could exactly 3 1/2 billion brain cells--18.1% of the
male brain--refuse to participate in the SAT test (out of a sense of
fairness to females?), while the remaining 19.5 billion brain cells continue
to "discriminate" against females, by outperforming female brains by 18.5%?
If 18.1% of the brains of these 522,000 male test takers were removed, would
those males still collectively score 27.6 million more SAT points than
females? What is it about this 81.9% of the male brain that it performs
18.5% better than a female brain of equivalent size? Is it made of a
superior material?
Who would bet their life that not even 2 out of these 1.8 quadrillion brain
cells might sneak across the feminists' invisible line and cause a 0.001%
increase in an unsuspecting male's SAT Math score? Who is willing to bet
trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money that this is the case?
The statement is an utterly absurd and cynical hypothesis from a bunch of
PMS charged feminists whose frustration about their inability to grasp
abstract concepts shines through in the international press. For each 1%
increase in the percent of feminists who "think": "I am good at math", their
TIMSS scores decrease two points.
Such absurd assumptions and social engineering by feminists who haven't got
a clue what engineering and science are increased the cost of education in
the US from 4.8% of GDP in 1959 to 7.6% of GDP in 1993 (Table 31). They
increased education costs by $215 billion just last year and more than $7.3
trillion over the last 40 years. Yet SAT scores plunged 98 points, 98% of
those taking the GRE test who score in the fiftieth percentile are males and
only 2% females, the US is dead last in TIMSS geometry & last in IAEP math,
& the "gender gap" in test scores didn't budge a point!
Educators have turned a stupid idea into an utterly remarkable failure! US
education ranks as one of the best of the Twenty Nine Phenomenal Federal
Flops.
http://www.iwf.org/news/000918.shtml
September 18, 2000
Differences Between Boys and Girls Are Found in
Nature and the Brain not in Socialization
Renowned Experts Tell National Press Club Audience
WASHINGTON, DC (September 18, 2000) - Leading experts on research into brain
differences between boys and girls, told a National Press Club luncheon
crowd on Friday the 15th that biology-not social construction-explains sex
differences. This has significant implications for both education and the
workplace.
Speaking at an event sponsored by the Independent Women's Forum (IWF), "The
XY Files: The Truth is Out There About the Differences Between Boys and
Girls," the panel of experts noted that both society and boys are being
harmed by fashionable, but misguided, feminist notions. Said Lionel Tiger,
Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University and author of
The Decline of Males: "The androgynous commitment to the notion that the
sexes are all the same is essentially causing chronic private trauma in
countless lives because there is no articulation between the social
structure and the real needs of and feelings of people."
Challenging the gender experts who see male/female differences as created by
socialization, Doreen Kimura, Professor of Psychology at Simon Fraser
University and author of Sex and Cognition, presented science. "Some of the
sex differences in intellectual or cognitive patterns are biologically
influenced early in life and a major factor is the different hormonal milieu
experienced by males and females before or shortly after birth," she
reported.
Patricia Hausman, a behavioral scientist specializing in the nature and
origins of human sex differences, agreed. "Many argue that changes in the
social environment could eliminate sex differences in interests," she said.
"To me, this perspective mistakenly assumes that the 'social environment' is
something that Big People force on Little People. I think it is often the
other way around. The Little People send signals to the Big People about
what they do and do not like, and the Big People respond accordingly.
Parents who buy more dolls for a daughter are probably not forcing them on
her. More likely, they are reacting to observations that she did not find a
toy truck particularly captivating, but lavished attention on her first
doll."
The refusal of the education system to accept what science says about boys
and girls is having devastating effects on children, especially boys, the
panelists warned. "The problem with [popular feminist] dogma is that it
gives enormous latitude to educators who want to tamper with children's
gender identities," said Christina Hoff Sommers, W.H. Brady Fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute and author of The War Against Boys. "This
dogma has inspired activist-educators to take on the challenge of
resocializing little boys to be more like little girls."
Tiger concluded by echoing Sommers. "We're now trying to solve the problem
of young males by saying that they're essentially young females," he said.
"What is happening though is that boys do less well in school and they don't
go on to college as often. This will have implications for these young men
to be seen as acceptable or plausible candidates for marriage."
Which leads to a warning for all of those so-called gender experts: Don't
mess with Mother Nature.
John Knight
> Tom Breton wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> writes:
>
> >>How? Point me to one peer reviewed article that makes this challenge.
> >>Are you even familiar enough with the tests to make this idiotic
> >>statement? What specific items are biased?
> >
> >
> > Now, be fair. You know there are severe political and ideological
> > pressures against publishing anything like that.
>
> No, I don't know that.
>
hmmm, even the left wing "news" is full of reports of such bias, so it
shouldn't take long for you to locate it if you look. If you can't find it,
let me know and I'll give you a ton of leads.
> > Scientists like
> > Suzanne Steinmetz have received death threats against themselves and
> > their children simply for publishing results that went against
> > Feminist interests. At the very least, anyone who published about
> > anti-male bias in IQ tests could look forward to great difficulty ever
> > getting another research grant. Anyone who reviewed it favorably
> > would be taking a political chance too. So you can't just assume that
> > such information would make its way into peer-reviewed journals.
> >
> > But the *information* is out there. Credit to Leonardo
> > <Leonard...@newsguy.com> in <9mift...@drn.newsguy.com> for the
> > following:
> >
> >
> >> When Wechsler was developing his IQ test, he found
> >> that out of 105 tests assessing skills in solving
> >> maze-puzzles, involving the most heterogeneous
> >> populations throughout the world, 99 showed an
> >> incontrovertible male superiority. (Wechsler resolved
> >> this type of problem by eliminating all those tests
> >> that resulted in findings of significant sex
> >> differences.)
>
> Which is supposed to support the original poster's position?
>
> There are a lot of empirical data out there on these tests--data that
> break down by multiple variable including gender. If there is a systemic
> bias, it needs to be demonstrated, not simply asserted.
>
You seem to miss the incredible significance of throwing out 94% of the
problems when developing a purportedly objective "IQ test".
About the only way this could be justified is if you agreed right from the
start that you wanted to develop a test which did NOT measure the
differences in mental skills between men and women. And exactly who would
agree to such a thing, and why would they do it?
The irony is that what's called an "IQ test" is exactly what Wechsler did
NOT develop, whereas what's called "the Graduate Record Examination" which
contains numerous disclaimers that it's not an IQ test, IS.
How else can it be explained that the average Black man taking the GRE
scores 42 points higher in Quantitative than the average Black woman? Or
that the difference for Puerto Ricans is 59 points (men = 505 and women =
446)? For Hispanics it's 74 points (542 vs. 468). Mexicans 62 points (516
vs. 454). Whites 73 points (589 vs. 516). Asians 68 points (643 vs. 575).
This isn't an anomaly. The pattern's repeated year after year. If anything
changed, GRE scores of American citizens have actually decreased relative to
GRE scores of immigrants.
Where it appears that Hispanic men score 15.8% higher than Hispanic women,
the reality is that the base score is close to 298, because only a handful
of Black women, the lowest scoring group, scored lower than that. So the
comparison of Hispanic men to Hispanic women is really 244 to 170 rather
than 542 to 468, which is more like a 44% difference.
How could IQ tests possibly have missed such a huge difference in
fundamental skills that industry and universities believe are crucial to
potential employees?
What good could possibly come out of a "test" that shows two virtual
opposites to be "equal"?
http://christianparty.net/gre.htm
John Knight
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> John Knight wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D2A32F8...@gwi.net...
> >
> >>John Knight wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Is this true? Is this how the IQs of men and women were
"equalized"--by
> >>>throwing out 94% of the test?
> >>>
> >>>No wonder the IQ tests don't correlate with things like GRE scores,
> >>
> > which DO
> >
> >>>correlate with brain size http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm
> >>>
> >>>John Knight
> >>
> >>IQ scores correlate very well with GRE scores. in the order of 0.86 IIRC
> >>--
> >
> >
> > Most of the corrlations I've gotten are in the range of 0.6, so it would
> > really be appreciated if you could provide a reference to the above.
>
> 0.6 is not a low correlation--it explains over one third of the
> variation in scores. In any other field, an R of this size would be
> considered robust.
>
> my resources are at the office, I'll dig them out today.
>
Yes, 0.6 really is good correlation, but when compared to the 0.8795
correlation between brain size and GRE Quantitative, you have to wonder
what's missing from "IQ tests".
iow, since it IS possible to develop a test which measures the output of the
thought process which DOES positively correlate so well with brain size,
then there must be a serious flaw in "IQ tests" since they don't correlate
as well.
http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm
In fact, it's difficult to imagine how this could happen by accident, so I
look forward to seeing what data you have that shows an 0.86 correlation.
How could Wechsler possibly accidentally develop a test which is supposed to
measure "intelligence" which seems to be measuring something else?
The answer's in Peter's original thesis.
John Knight
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2ABC38...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
>
>>John Knight wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You seem to be ignoring Peter's original point about the differences in
>>>average size between male and female brains. To be specific, it's of
>>
> much
>
>>>concern to his point that the male brain contains an average of 3 1/2
>>>billion or 18% more brain cells than the female brain, and that their
>>
> sizes
>
>>>are correspondingly different.
>>
>>Reference?
>>
>
>
>
> The url was posted previously, but following are several articles from that
> reference.
>
> John Knight
>
>
>
> http://christianparty.net/brainsize.htm
sorry, but all i see are assertions, no empirical research.
>
>
> Men Have 3 1/2 Billion or 18.1% More Brain Cells than women!
>
> Men have more brain cells than women, study finds
> Copyright (C) 1997 Nando.net
> Copyright (C) 1997 Agence France-Presse
>
> COPENHAGEN (July 28, 1997 10:04 a.m. EDT) - Men have 16 percent more brain
> cells than women, but the extra gray matter does not make them any smarter,
> Danish researchers report.
>
> Neurologists Bente Pakkenberg of Kommunehospitalet and Hans Joergen
> Gundersen of Aarhus University analyzed the brains of 94 Danes who died
> between the ages of 20 and 90.
quite the spread. How much variablility was explained by age and how
much by gender?
>
> Their final tally, reported in the Journal of Comparative Neurology, was
> that men have an average of 22.8 billion brain cells, compared to 19.3
> billion for women.
>
> "We were surprised by the difference," Pakkenberg told AFP. "We did not
> think it was so big, even though men's brains weigh more." That disparity is
> 150 grams, she said.
>
> The research team used a technique that analyzed the brain layer by layer
> and gave a more accurate cell count, she said.
>
> But Pakkenberg insisted the difference in cell number does not show up in
> tests measuring male and female intelligence.
>
> "In these tests it is possible that men are better at some things than
> women, but in general they are not more intelligent," she said.
>
> Copyright (C) 1997 Nando.net
> 522,000 men and 522,000 women take the SAT each year. Men with 3 1/2
> billion more brain cells each, who score an average of 53 points higher. It
> is scientifically impossible to prove that this is because of
> "discrimination" and not because of their collective 1.8 quadrillion more
> brain cells.
it's also impossible to prove that there's any relationship to a
putative difference in the number of brain cells.
just where did the samples come from where these numbers were generated?
> Men collectively score 27.6 million more SAT points than
> females, which is 65.2 million brain cells for each extra SAT points There
> is utterly no way for anyone to KNOW or to prove that these two variables
> are independent of each other.
i suppose there's a reference there somewhere.
>
> To agree that the analyses and calculations necessary to take the SAT take
> place in the brain is correct. To agree that the precise process by which
> this occurs is not well understood is correct. To know that these extra 3
> 1/2 billion brain cells constitute 18.1% of the male brain's mass is
> correct.
assuming the numbers are correct. and that's quite the assumption.
>
> But there is no analytical process whatsoever by which it can be proven that
> there is absolutely no causation for this precise correlation.
the brain cells were counted how?
What does all of this have to do with the assertion that there is a
gender bias in IQ testing? Mattarazzo (1972 *Weschler's Measurement and
Appraisal of Adult Intelligence*) reviewd the then current literature
quite extensively (p 352 ff). He cited numerous studies that attempted
to demonstrate such a difference and failed to do so.
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2AB9D5...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
>
>>Tom Breton wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> writes:
>>
>>>>How? Point me to one peer reviewed article that makes this challenge.
>>>>Are you even familiar enough with the tests to make this idiotic
>>>>statement? What specific items are biased?
>>>
>>>
>>>Now, be fair. You know there are severe political and ideological
>>>pressures against publishing anything like that.
>>
>>No, I don't know that.
>>
>
>
> hmmm, even the left wing "news" is full of reports of such bias, so it
> shouldn't take long for you to locate it if you look. If you can't find it,
> let me know and I'll give you a ton of leads.
The leads you've already provided don't appear particularly sound.
When I say "no," I mean I've seen the studies published. Ergo, there
can't be that great of a prohibition.
--
Mark D. Morin
and there still isn't a reliable source for this statistic.
Mark D. Morin
you seem to miss the principles behind test construction. 94% of "the
test" was not thrown out. "the test" did not exist before it was
constructed.
>
> About the only way this could be justified is if you agreed right from the
> start that you wanted to develop a test which did NOT measure the
> differences in mental skills between men and women. And exactly who would
> agree to such a thing, and why would they do it?
Where did you ever get the idea that that was the purpose of IQ testing?
>
> The irony is that what's called an "IQ test" is exactly what Wechsler did
> NOT develop, whereas what's called "the Graduate Record Examination" which
> contains numerous disclaimers that it's not an IQ test, IS.
That is not consistent with Wescher's documentation. Look at the
original scales--they don't look much like the GRE.
>
> How else can it be explained that the average Black man taking the GRE
> scores 42 points higher in Quantitative than the average Black woman? Or
> that the difference for Puerto Ricans is 59 points (men = 505 and women =
> 446)? For Hispanics it's 74 points (542 vs. 468). Mexicans 62 points (516
> vs. 454). Whites 73 points (589 vs. 516). Asians 68 points (643 vs. 575).
>
> This isn't an anomaly. The pattern's repeated year after year. If anything
> changed, GRE scores of American citizens have actually decreased relative to
> GRE scores of immigrants.
>
> Where it appears that Hispanic men score 15.8% higher than Hispanic women,
> the reality is that the base score is close to 298, because only a handful
> of Black women, the lowest scoring group, scored lower than that. So the
> comparison of Hispanic men to Hispanic women is really 244 to 170 rather
> than 542 to 468, which is more like a 44% difference.
>
> How could IQ tests possibly have missed such a huge difference in
> fundamental skills that industry and universities believe are crucial to
> potential employees?
how is it that IQ scores continue to be a robust predictor of later
performance?
>
> What good could possibly come out of a "test" that shows two virtual
> opposites to be "equal"?
> http://christianparty.net/gre.htm
>
> John Knight
>
>
>
--
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> Tom Breton wrote:
> > "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>"Tom Breton" <te...@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>><Leonard...@newsguy.com> in <9mift...@drn.newsguy.com> for the
> >>>following:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> When Wechsler was developing his IQ test, he found
> >>>> that out of 105 tests assessing skills in solving
> >>>> maze-puzzles, involving the most heterogeneous
> >>>> populations throughout the world, 99 showed an
> >>>> incontrovertible male superiority. (Wechsler resolved
> >>>> this type of problem by eliminating all those tests
> >>>> that resulted in findings of significant sex
> >>>> differences.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > I reported it exactly the way it was told to me. I consider the
> > report credible, but I have no further information, sorry.
> >
>
> constructed. In constructing the Weschler Scales, there were a lot of
> instruments considered and discarded as potential measures. In the
> final product, are there systemic gender differences?
>
Why would you ask a question with such an obvious answer? Of course there
are "systemic gender [read: sex] differences". The biological,
physiological, physical, emotional, mental, educational, spiritual,
intellectual differences between the "genders" [read: sexes] are so
different that they're almost opposites in some features.
The data has already been referenced which shows that the 18% difference in
the average brain size of men and women, coupled with the narrow standard
deviation in the brain size of both sexes, is one WHOPPING difference. Just
as we know that there is no overlap between the strongest woman and the
weakest (but not crippled) man, it seems impossible that there could be any
overlap between the largest female brain and the smallest male brain
http://christianparty.net/iq.htm
John Knight
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> >>>Most of the corrlations I've gotten are in the range of 0.6, so it
would
> >>>really be appreciated if you could provide a reference to the above.
> >>
> >>0.6 is not a low correlation--it explains over one third of the
> >>variation in scores. In any other field, an R of this size would be
> >>considered robust.
> >>
> >>my resources are at the office, I'll dig them out today.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes, 0.6 really is good correlation, but when compared to the 0.8795
> > correlation between brain size and GRE Quantitative, you have to wonder
> > what's missing from "IQ tests".
>
> and there still isn't a reliable source for this statistic.
>
For which statistic? Are you questioning Philippe Rushton's measurements of
brain size, GRE Quantitative Scores, or the method for calculating
r-squared?
Run the data at http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm yourself. Or use
the following figures and see what you get for r-squared. The first column
of numbers is brain size in cubic centimeters, and the second column is GRE
Quantitative Scores
Asian men 1,472 638
White men 1,416 586
Asian women 1,358 572
White women 1,308 514
African men 1,319 446
African women 1,217 404
If you manage to get something much different than 0.87 to 0.88, please let
me know how you did it.
Just comparing the highest score to the lowest score you could argue that
each 1 cc increase in brain size is equivalent to a 1 point increase in GRE
Scores, which is not insignificant.
If you remove the furthest outlier, which is Black men's brains [no pun
intended], then r-squared increases to 0.9583. Such a small variation could
easily be due to errors in either measurement rather than some other unknown
factor. For example, Indian men scored 14 points higher in 1998 than they
did in 1997, whereas Puerto Rican women scored 6 points lower, for a 20
point swing relative to each other. Usually the variation from year to year
is only about 4 points, but because of this variation, brain size may be a
more accurate measurement of someone's quantitative ability than the GRE
Quantitative score itself );
John Knight
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> John Knight wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D2ABC38...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
> >
> >>John Knight wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You seem to be ignoring Peter's original point about the differences in
> >>>average size between male and female brains. To be specific, it's of
> >>
> > much
> >
> >>>concern to his point that the male brain contains an average of 3 1/2
> >>>billion or 18% more brain cells than the female brain, and that their
> >>
> > sizes
> >
> >>>are correspondingly different.
> >>
> >>Reference?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > The url was posted previously, but following are several articles from
that
> > reference.
> >
> > John Knight
> >
> >
> >
> > http://christianparty.net/brainsize.htm
>
> sorry, but all i see are assertions, no empirical research.
>
How much more empirical research do you need? You've got scientists from
all around the world collaborating on brain size and test scores, and
they're reaching a very different conclusion than educators and politicians
have. Why?
>
> >
> >
> > Men Have 3 1/2 Billion or 18.1% More Brain Cells than women!
> >
> > Men have more brain cells than women, study finds
> > Copyright (C) 1997 Nando.net
> > Copyright (C) 1997 Agence France-Presse
> >
> > COPENHAGEN (July 28, 1997 10:04 a.m. EDT) - Men have 16 percent more
brain
> > cells than women, but the extra gray matter does not make them any
smarter,
> > Danish researchers report.
> >
> > Neurologists Bente Pakkenberg of Kommunehospitalet and Hans Joergen
> > Gundersen of Aarhus University analyzed the brains of 94 Danes who died
> > between the ages of 20 and 90.
>
> quite the spread. How much variablility was explained by age and how
> much by gender?
Do you have evidence that there's a significant change in brain size as
people get older? Or better yet, could this change possibly exceed a
standard deviation which would be only 98 million brain cells (compared to
the 3.5 billion brain cell difference between men and women)?
If you think these Swedish scientists made a mistake in counting brain
cells, why don't you contact them and let them know where? The problem is
that their findings are consistent with just about every other shred of data
EXCEPT "IQ tests".
> > Men collectively score 27.6 million more SAT points than
> > females, which is 65.2 million brain cells for each extra SAT points
There
> > is utterly no way for anyone to KNOW or to prove that these two
variables
> > are independent of each other.
>
> i suppose there's a reference there somewhere.
>
Their claim that there's no correlation between "intelligence" and brain
size was based on a comparison to "IQ tests", which we already KNOW are
seriously flawed. They would have reached an entirely different conclusion
if they'd compared it to GRE or TIMSS.
> >
> > To agree that the analyses and calculations necessary to take the SAT
take
> > place in the brain is correct. To agree that the precise process by
which
> > this occurs is not well understood is correct. To know that these extra
3
> > 1/2 billion brain cells constitute 18.1% of the male brain's mass is
> > correct.
>
> assuming the numbers are correct. and that's quite the assumption.
>
Where is your evidence that this is "quite the assumption"? Do you have a
shred of evidence to dispute their research findings? On what basis do you
dispute them?
Do you think you just migh have some kind of religious conviction to "men
and women have the same IQ", which makes you think "men couldn't possibly
have 3.5 billion more brain cells than women", which in turn makes you
believe that there must be a flaw in the GRE, ACT, SAT, TIMSS, NAEP, IAEP,
and all other standardized tests?
Where's your data?
These yoyos also developed an "IQ test" which couldn't detect a difference
in the quantitative skills between men and women which the GRE scores show
to be bigger than a freight train.
We might envision them examining ants with an electron miscroscope in the
midst of a herd of stampeding elephants, and not detecting the elephants.
This is precisely Peter's point--Wechsler was an advocate on some kind of an
agenda, not a competent or credible scientist (ala. Einstein).
Would you agree that it's amazing that these men managed to fool the masses
for so long?
John Knight
John Knight
> John Knight wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D2AB9D5...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
> >
> >>Tom Breton wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> writes:
> >>
> >>>>How? Point me to one peer reviewed article that makes this challenge.
> >>>>Are you even familiar enough with the tests to make this idiotic
> >>>>statement? What specific items are biased?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Now, be fair. You know there are severe political and ideological
> >>>pressures against publishing anything like that.
> >>
> >>No, I don't know that.
> >>
> >
> >
> > hmmm, even the left wing "news" is full of reports of such bias, so it
> > shouldn't take long for you to locate it if you look. If you can't find
it,
> > let me know and I'll give you a ton of leads.
>
> The leads you've already provided don't appear particularly sound.
>
> When I say "no," I mean I've seen the studies published. Ergo, there
> can't be that great of a prohibition.
>
Not quite sure what you meant here, but let's put this a different way. Two
thirds of those students who score over 550 in SAT Math are boys, but girls
are two thirds of college admissions now.
Do you really think there's no bias involved here?
John Knight
John Knight
Says who? Wechsler? And you trust statements like that from yoyos like
him?
If it's so "robust", then why's it incapable of detecting the difference in
mental aptitude between men and women, when men historically, from the
beginning of time, in every country on the Earth today, earn 42% more than
women?
If it's not "robust" enough to predict something as huge as that, then what
possible kind of "later performance" is it "robust" enough to predict?
If it was really that effective, then we wouldn't have needed test after
test, standard after standard, ACT, SAT, SAT II, SAT III, NAEP, IAEP, GRE,
MCAT, TIMSS, and on and on, would we?
It's much worse than a mere failure. It's an intentional effort to
undermine our culture.
John Knight
Andrew Russell
>> It is, of course, relationships between brain size/IQ and sex
>> and race which, understandably, arouse the most anxiety. Some
>> critics have even suggested a social taboo on discussion and
>> research in these fields. That would run counter to the entire
>> tradition of scientific inquiry.
>>
>>
>> You appear to have come up against the "social taboo" he mentions.
>> This is the type of research that Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson
>> want prohibited.
>
>
>What's truly amazing in this Constitutional republic is that we've even
>permitted communists/feminists like Gloria Steinem and Jese Jackson to not
>just direct such research, but to tell us what we can and can't discuss in
>public forums and universities.
I don't see what's so amazing about it. Universities have always
walked a thin line between what they perceived to be true and what was
politically correct at the time.
The truth has always come out in the end, regardless of how
uncomfortable it makes some people feel. It just takes time.
>THAT is hard to understand. The last thing we need is dedictated communists
>like them flagrantly banning free speech. And of course the real reason they
>even try is because they already know (or at least sense) what the TRUTH is,
>don't they?
I don't think it's hard to understand. Most people are prepared to
suppress truth if it contradicts what they perceive as a "greater
truth".
For example, somebody who holds that all people are equal in all ways
has difficulty in accepting the vast differences in achievement
between groups. These differences have to be explained away as the
result of oppression, bad diet, the weather and so on.
Taking the specific instance of brain size, when it was known only
that men's brains were larger than women's brains we were told by
egalitarians that it was the number of brain cells that counted and
that the cells in a man's brain were more spread out than in a woman's
brain. The total number of cells was still the same and that was what
mattered in intelligence.
Now that we know that men have more brain cells than women, we're told
that the total number of brain cells makes no difference, it's
something else that causes intelligence.
Bob LeChevalier
>What does all of this have to do with the assertion that there is a
>gender bias in IQ testing? Mattarazzo (1972 *Weschler's Measurement and
>Appraisal of Adult Intelligence*) reviewd the then current literature
>quite extensively (p 352 ff). He cited numerous studies that attempted
>to demonstrate such a difference and failed to do so.
I think that his claim is that, since (if) Weschler intentionally omitted
subtests that men did better on than women, that the bias for a false
equality was built into the test from the beginning. If he indeed eliminated
all subtests that show a gender difference, then of course you will not find
studies that demonstrate a difference.
But then one is never entirely sure what the nincompoop (JK) really thinks.
lojbab
Mark D. Morin
unfortunately, such differences are not replicable nor consistent across
studies.
>
> The data has already been referenced which shows that the 18% difference in
> the average brain size of men and women, coupled with the narrow standard
> deviation in the brain size of both sexes, is one WHOPPING difference.
The data have not been referenced. What has been referenced
demonstrated that measurement error was greater than gender differences.
> Just as we know
apparently, we have a different definition of what it means "to know."
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2BA223...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
>
>>>>>Most of the corrlations I've gotten are in the range of 0.6, so it
>>>>
> would
>
>>>>>really be appreciated if you could provide a reference to the above.
>>>>
>>>>0.6 is not a low correlation--it explains over one third of the
>>>>variation in scores. In any other field, an R of this size would be
>>>>considered robust.
>>>>
>>>>my resources are at the office, I'll dig them out today.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, 0.6 really is good correlation, but when compared to the 0.8795
>>>correlation between brain size and GRE Quantitative, you have to wonder
>>>what's missing from "IQ tests".
>>
>>and there still isn't a reliable source for this statistic.
>>
>
>
>
> For which statistic? Are you questioning Philippe Rushton's measurements of
> brain size,
yes
> GRE Quantitative Scores, or the method for calculating
> r-squared?
yes
note the measurement error reported.
>
> Run the data at http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm yourself.
There are no data there that are "runnable."
Or use
> the following figures and see what you get for r-squared. The first column
> of numbers is brain size in cubic centimeters,
which presumes accuracy of measurement. with the reported variability
(measurement error), by definition, those numbers are not valid--for
something to be valid, they first need to be reliable. If brain sizes
can not be measured reliably, your numbers are meaningless.
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2BA019...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
>
>>John Knight wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3D2ABC38...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Knight wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be ignoring Peter's original point about the differences in
>>>>>average size between male and female brains. To be specific, it's of
>>>>
>>>much
>>>
>>>
>>>>>concern to his point that the male brain contains an average of 3 1/2
>>>>>billion or 18% more brain cells than the female brain, and that their
>>>>
>>>sizes
>>>
>>>
>>>>>are correspondingly different.
>>>>
>>>>Reference?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The url was posted previously, but following are several articles from
>>
> that
>
>>>reference.
>>>
>>>John Knight
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://christianparty.net/brainsize.htm
>>
>>sorry, but all i see are assertions, no empirical research.
>>
>
>
> How much more empirical research do you need? You've got scientists from
> all around the world collaborating on brain size
and coming up with different numbers. look at the reported measurement
error.
...
>>quite the spread. How much variablility was explained by age and how
>>much by gender?
>
>
> Do you have evidence that there's a significant change in brain size as
> people get older?
yes
> Or better yet, could this change possibly exceed a
> standard deviation which would be only 98 million brain cells (compared to
> the 3.5 billion brain cell difference between men and women)?
brain cells were not counted--volume was measured and assumptions were
made about number of cells. Given that there are other reasons for
differences in volume, the hypothesis of differing number of cells
warrants demonstration rather than assertion.
...
>>just where did the samples come from where these numbers were generated?
>>
>
>
> If you think these Swedish scientists made a mistake in counting brain
> cells, why don't you contact them and let them know where? The problem is
> that their findings are consistent with just about every other shred of data
> EXCEPT "IQ tests".
sorry, the methods that they reported do not support this generalization.
>
>
>> > Men collectively score 27.6 million more SAT points than
>>
>>>females, which is 65.2 million brain cells for each extra SAT points
>>
> There
>
>>>is utterly no way for anyone to KNOW or to prove that these two
>>
> variables
>
>>>are independent of each other.
>>
>>i suppose there's a reference there somewhere.
>>
>
>
> Their claim that there's no correlation between "intelligence" and brain
> size was based on a comparison to "IQ tests", which we already KNOW are
> seriously flawed.
and how do you know this?
> They would have reached an entirely different conclusion
> if they'd compared it to GRE or TIMSS.
assuming the ability to measure brain size reliably.
>
>
>>>To agree that the analyses and calculations necessary to take the SAT
>>
> take
>
>>>place in the brain is correct. To agree that the precise process by
>>
> which
>
>>>this occurs is not well understood is correct. To know that these extra
>>
> 3
>
>>>1/2 billion brain cells constitute 18.1% of the male brain's mass is
>>>correct.
>>
>>assuming the numbers are correct. and that's quite the assumption.
>>
>
>
> Where is your evidence that this is "quite the assumption"? Do you have a
> shred of evidence to dispute their research findings?
Look at the ranges the authors reported.
> On what basis do you dispute them?
their own data
>
> Do you think you just migh have some kind of religious conviction to "men
> and women have the same IQ", which makes you think "men couldn't possibly
> have 3.5 billion more brain cells than women", which in turn makes you
> believe that there must be a flaw in the GRE, ACT, SAT, TIMSS, NAEP, IAEP,
> and all other standardized tests?
so far, the data do not support your assumptions. When measurement
error exceeds variance attributable to a variable, you have a major problem.
>
> Where's your data?
as reported in the sites you posted.
...
>>What does all of this have to do with the assertion that there is a
>>gender bias in IQ testing? Mattarazzo (1972 *Weschler's Measurement and
>>Appraisal of Adult Intelligence*) reviewd the then current literature
>>quite extensively (p 352 ff). He cited numerous studies that attempted
>>to demonstrate such a difference and failed to do so.
>>
>
>
> These yoyos also developed an "IQ test" which couldn't detect a difference
> in the quantitative skills between men and women which the GRE scores show
> to be bigger than a freight train.
>
> We might envision them examining ants with an electron miscroscope in the
> midst of a herd of stampeding elephants, and not detecting the elephants.
>
> This is precisely Peter's point--Wechsler was an advocate on some kind of an
> agenda, not a competent or credible scientist (ala. Einstein).
and you nor peter have been able to provide any data to support this
assertion.
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
>>how is it that IQ scores continue to be a robust predictor of later
>>performance?
>>
>>
>
>
> Says who? Wechsler? And you trust statements like that from yoyos like
> him?
it would be rather hard for weschler to say that now. Try looking at the
published research.
>
> If it's so "robust", then why's it incapable of detecting the difference in
> mental aptitude between men and women, when men historically, from the
> beginning of time, in every country on the Earth today, earn 42% more than
> women?
huh? there has to be an underlying IQ difference to justify sociological
prejudices? What rock have you been hiding under?
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote:
>
>>What does all of this have to do with the assertion that there is a
>>gender bias in IQ testing? Mattarazzo (1972 *Weschler's Measurement and
>>Appraisal of Adult Intelligence*) reviewd the then current literature
>>quite extensively (p 352 ff). He cited numerous studies that attempted
>>to demonstrate such a difference and failed to do so.
>
>
> I think that his claim is that, since (if) Weschler intentionally omitted
> subtests
Subtests did not exist before they were constructed.
> that men did better on than women, that the bias for a false
> equality was built into the test from the beginning. If he indeed eliminated
> all subtests that show a gender difference, then of course you will not find
> studies that demonstrate a difference.
>
> But then one is never entirely sure what the nincompoop (JK) really thinks.
seems like a great conspiracy theorist. I wonder if he believes in alien
abductions too. He really should take a course on psychometrics and
test construction before making the comments he does.
>
> lojbab
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2BA0AB...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
>
>>John Knight wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3D2AB9D5...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tom Breton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>How? Point me to one peer reviewed article that makes this challenge.
>>>>>>Are you even familiar enough with the tests to make this idiotic
>>>>>>statement? What specific items are biased?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, be fair. You know there are severe political and ideological
>>>>>pressures against publishing anything like that.
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't know that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>hmmm, even the left wing "news" is full of reports of such bias, so it
>>>shouldn't take long for you to locate it if you look. If you can't find
>>
> it,
>
>>>let me know and I'll give you a ton of leads.
>>
>>The leads you've already provided don't appear particularly sound.
>>
>>When I say "no," I mean I've seen the studies published. Ergo, there
>>can't be that great of a prohibition.
>>
>
>
> Not quite sure what you meant here,
what i mean is that you assert a conspiracy to keep research from being
published. it gets published, where's the conspiracy?
> but let's put this a different way. Two
> thirds of those students who score over 550 in SAT Math are boys, but girls
> are two thirds of college admissions now.
>
> Do you really think there's no bias involved here?
is there any claim that those admissions are being based on GRE, SAT, or
IQ scores?
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > Why would you ask a question with such an obvious answer? Of course
there
> > are "systemic gender [read: sex] differences". The biological,
> > physiological, physical, emotional, mental, educational, spiritual,
> > intellectual differences between the "genders" [read: sexes] are so
> > different that they're almost opposites in some features.
>
> unfortunately, such differences are not replicable nor consistent across
> studies.
>
It's hard to take you seriously, Mark, when you make a statement like that.
As far as I know, about the ONLY test or contest or statistic or empirical
evidence that fails to measure these "systemic gender differences" are
so-called "IQ tests". Every other contest or test ever developed shows this
marked difference between the sexes. A good example is springboard diving,
which is something you would think women would be reasonably good at
compared to men, because it doesn't require the obvious advantage that men
have in speed and strength. But the lowest scoring man springboard diver in
Olympics contests scores 30-40% higher than the very best woman springboard
diver.
If you have difficulty understanding the graphs at
http://christianparty.net/olympics.htm let me know and I'll be glad to
explain them to you.
>
> >
> > The data has already been referenced which shows that the 18% difference
in
> > the average brain size of men and women, coupled with the narrow
standard
> > deviation in the brain size of both sexes, is one WHOPPING difference.
>
> The data have not been referenced. What has been referenced
> demonstrated that measurement error was greater than gender differences.
>
In which statistic do you believe this to be the case? In GRE scores?
Absolutely not. The very biggest measurement difference by race and sex in
GRE scores is for Indian men who scored 19 points higher in 1999 than they
did in 1997, but the sex difference between Indian men and Indian women is
consistently between 52 and 69 points. Even if 100% of this variation is
due to measurement errors, the difference between the sexes is 3-4 times
greater than that.
There could be other reasons Indian scores changed by that much,
particularly since most other GRE scores by sex and race didn't change by
more than 1-4 points. Over three years, 1997, 1998, and 1999, GRE
Quantitative scores for White men were 586, 588, and 589, respectively, and
for White women 514, 518, and 516. The sex difference was 72, 70, and 73
points, which is 17 times greater than the widest possible measurement
error.
iow, I'm completely unfamiliar with what measurement you might be talking
about which varies by more than the difference between the sexes.
If you have difficulty locating these original scores, which seem to have
been moved or removed from the ETS web site, let me know and I'll send you
the original .pdf files (which are very large).
>
> > Just as we know
>
> apparently, we have a different definition of what it means "to know."
> --
Well, you were the one who earlier claimed that "logic" requires a reliance
on statistical evidence, and now that you have the statistical evidence, you
seem to be claiming that this is no longer the case.
John Knight
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
news:3D2C11FA...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote:
> >
> >>What does all of this have to do with the assertion that there is a
> >>gender bias in IQ testing? Mattarazzo (1972 *Weschler's Measurement and
> >>Appraisal of Adult Intelligence*) reviewd the then current literature
> >>quite extensively (p 352 ff). He cited numerous studies that attempted
> >>to demonstrate such a difference and failed to do so.
> >
> >
> > I think that his claim is that, since (if) Weschler intentionally
omitted
> > subtests
>
> Subtests did not exist before they were constructed.
>
> > that men did better on than women, that the bias for a false
> > equality was built into the test from the beginning. If he indeed
eliminated
> > all subtests that show a gender difference, then of course you will not
find
> > studies that demonstrate a difference.
> >
> > But then one is never entirely sure what the nincompoop (JK) really
thinks.
>
> seems like a great conspiracy theorist. I wonder if he believes in alien
> abductions too. He really should take a course on psychometrics and
> test construction before making the comments he does.
>
This of course is the very argument that Peter Zohrab predicted "liberals"
would resort to when confronted with simple FACTS.
If every test known to humankind DOES demonstrate a "systemic gender
difference" [read: in English, the natural difference between the sexes],
but so-called "IQ tests" do not, then it's not me who's suspect--it's
Wechsler and his fellow "scientists" who evidently manipulated the data
right from the start, and all "educators" and politicians who followed right
along like little lemmings.
John Knight
Tom Breton
> It's much worse than a mere failure. It's an intentional effort to
> undermine our culture.
Well, I don't think Wechsler deliberately attempted to undermine
anything. I expect he just succumbed to the same common taboo that is
seen in this thread, that one simply must not say such things about
women. (write such things, design tests that reveal such things...)
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
John Knight
> John Knight wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D2BA223...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
> >
> >>>>>Most of the corrlations I've gotten are in the range of 0.6, so it
> >>>>
> > would
> >
> >>>>>really be appreciated if you could provide a reference to the above.
> >>>>
> >>>>0.6 is not a low correlation--it explains over one third of the
> >>>>variation in scores. In any other field, an R of this size would be
> >>>>considered robust.
> >>>>
> >>>>my resources are at the office, I'll dig them out today.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes, 0.6 really is good correlation, but when compared to the 0.8795
> >>>correlation between brain size and GRE Quantitative, you have to wonder
> >>>what's missing from "IQ tests".
> >>
> >>and there still isn't a reliable source for this statistic.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > For which statistic? Are you questioning Philippe Rushton's
measurements of
> > brain size,
>
> yes
>
Why?
> > GRE Quantitative Scores, or the method for calculating
> > r-squared?
>
> yes
> note the measurement error reported.
>
hmm, you may be getting "standard deviation" and measurement error mixed up.
There are standard deviations reported with GRE scores, but not "measurement
errors". Two thirds of the test takers in each group score within + or - of
the standard deviation from the median score. e.g., the median score for
Black women was 408 with a standard deviation of 110, which means that two
thirds of Black women scored between 298 and 518. But the standard
deviation for Asian men, whose median score was 530, was 131, so two thirds
of them scored between 399 and 661. Because of their larger standard
deviation, the highest scoring Asian men scored 143 points higher than the
highest scoring Black women, compared to a difference of only 122 points in
their median scores.
This is the difference between developing the world's most competitive
semiconductor companies and not being able to build a wheel.
>
> >
> > Run the data at http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm yourself.
>
> There are no data there that are "runnable."
>
> Or use
> > the following figures and see what you get for r-squared. The first
column
> > of numbers is brain size in cubic centimeters,
>
> which presumes accuracy of measurement. with the reported variability
> (measurement error), by definition, those numbers are not valid--for
> something to be valid, they first need to be reliable. If brain sizes
> can not be measured reliably, your numbers are meaningless.
>
>
You're right. If brain sizes can't be measured accurately, then Philippe
Rushtons' numbers are meaningless.
But why would you presume that the nation which managed to complete the
calculations necessary to fire a rocket at the moon, land on it, and come
back, can't measure something as mundane as an empty skull?
Whay you may be saying is that you believe that Professor Rushton LIED about
his figures, but why would he do that? There are plenty of techniques, all
the way from filling it with known sized pebbles, to MRI, so plenty of
people could refute his work if he tried to LIE, don't you think?
And as you've already acknowledged, getting an r-squared of 0.8795 is VERY
good correlation, which suggests that both GRE and brain sizes ARE accurate.
http://christianparty.net/greracesexyear.htm
John Knight
John Knight
> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> painstakingly noted:
>
> >> It is, of course, relationships between brain size/IQ and sex
> >> and race which, understandably, arouse the most anxiety. Some
> >> critics have even suggested a social taboo on discussion and
> >> research in these fields. That would run counter to the entire
> >> tradition of scientific inquiry.
> >>
> >>
> >> You appear to have come up against the "social taboo" he mentions.
> >> This is the type of research that Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson
> >> want prohibited.
> >
> >
> >What's truly amazing in this Constitutional republic is that we've even
> >permitted communists/feminists like Gloria Steinem and Jese Jackson to
not
> >just direct such research, but to tell us what we can and can't discuss
in
> >public forums and universities.
>
> I don't see what's so amazing about it. Universities have always
> walked a thin line between what they perceived to be true and what was
> politically correct at the time.
>
> The truth has always come out in the end, regardless of how
> uncomfortable it makes some people feel. It just takes time.
>
Whew, you're a lot more optimistic than I am that the truth could actually
come out at American universities. As it stands right now, not one single
university professor is willing to admit publicly that they agree with what
the problem is, even though they are in vehement agreement in private.
> >THAT is hard to understand. The last thing we need is dedictated
communists
> >like them flagrantly banning free speech. And of course the real reason
they
> >even try is because they already know (or at least sense) what the TRUTH
is,
> >don't they?
>
> I don't think it's hard to understand. Most people are prepared to
> suppress truth if it contradicts what they perceive as a "greater
> truth".
>
> For example, somebody who holds that all people are equal in all ways
> has difficulty in accepting the vast differences in achievement
> between groups. These differences have to be explained away as the
> result of oppression, bad diet, the weather and so on.
>
> Taking the specific instance of brain size, when it was known only
> that men's brains were larger than women's brains we were told by
> egalitarians that it was the number of brain cells that counted and
> that the cells in a man's brain were more spread out than in a woman's
> brain. The total number of cells was still the same and that was what
> mattered in intelligence.
>
> Now that we know that men have more brain cells than women, we're told
> that the total number of brain cells makes no difference, it's
> something else that causes intelligence.
Good point. And a good example of exactly how the truth is still being
bashed on the head and shoulders, all over the place, not just in
universities.
Why? What is it about the differences between the sexes that makes it a
taboo subject? Who sponsors the massive media campaign responsible for this
bashing?
It's refreshing to hear Philippe Rushton yell "dam. the torpedos, full speed
ahead", but even most of his peers are too chicken shi. to stand beside him,
much less behind him.
How do you believe we reached such a high degree of totalitarianism?
John Knight
ps--yes, now we're told that having 18% larger brains than females is
meaningless, which must mean that the smaller female brain is made of a
different and superior material which makes up for its smaller size. Whew,
the prevarication never ends, does it?
John Knight
news:j9RW8.17595$Iu6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Andrew Russell wrote in message <3d2b2dc3...@news.btinternet.com>...
> >"Peter Douglas Zohrab" <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> painstakingly noted:
> >
> >
> >>Maybe so, but that is not relevant to the present discussion. If you
are
> >>saying that Einstein's brain was the anomalous (please note the spelling
> of
> >>this word) subject, that is inappropriate to this discussion, since his
> >>brain was presumably not part of the sample on the basis of which the
> >>generalisation was made that female brains are smaller than male brains.
> >
> >J P Rushton (The National Review, September 15, 1997) pointed out that
> >any debate over the relation between brain size and intelligence was
> >over.
> >
> > Subsequently, of course, discoveries using Magnetic Resonance
> > Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the
> > living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (0.44)
> > between brain size and intelligence.
>
> i doubt such studies are properly controlled. i. e. how is the
distribution
> of subjects cross-correlated with societal distributions? [how are they
> controlled with respect to subjects' experience?]
Where's your evidence that they're not properly controlled, and how is
"subjects' experience" relevant to the point that brain size correlates so
closely to GRE scores [not "IQ scores", but GRE scores]?
It seems that even before the correlation is properly understood, many
people want to throw in a variable to try to explain it away. Is that
what's coming? Are you getting ready to presume that men have larger brains
because of "experience", and thus naturally have higher GRE scores?
http://christianparty.net/greracesexyear.htm
>
> >And there is more. The
> > National Collaborative Perinatal Study, as reported by Sarah
> > Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter measured
> > at birth significantly predicts head perim-eter at 7 years --
> > and head perimeter at both ages predicts IQ. Recent studies
> > also show that head size and IQ vary with social class.
>
> all most-likely attributed to nutritional experience, including prenatal.
>
> k. p. collins
>
About the most undernourished people on the planet are Koreans, but they
scored WAY ahead of well-nourished Americans on TIMSS, and even ahead of the
Japanese, who scored 105 points higher than us. They also have larger
brains. Are you suggesting that being undernourished caused their large
brain sizes, which led to their higher intelligence (ala. Darwin's
"theory")?
http://christianparty.net/timss.htm
John Knight
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>>The leads you've already provided don't appear particularly sound.
>>>>
>>>>When I say "no," I mean I've seen the studies published. Ergo, there
>>>>can't be that great of a prohibition.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not quite sure what you meant here,
>>
>>what i mean is that you assert a conspiracy to keep research from being
>>published. it gets published, where's the conspiracy?
>>
>
>
> 94% of the test questions
What test questions? you can not have test questions without a test.
before the test was constructed, there was no test.
...
>>is there any claim that those admissions are being based on GRE, SAT, or
>>IQ scores?
>>
>
>
> You really do ask some of the strangest questions. What do you think the
> GRE and SAT were developed for? Why do colleges ask for transcripts of the
> scores? Do you think they just file them away so they can include them on
> the transcripts that employees ask for, or do you think that just maybe they
> actually use them to qualify students for admission.
have you ever sat on an admissions committee? I have. I present the
same question.
John Knight
>
> Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
> >Andrew Russell wrote in message <3d2b2dc3...@news.btinternet.com>...
> >>"Peter Douglas Zohrab" <zoh...@xtra.co.nz> painstakingly noted:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Maybe so, but that is not relevant to the present discussion. If you
are
> >>>saying that Einstein's brain was the anomalous (please note the
spelling
> >of
> >>>this word) subject, that is inappropriate to this discussion, since his
> >>>brain was presumably not part of the sample on the basis of which the
> >>>generalisation was made that female brains are smaller than male
brains.
> >>
> >>J P Rushton (The National Review, September 15, 1997) pointed out that
> >>any debate over the relation between brain size and intelligence was
> >>over.
> >>
> >> Subsequently, of course, discoveries using Magnetic Resonance
> >> Imaging (MRI), which creates a three-dimensional image of the
> >> living brain, have shown a strong positive correlation (0.44)
> >> between brain size and intelligence.
> >
> >i doubt such studies are properly controlled. i. e. how is the
distribution
> >of subjects cross-correlated with societal distributions? [how are they
> >controlled with respect to subjects' experience?]
> >
> >> National Collaborative Perinatal Study, as reported by Sarah
> >> Broman and her colleagues, showed that head perimeter measured
> >> at birth significantly predicts head perim-eter at 7 years --
> >> and head perimeter at both ages predicts IQ. Recent studies
> >> also show that head size and IQ vary with social class.
> >
> >all most-likely attributed to nutritional experience, including prenatal.
>
> young siblings, food is often the object of aggression in which 'size
> matters'. but, because of the =huge= wastefulness inherent, overall,
> propensity for aggression is anti-correlated with 'intelligence'.
>
> over the short-term, 'aggression' is much-cheaper than is non-aggressive
> problem-solving
>
> over the long-term, the opposite is True because it doesn't lay everything
> to waste, which allows actual Progress where, at best, aggression
maintains
> a "victor's" status quo [minus the cost inherent in carrying out the
> aggression].
>
> in other words, aggression =always= takes things a step backward, often
many
> steps backward, and, in the 'nuclear' age in which we live, possibly back
to
> the Beginning.
>
> so, that "size matters" in aggression, doesn't translate to
'intelligence'.
>
> overall, it's anti-correlated.
>
> "humanity" has yet to learn this ~2000-year-old stuff. [which concurs with
> Peter's 'point' about information-processing 'time'-courses.]
>
> k. p. collins
>
> >
> >k. p. collins
> >
The Holy Bible is written proof that society learned a heck of a lot more
than that 4,000 years ago, k. p. If your statement were to be widely
accepted, we'd have to believe that society was more advanced then than it
is now.
By failing to define "aggression", and equating it to "aggressive", you left
yourself wide open to many interpretations which dispute your notion that
"aggression =always= takes things a step backward".
Ignoring that vital point for a moment, though, you still have a flawed
analogy. Comparing the physical size of the brain to an emotional state is
about like comparing nuclear weapons to women on PMS. The same rules don't
apply to both sides of the analogy.
A better analogy would be to compare brain size to cubic centimeters in an
auto engine. We can invent all kinds of technology to make better
utilization of smaller spaces in an engine, but nothing compares to just
making it bigger. The reason locomotive engines are bigger than Volkswagen
engines is because they need the power that you can get only by making it
bigger.
Neither this nor brain size are anti-correlated, even IF aggression and
progress are.
John Knight
John Knight
> >>The leads you've already provided don't appear particularly sound.
> >>
> >>When I say "no," I mean I've seen the studies published. Ergo, there
> >>can't be that great of a prohibition.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Not quite sure what you meant here,
>
> what i mean is that you assert a conspiracy to keep research from being
> published. it gets published, where's the conspiracy?
>
Has the big LIE that Wechsler promoted for the last half a century, wherein
94% of the test questions which were "biased against women" were thrown out
BEFORE the "IQ test" was finalized, EVER been published? Where? So far,
all we have is one single line from one person on a usenet forum, which
hardly qualifies as "published", wouldn't you say?
That LIE needs to be more than published. It needs to be engraved on the
Statue of Liberty so that everyone passing by knows about it.
> > but let's put this a different way. Two
> > thirds of those students who score over 550 in SAT Math are boys, but
girls
> > are two thirds of college admissions now.
> >
> > Do you really think there's no bias involved here?
>
> is there any claim that those admissions are being based on GRE, SAT, or
> IQ scores?
>
You really do ask some of the strangest questions. What do you think the
GRE and SAT were developed for? Why do colleges ask for transcripts of the
scores? Do you think they just file them away so they can include them on
the transcripts that employees ask for, or do you think that just maybe they
actually use them to qualify students for admission.
It's true that universities used affirmative action as an excuse to throw
out, or at least minimize their use of, SAT scores, but aa is now illegal
and universities who try to do that are losing their cases in court, left
and right.
John Knight
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2C0CD7...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
>
>>>Why would you ask a question with such an obvious answer? Of course
>>
> there
>
>>>are "systemic gender [read: sex] differences". The biological,
>>>physiological, physical, emotional, mental, educational, spiritual,
>>>intellectual differences between the "genders" [read: sexes] are so
>>>different that they're almost opposites in some features.
>>
>>unfortunately, such differences are not replicable nor consistent across
>>studies.
>>
>
>
> It's hard to take you seriously, Mark, when you make a statement like that.
it's kinda hard to take you seriously when the very evidence you post
includes reference to measurement error that is larger than any
explained variance.
...
>>The data have not been referenced. What has been referenced
>>demonstrated that measurement error was greater than gender differences.
>>
>
>
> In which statistic do you believe this to be the case? In GRE scores?
> Absolutely not.
look again.
when you have reported correlations ranging from 0.02 to the 80's that
are weighted without any testing to see if they come from same or
different populatoins, you have a fundamental flaw in the construction
of your data points.
> If you have difficulty locating these original scores, which seem to have
> been moved or removed from the ETS web site, let me know and I'll send you
> the original .pdf files (which are very large).
you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between data
and statistics. The data are the numbers from which the statistics you
cited are computed. All the data, not summary statistics.
>
>
>
>> > Just as we know
>>
>>apparently, we have a different definition of what it means "to know."
>>--
>
>
> Well, you were the one who earlier claimed that "logic" requires a reliance
> on statistical evidence,
That was not my claim, you may want to revisit what I wrote.
and now that you have the statistical evidence, you
> seem to be claiming that this is no longer the case.
>
> John Knight
>
>
--
John Knight
Where? You keep saying this, and I keep pointing out that any possible
measurement error is 1/20th to 1/70th of the sex differences by race, and
you come back again with the same comment about measurement errors. What
exactly are you referring to?
http://christianparty.net/greracesexyear.htm contains 63 data points for GRE
scores by race, sex, and year. Please point out exactly where you believe
these measurement errors are.
>
> ...
>
>
> >>quite the spread. How much variablility was explained by age and how
> >>much by gender?
> >
> >
> > Do you have evidence that there's a significant change in brain size as
> > people get older?
>
> yes
>
uh, how much, where's the url, how does it compare to the sex and race
differences, could this explain why correlation is .88 rather than 1.0?
> > Or better yet, could this change possibly exceed a
> > standard deviation which would be only 98 million brain cells (compared
to
> > the 3.5 billion brain cell difference between men and women)?
>
> brain cells were not counted--volume was measured and assumptions were
> made about number of cells. Given that there are other reasons for
> differences in volume, the hypothesis of differing number of cells
> warrants demonstration rather than assertion.
>
Not true. The statement is much simpler than that. GRE scores and brain
size correlate to r-squared = 0.8795. Period. End of thesis.
The simple fact that there's correlation this high doesn't need any
explanations. We don't need to know why the correlation is so high just to
understand the significance of the correlation--the bigger a person's brain,
the better are their quantitative skills. We don't need to know how many
brain cells are involved, what the structure of the brain is, where
different brain functions take place--to know that quantitative skills
increase directly as brain size increases (or, conversely, that a 1 cc
increase in brain size equals a 1 point increase in GRE Quantitative
scores).
This is not to say that there aren't significant outliers.
http://christianparty.net/grebrainsizegraphs.htm shows that the GRE scores
for Black men, based on their known brain size, should be 500, rather than
446, which means that they score 54 points lower than their brain size
suggests they should. Without this data point, r-squared gets real close to
1.0. Why is it off by this much? Is it the GRE scores, the method for
measuring brain size, or some other factor? We can ask those questions, but
they don't need to be answered to understand the significance of this
correlation.
But it's interesting to note a similar spread with TIMSS science scores
(they should score 435, which is 70 points higher than their actual score of
365). And with SAT Math (430 vs 370, for a 60 point spread). And with
TIMSS Math (360 vs 460, for a 100 point spread). GRE Analytical (430 vs
500, or 70 points). IAEP Math (50 vs. 29, for a 21 points spread).
> ...
>
> >>just where did the samples come from where these numbers were generated?
> >>
> >
> >
> > If you think these Swedish scientists made a mistake in counting brain
> > cells, why don't you contact them and let them know where? The problem
is
> > that their findings are consistent with just about every other shred of
data
> > EXCEPT "IQ tests".
>
> sorry, the methods that they reported do not support this generalization.
>
Where is you evidence?
>
> >
> >
> >> > Men collectively score 27.6 million more SAT points than
> >>
> >>>females, which is 65.2 million brain cells for each extra SAT points
> >>
> > There
> >
> >>>is utterly no way for anyone to KNOW or to prove that these two
> >>
> > variables
> >
> >>>are independent of each other.
> >>
> >>i suppose there's a reference there somewhere.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Their claim that there's no correlation between "intelligence" and brain
> > size was based on a comparison to "IQ tests", which we already KNOW are
> > seriously flawed.
>
> and how do you know this?
We know this because men and women have the same median "IQ scores", when
the difference between them in GRE Quantitative is almost a standard
deviation. An "IQ test" which can't even detect this huge difference in
quantitative skills would be about like using a rubber band to measure 3'.
>
> > They would have reached an entirely different conclusion
> > if they'd compared it to GRE or TIMSS.
>
> assuming the ability to measure brain size reliably.
>
I guess you're just going to keep on saying this without posting any
evidence, even though such a task could NOT be simpler.
Every method that's been used, all the way from filling empty cranial
cavities with sunflower seeds, to MRI, show the same proportionate
difference between the sexes.
Do you think that if you just keep posting this denial, that decades of
scientific data will just evaporate?
> >>What does all of this have to do with the assertion that there is a
> >>gender bias in IQ testing? Mattarazzo (1972 *Weschler's Measurement and
> >>Appraisal of Adult Intelligence*) reviewd the then current literature
> >>quite extensively (p 352 ff). He cited numerous studies that attempted
> >>to demonstrate such a difference and failed to do so.
> >>
> >
> >
> > These yoyos also developed an "IQ test" which couldn't detect a
difference
> > in the quantitative skills between men and women which the GRE scores
show
> > to be bigger than a freight train.
> >
> > We might envision them examining ants with an electron miscroscope in
the
> > midst of a herd of stampeding elephants, and not detecting the
elephants.
> >
> > This is precisely Peter's point--Wechsler was an advocate on some kind
of an
> > agenda, not a competent or credible scientist (ala. Einstein).
>
> and you nor peter have been able to provide any data to support this
> assertion.
>
Lookit, even if nobody ever heard of GRE, or SAT, or TIMSS, or any of the
other standardized tests, but they heard that an "IQ test" was developed
that measures the median "intelligence" of men and women, and that the
resulting scores were "equal", any reasonable person would KNOW innately
that there's a serious flaw in the model.
8 year olds can figure out that by no stretch of the imagination are the
sexes "equal", and that some of the biggest differences are intellectual.
When every other test, all the way from SAT Verbal, to TIMSS Math, to GRE
quantitative, shows exactly the same pattern, but Wechsler's "IQ test"
doesn't, then there's only one problem: Wechsler.
John Knight
John Knight
Wouldn't you say that he's one of the architects of the taboo?
Feminists have done everything in their power to construct an SAT Math test
that supports "gender equality", but even after 3 decades of chronic
complaints from them, SAT Math scores still show a 42 point spread. If the
ETS managed to resist that pressure, then why didn't Wechsler half a century
ago?
John Knight
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > If it's so "robust", then why's it incapable of detecting the difference
in
> > mental aptitude between men and women, when men historically, from the
> > beginning of time, in every country on the Earth today, earn 42% more
than
> > women?
>
> huh? there has to be an underlying IQ difference to justify sociological
> prejudices? What rock have you been hiding under?
>
FINALLY!
What took you so long to fulfill Peter's prophecy?
The mere mention of the differences between the sexes, in your mind, is
"prejudice"!
Do we have that right?
Is this your final answer?
John Knight
ps--and now that you've concluded that "prejudice" is involved, you don't
have to continue to pretend to be a man, and you don't have to keep being
reminded about what Barbie said: "math is sooo hard"?
Mark D. Morin
Try taking a look at HOW they computed these statistics.
>
> http://christianparty.net/greracesexyear.htm contains 63 data points for GRE
> scores by race, sex, and year. Please point out exactly where you believe
> these measurement errors are.
>
>
>>...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>quite the spread. How much variablility was explained by age and how
>>>>much by gender?
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you have evidence that there's a significant change in brain size as
>>>people get older?
>>
>>yes
>>
>
>
> uh, how much, where's the url, how does it compare to the sex and race
> differences, could this explain why correlation is .88 rather than 1.0?
No URL. Real Journals, Real research. Pull any issue of Neurology.
There is a VERY robust correlation to brain volume and age. Any
research that does not attempt to control for this fact is illustration
of the fact that the individuals do not know how to conduct research.
>
>
>>>Or better yet, could this change possibly exceed a
>>>standard deviation which would be only 98 million brain cells (compared
>>
> to
>
>>>the 3.5 billion brain cell difference between men and women)?
>>
>>brain cells were not counted--volume was measured and assumptions were
>>made about number of cells. Given that there are other reasons for
>>differences in volume, the hypothesis of differing number of cells
>>warrants demonstration rather than assertion.
>>
>
>
> Not true.
Then were do the numbers regarding the number of cells come from?
...
>
>>>EXCEPT "IQ tests".
>>
>>sorry, the methods that they reported do not support this generalization.
>>
>
>
> Where is you evidence?
The very URLs you posted. Look at how their stats were computed. The
method does not support your conclussion.
...
>>and how do you know this?
>
>
> We know this because men and women have the same median "IQ scores", when
> the difference between them in GRE Quantitative is almost a standard
> deviation. An "IQ test" which can't even detect this huge difference in
> quantitative skills would be about like using a rubber band to measure 3'.
it's interesting that the ONLY evidence in support of this claim is
coming from one originating url.
>
>
>
>>>They would have reached an entirely different conclusion
>>>if they'd compared it to GRE or TIMSS.
>>
>>assuming the ability to measure brain size reliably.
>
> I guess you're just going to keep on saying this without posting any
> evidence, even though such a task could NOT be simpler.
it's not my job to post evidence. it's the job of the researchers to
post evidence that measurements were done reliably. When their own data
represent a range of values as they report, their own report says that
measurement is unreliable.
>
> Every method that's been used, all the way from filling empty cranial
> cavities with sunflower seeds, to MRI, show the same proportionate
> difference between the sexes.
that's incorrect
>
> Do you think that if you just keep posting this denial, that decades of
> scientific data will just evaporate?
you have only posted assertions, not data.
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2C10A1...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
>
>>>If it's so "robust", then why's it incapable of detecting the difference
>>
> in
>
>>>mental aptitude between men and women, when men historically, from the
>>>beginning of time, in every country on the Earth today, earn 42% more
>>
> than
>
>>>women?
>>
>>huh? there has to be an underlying IQ difference to justify sociological
>>prejudices? What rock have you been hiding under?
>>
>
>
> FINALLY!
>
> What took you so long to fulfill Peter's prophecy?
>
> The mere mention of the differences between the sexes, in your mind, is
> "prejudice"!
>
> Do we have that right?
No.
You are exercising circular reasoning.
>
> Is this your final answer?
>
> John Knight
>
>
>
> ps--and now that you've concluded that "prejudice" is involved,
Prejudice has been involved for millenia. Prejudice exists despite
evidence and prejudice is what blinds people to evidence. Prejudice
evokes the circular reasoning that you have been so good at. Prejudice
is independant of data--show me the data fool.
you don't
> have to continue to pretend to be a man, and you don't have to keep being
> reminded about what Barbie said: "math is sooo hard"?
>
>
--
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> John Knight wrote:
> > Where? You keep saying this, and I keep pointing out that any possible
> > measurement error is 1/20th to 1/70th of the sex differences by race,
and
> > you come back again with the same comment about measurement errors.
What
> > exactly are you referring to?
>
> Try taking a look at HOW they computed these statistics.
>
ok, so you are just going to keep denying it in the hopes that people will
accept what you say? Measuring brain size to a high degree of accuracy is
well within the capabilities of this technological society, so your denial
of the accuracy, coupled with your failure to state specifically which data
you believe is suspect, means nothing.
> > uh, how much, where's the url, how does it compare to the sex and race
> > differences, could this explain why correlation is .88 rather than 1.0?
>
> No URL. Real Journals, Real research. Pull any issue of Neurology.
> There is a VERY robust correlation to brain volume and age. Any
> research that does not attempt to control for this fact is illustration
> of the fact that the individuals do not know how to conduct research.
>
This is not a true statement. Even IF there is "a VERY robust correlation
to brain volume and age", it's simply not true that this MUST be a
consideration in the final correlation.
It's particularly not true if correlation between brain size and GRE scores
is already as high as 0.8795 even without correcting for age.
In fact, if the data were to be adjusted for age before the final average
brain size by race and sex were calculated, that could [and definitely
would] be used as an argument for why the data *may* have been manipulated
or biased.
The safest, most conservative approach is to use the data which is *not*
adjusted for age in the correlation, and then compare that to a correlation
which uses the data *after* it's adjusted for age. The likely scenario
would be that r-squared would *increase* to more than 0.8795, which isn't
even necessary to demonstrate Peter's point.
Adjusting it for age first raises too many questions about this already
allegedly "controversial" issue.
However, since you didn't even take a stab at explaining how failing to
adjust for age would impact the correlation, your argument is specious from
the beginning. The subjects were aged 20 to 90 and STILL correlation was
high. Perhaps it's true that it would have been higher if all subjects had
been 39 years old, but so what? How does that change the significance of
the correlation? It doesn't.
Let's use an outlandish assumption. Let's assume that the brain size of
Black women increases by a standard deviation between 20 and 89 years of age
(an obviously ludicrous assumption), from the median of 1,217 cc's to 1,336
cc's. This would still be a standard deviation lower than the median for
Asian men, and two standard deviations lower than the upper end of Asian
men.
IF Black women are being under-reported because they had such a massive but
unknown increase in brain size over 69 years, and their actual average brain
size over that time was 1,267 rather than 1,217 cc's, not even this would be
enough to change r-squared by that much.
So your concern that adjusting for age is a necessary first step is dead
wrong.
John Knight
John Knight
"Thalamus" <zh...@online.no> wrote in message
news:KdfX8.4466$HR.6...@news4.ulv.nextra.no...
>
> > before reading the page to which your post directed me, i'd only read
> rather
> > sketchy reports on "Einstein's brain". my understanding was that it was
> cut
> > up, fixed, and sat in a jar, almost lost, for decades, with only
> > long-post-mortem investigation. the thing that i found most-interesting
is
> > that Einstein's brain was found to have significantly-mor neuralglia
> cells.
>
> Which is strange - glial cells are NOT information-processing cells,
they're
> functionally support cells IE oligodendrocytes, Schwann cells etc.
> So how could Einstein be a genious, if his structural neural network
wasn't
> exceptional, if his brainsize were 'normal' ????
>
> Brian
>
>
The short answer is that his only "genius" was in being able to plagiarize
the works of the real geniuses, coupled with the "American" media's
complicity in covering up his shortcomings, like his flunking algebra,
failing to be admitted to college, never having a lab to do the research he
claims he did, and a few other "small" details like that
http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
John Knight
Thalamus
news:5AjX8.44754$P%6.30...@news2.west.cox.net...
Yes, I've read that the theory was finished 5 years before he 'discovered'
it thorugh a 'dream'.
Brian
John Knight
Isn't it astounding that we, a supposedly advanced technological society,
got sucked into this LIE about Einstein's "dream" for more than half a
century?
The original papers were actually published 10 to 20 years before Einstein
claimed he had this "dream", which gave him (and his compatriots) plenty of
time to set us up. With communications being so slow at the time, it's not
surprising that they were able to pull it off. The real surprise is that
they managed to keep this LIE alive long after the facts were known.
John Knight
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > "prejudice"!
> >
> > Do we have that right?
>
> No.
> You are exercising circular reasoning.
>
>
> >
> > Is this your final answer?
> >
> > John Knight
> >
> >
> >
> > ps--and now that you've concluded that "prejudice" is involved,
>
> Prejudice has been involved for millenia. Prejudice exists despite
> evidence and prejudice is what blinds people to evidence. Prejudice
> evokes the circular reasoning that you have been so good at. Prejudice
> is independant of data--show me the data fool.
>
>
Well, it's pretty clear that you're just trolling now.
You haven't got the slightest idea if anyone's "prejudiced" regarding their
opinion, whether it's their opinion of the data, or of the crooks who
manipulated it. You didn't level that charge because you wanted to avoid or
critique any possible prejudice. You levelled that charge only because you
(and I) know that it's impossible for you to defend your position.
You keep repeating the mantra about "measurement errors" of one of the
simplest things in the world to measure, without ever pointing out
specifically where you believe these measurement errors are. This was
simply an attempt to discredit what you know (or at least sense) to be a
FACT.
You're willing to go to great lengths to attempt to refute the correlation
between brain size and GRE scores, no matter what the facts are. It's clear
now that the only reason you haven't provided any valid references is that
you haven't found a single data point which refutes any of these statistics,
or which even suggests that there are any significant "measurement errors".
The correct description of what someone thinks of people who do this isn't
"prejudice", though );
John Knight
Mark D. Morin
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
>
>>>The mere mention of the differences between the sexes, in your mind, is
>>>"prejudice"!
>>>
>>>Do we have that right?
>>
>>No.
>>You are exercising circular reasoning.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Is this your final answer?
>>>
>>>John Knight
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>ps--and now that you've concluded that "prejudice" is involved,
>>
>>Prejudice has been involved for millenia. Prejudice exists despite
>>evidence and prejudice is what blinds people to evidence. Prejudice
>>evokes the circular reasoning that you have been so good at. Prejudice
>>is independant of data--show me the data fool.
>>
>>
>
>
> Well, it's pretty clear that you're just trolling now.
>
> You haven't got the slightest idea if anyone's "prejudiced" regarding their
> opinion, whether it's their opinion of the data, or of the crooks who
> manipulated it. You didn't level that charge because you wanted to avoid or
> critique any possible prejudice. You levelled that charge only because you
> (and I) know that it's impossible for you to defend your position.
>
> You keep repeating the mantra about "measurement errors" of one of the
> simplest things in the world to measure,
Who is trolling? What do you know about measuring brain volume or number
of neurons in a brain? Both are exceptionally unreliable.
without ever pointing out
> specifically where you believe these measurement errors are. This was
> simply an attempt to discredit what you know (or at least sense) to be a
> FACT.
>
> You're willing to go to great lengths to attempt to refute the correlation
> between brain size and GRE scores, no matter what the facts are.
The fact is, there is a robust correlation between age and brain volume.
If age is not controlled for, you can not say anything about between sex
differences.
It's clear
> now that the only reason you haven't provided any valid references is that
> you haven't found a single data point which refutes any of these statistics,
> or which even suggests that there are any significant "measurement errors".
>
> The correct description of what someone thinks of people who do this isn't
> "prejudice", though );
>
> John Knight
>
>
--
John Knight
"Shadow Dancer" <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote in message
news:agm2br$mukqa$1...@ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...
> Here are some I just dug up:
>
> http://www.brainplace.com/bp/malefemaledif/default.asp
>
> For some really scientific stuff:
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~kc/Hemi/CogNeuro97.html
>
> Here is some stuff on brain shrinkage with age - looks like the male has a
> disadvantage:
> http://www.docguide.com/dg.nsf/PrintPrint/30F67BF5DA97292E852565AA0054575D
>
> Here is a Google cached page with some very interesting data on it:
>
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:Gv6JWusC0bgC:www.epub.org.br/cm/n11/men
> te/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html+male,+female,+brain&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>
> And here is a scientific paper which clearly refutes any notion that the
> female brain is inferior to the male's:
> http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thompson/psychsex.htm
>
> And yet another:
> http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/heshe.html
>
> My terminology was wrong, I meant the corpus callosum. Either way, women
> use their entire brains more efficiently than men do and, once again, size
> does NOT matter :P
>
>
Not only was your terminology wrong, but so were your conclusions. Here are
some I just dug up. In the following 12 subjects, no country scored lower
than American 12th Grade Girls who scored:
22 points lower than American boys and 90 points lower than Greek girls in
Numbers & Equations.
41 points lower than American boys and 123 points lower than Cypriot girls
in Calculus.
31 points lower than American boys and 121 points lower than French girls in
Geometry.
34 points lower than American boys and 139 points lower than Norwegian girls
in Physics.
53 points lower than American boys and 130 points lower than Norwegian girls
in Mechanics.
21 points lower than American boys and 152 points lower than Swedish girls
in Electricity & Magnetism.
6 points lower than American boys and 37 points lower than Norwegian girls
in Heat.
18 points lower than American boys and 86 points lower than Swedish girls in
Wave Phenomena.
20 points lower than American boys and 92 points lower than Swedish girls in
Modern Physics.
31 points lower than American boys and 117 points lower than French girls in
Advanced Math.
23 points lower than American boys and 65 points lower than Swedish girls in
General Science.
11 points lower than American boys and 77 points lower than Dutch girls in
General Math.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS math
problems.
Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS physics
problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Among American students on other standardized tests:
In the quantitative section of the Graduate Record Exam:
Mexican boys score 3 points higher than White girls.
Mexican boys score 59 points higher than girls who major in education.
The average boys' score is 72 points higher than average girls' score.
Foreign boys score 171 points higher than American girls.
Asian boys score 234 points higher than black girls.
Boys who major in engineering score 251 points higher than girls who major
in education.
In the verbal section of the Graduate Record Exam:
Asian boys score 5 points higher than White girls.
Mexican boys score 23 points higher than girls who major in education.
Boys who major in humanities score 114 points higher than girls who major in
education.
White boys score 124 points higher than black girls.
In the analytical section of the Graduate Record Exam:
Mexican boys score 8 points higher than girls who major in education.
Indian boys score 15 points higher than girls who major in education.
Hispanic boys score 27 points higher than girls who major in education.
Asian boys score 79 points higher than girls who major in education.
White boys score 99 points higher than girls who major in education.
Boys score 46 points higher than girls in SAT math.
Boys score 2 points higher than girls in ACT math.
Boys score 5 points higher than girls in NAEP math.
Boys score 53 points higher than girls in TIMSS physics.
Boys score 41 points higher than girls in TIMSS calculus.
Swiss boys score 47 points higher than Swiss girls in TIMSS calculus.
Boys score 17 points higher than girls in IAEP math.
Would you mind telling us again, Shadow Dancer, whose brain it is that you
believe is "damaged"?
John Knight
ps--there is more at http://christianparty.net/timss.htm and
http://christianparty.net/menare.htm
John Knight
If it was this unreliable, then r-squared for brain size versus GRE scores
would be nowhere NEAR 0.8795. The ONLY thing that could be gained by even
more reliable measurements would be an increase in r-squared.
Again, the only outlier is the Black man, and if he's removed from the
calculations, r-squared gets very close to 1.0. You *must* know that you
cannot get better correlation than that.
Where are the measurement errors?
>
> > without ever pointing out
> > specifically where you believe these measurement errors are. This was
> > simply an attempt to discredit what you know (or at least sense) to be a
> > FACT.
> >
> > You're willing to go to great lengths to attempt to refute the
correlation
> > between brain size and GRE scores, no matter what the facts are.
>
> The fact is, there is a robust correlation between age and brain volume.
> If age is not controlled for, you can not say anything about between sex
> differences.
>
This is patently false, and since it's already been explained to you, it's
not clear if you're just trolling, or if you really don't understand how
inconsequential age and brain size are to the correlation we're discussing.
Let's try this a different way. Even IF "there is a robust correlation
between age and brain volume", you cannot also ignore that there is also a
"robust" correlation between brain volume and GRE scores, which means that
as brain volume increases, so do GRE scores. Any adjustments for
measurement errors for increased brain volume would be cancelled out by the
increase in GRE scores, and you'd be back to r-squared = .8795
But since you haven't even attempted to quantify this "robust correlation",
it should be pointed out that after the age of 20, average brain volume
remains virtually FIXED by race and sex.
John Knight
Cary Kittrell
<
<"Thalamus" <zh...@online.no> wrote in message
<news:hIjX8.4587$HR.6...@news4.ulv.nextra.no...
<>
<>
<> Yes, I've read that the theory was finished 5 years before he 'discovered'
<> it thorugh a 'dream'.
<>
<
<got sucked into this LIE about Einstein's "dream" for more than half a
<century?
<
Oh, it's even more astonishing than that when you realize that Einstein
never said anything about ideas coming to him in a dream. Thalamus
is likely thinking about Kekule and benzene. Or possibly the novel and
subsequent musical of the same name. Or conceivably Einstein's thought
experiment about travelling on a wave of light.
But of course the fact that no one ever claimed this happened is not about to
keeep Johnny from screaming "LIE", is it?
You're right, Johnny. It is a "lie".
<The original papers were actually published 10 to 20 years before Einstein
<claimed he had this "dream", which gave him (and his compatriots) plenty of
<time to set us up. With communications being so slow at the time, it's not
<surprising that they were able to pull it off.
SMURFLE!! Yeah, those primitive early twentieth century Krauts, why
it sometimes took several weeks for the latest issue of "Annalen der Physik"
to reach the universities.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
"John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> writes:
<
<
<"Shadow Dancer" <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote in message
<news:agm2br$mukqa$1...@ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...
<> Here are some I just dug up:
<>
<>
<> And yet another:
<> http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/heshe.html
<>
<> My terminology was wrong, I meant the corpus callosum. Either way, women
<> use their entire brains more efficiently than men do and, once again, size
<> does NOT matter :P
<>
<>
<
<Not only was your terminology wrong, but so were your conclusions. Here are
<some I just dug up. In the following 12 subjects, no country scored lower
<than American 12th Grade Girls who scored:
What Johnny isn't telling you is that he "just" dug these up years ago,
and has been drawing erroneous conclusions ever since. For example
he also is not telling you that:
<
<Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS math
<problems.
<
<Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS physics
<problems.
<
that I have twice in the past demonstrated that his "method" of "analysis"
which "led" to the above "conclusions" would also "lead" to the "conclusions"
that:
a. anyone answering all questions correctly should receive a
mark of only 80%, and
b. five out of every four girls got one question wrong. Can
you say reduction ad absurdem?
It's not the girls who can't apply math correctly.
Google has it.
-- cary
John Knight
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:agn4an$i8m$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
Are you denying that Einstein was a LIAR, and a PLAGIARIST, cary?
Do you have some kind of proof that Einstein published anything before
Hilbert did?
Do you DENY that the following is accurate?
If not, why would you waste the electrons to support a known LIAR and
PLAGIARIST like Einstein? Why would you defend these criminal actions in
the first place, unless you have proof that the allegations are wrong?
John Knight
http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher
quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems with
assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that
Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of
the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work
of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum
mechanics. [Note: see critique].
That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the
ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all along.
In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that
"before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc.,
had created the foundations of the theory of relativity..."
However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The Jewish
media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead they promoted
the work of the Jew Albert Einstein. As we mentioned earlier, this General
Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by Einstein
second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive
object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars
passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory. This
evidence supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the
Jewish-controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to prop up
Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true genius, David Hilbert.
On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of
which proclaimed, "Revolution in science - New theory of the Universe -
Newtonian ideas overthrown." This was the beginning of the force-feeding of
the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following years, Einstein's earlier
1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator
of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the Jewish media, in
1922, Einstein received the Nobel Prize for the work he had stolen in 1905
regarding the photoelectric effect.
The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an
important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been
established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his
image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to be
today. As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World Zionism.
The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to
change our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we
ought to listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues. This
is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of
social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David Hilbert
to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from a
strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle names were
'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In August of 1934, the
day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf Hitler as
President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf
Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was published in
the German newspapers. So the Jews certainly did not want David Hilbert
receiving the credit he deserved.
Cary Kittrell
In article <SZCX8.47920$P%6.33...@news2.west.cox.net>
"John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> writes:
<
<
<"Shadow Dancer" <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote in message
<news:agm2br$mukqa$1...@ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...
<> Here are some I just dug up:
<>
{...}
<>
<> And yet another:
<> http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/heshe.html
<>
<> My terminology was wrong, I meant the corpus callosum. Either way, women
<> use their entire brains more efficiently than men do and, once again, size
<> does NOT matter :P
<>
<>
<
<Not only was your terminology wrong, but so were your conclusions. Here are
<some I just dug up. In the following 12 subjects, no country scored lower
<than American 12th Grade Girls who scored:
What Johnny isn't telling you is that he "just" dug these up years ago,
and has been drawing loud erroneous conclusions ever since. As one example,
he also is not telling you that:
<
<Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS math
<problems.
<
<Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS physics
<problems.
<
that I have twice in the past demonstrated that his "method" of "analysis"
which "led" to the above "conclusions" would also "lead" to the "conclusions"
that:
a) anyone answering every single question correctly should
be assigned a score of only 78%, and
b) more girls answered some questions incorrectly than
actually took the test -- 9 out of every 8 girls for
one question, 7 out of 6 on another.
Can you say reductio ad absurdem? I just KNEW that you could.
Shadow Dancer
news:SZCX8.47920$P%6.33...@news2.west.cox.net...
Your studies have been proven wrong.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thompson/psychsex.htm
To Quote:
"The most important single contribution to our knowledge of the facts of the
case is to be found in Dr. Franklin P. Mall's paper 'On Several Anatomical
Characters of the Human Brain Said to Vary According to Race and Sex, with
Especial Reference to the Weight of the Frontal Lobe' (Am. J. of Anat., IX.,
p. 1, 1909). Dr. Mall's general conclusion is that there is as yet no
reliable evidence for the variation of anatomical characters with either
race or sex. The belief that the brains of females differ from those of
males has been widely accepted, and has been thought to be conclusive
evidence of the permanent inferiority of the female mind. The points in
which the female brain has been said to be inferior to the male are: (1)
total weight; (2) proportionate weight of the frontal lobe indicated by (a)
actual weighings, and (b) determinations of the position of the central
sulcus; (3) the area of the corpus callosum; (4) the complexity of gyri and
sulci; (5) the conformation of gyri and sulci; and (6) the rate of
development of the cortex in the foetus. Dr. Mall's paper gives a critical
review of the literature of the subject to date, and adds important new
data.
It is now a generally accepted belief that the smaller gross weight of the
female brain has no significance other than that of the smaller average size
of the female. With regard to the other anatomical characters enumerated,
Dr. Mall shows that those observers who have found differences
characteristic of sex have been guilty of serious errors in scientific
procedure. They have based conclusions on too small a series of
observations, have used methods too crude to make anything but large and
constant differences (which they did not obtain) significant, have made
their determinations with a knowledge of the sex of [p. 336] the brain under
consideration, and have even, in some cases, drawn conclusions not justified
by their own data. Those observers who have avoided these errors have found
no differences characteristic of sex. Dr. Mall himself finds none, and is
inclined to believe that they do not exist. The only exception to this
statement is that he finds some evidence of a greater tendency of the male
brain to vary from the normal conformation of gyri and sulci. "
I know you didn't read the materials I offered, you were just waiting for my
reply.
Try reading the entire study, as well as the others.
The Shadow Dancer
Parse Tree
These studies are all quite meaningless. It is a fact that men perform
better in mathematics, which means that males have a higher level
performance. Anything else is an arbitrary assessment, just as it would be
to say that males perform better because their brains are different.
Completely arbitrary.
Cary Kittrell
<
<"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
<news:agn4an$i8m$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
<> In article <ZksX8.46464$P%6.32...@news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
<<johnk...@usa.com> writes:
<> <
<>
<> SMURFLE!! Yeah, those primitive early twentieth century Krauts, why
<> it sometimes took several weeks for the latest issue of "Annalen der
<Physik"
<> to reach the universities.
<>
<>
<
Yep.
<
<
<
<http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
<Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher
<quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems with
<assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that
<Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner of
<the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work
<of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum
<mechanics. [Note: see critique].
From the thoroughly Aryan Max Plack Institute:
Einstein Freed from Charge of Plagiarism
According to the accepted view, the mathematician David Hilbert
completed General Relativity five days before Albert Einstein in
November 1915. Einstein may thus have copied crucial equations of
this theory from Hilbert.
Members of an international research group at the Max Planck
Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, argue in their
study, published in this week's issue of Science, that it was
instead Hilbert who appropriated crucial results from Einstein and
then published his paper under a misleading dateline.
Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on General
Relativity on 25 November 1915. David Hilbert, one of the most
eminent mathematicians of the 20th century, published a paper in
March 1916 which also contains the correct field equations of
General Relativity. Einstein came to know Hilbert's contribution
in late November, even before he found his final equations. He
immediately claimed that Hilbert had appropriated his results. The
dateline of Hilbert's paper, "20 November 1915," however, suggests
that it was submitted five days earlier than Einstein's
contribution. Did Einstein even copy the correct field equations
from Hilbert's paper, as has been argued? This possibility can now
definitely be excluded.
The authors of the present paper succeeded in identifying proofs
of Hilbert's article that are dated "6 December 1915," that is
after the submission of Einstein's conclusive contribution. Their
detailed analysis of these proofs has revealed that they contain
only an immature version of General Relativity, without the
explicit field equations. These equations must have been inserted
only later - after 6 December and before the published version
appeared in 1916. Hilbert was, so the authors argue, still deeply
ingrained in wrong assumptions about the physical meaning of his
formalism, asssumptions which Einstein had meanwhile painfully
overcome. Einstein can hence definitively be freed from the charge
of plagiarism.
Hilbert's contribution, on the other hand, cannot even be
considered as an independent alternative discovery of the field
equations of General Relativity. Clearly, before he published the
final version of his article, he must have seen Einstein's
conclusive paper. If Hilbert had only altered the dateline of this
paper to the date when he inserted the correct equations into the
proofs no later priority discussion could have arisen.
Although disputes about priority and plagiarism can be crucially
important to working scientists, they are not necessarily a key
issue in the history of science. Historians of science are often
less interested in who made an important new discovery but rather
in how new insights become possible. In the case of Einstein's and
Hilbert's struggle for establishing the field equations of a new,
relativistic theory of gravitation the situation is, however,
different since the approaches taken by the two scientists were
dramatically distinct: Whereas Einstein combined mathematical
strategies with a search for physical meaning, Hilbert very much
relied on the power of his superior mathematical formalism.
Clearly, in this case, the who of the discovery tells indeed much
about the how.
Since 1907 Einstein had attempted to carefully reconcile, step by
step, tentative mathematical formulations of his heuristic goal to
formulate a relativistic theory of gravitation with the then
available physical knowledge. Hilbert, on the other hand, had only
begun to work on General Relativity in the second half of 1915. He
boldly aimed from the beginning at an axiomatic foundation of
physics and at a kind of world formula, unifying gravitation with
electromagnetism. This approach caused the wrong impression that
the field equations of General Relativity could be found by pure
mathematical reasoning.
The results reported in the article in Science are an outcome of
an international research project dedicated to the history of
General Relativity. The project is centered at the Max Planck
Institute for the History of Science in Berlin and has produced in
the last years several new insights into the development of this
theory.
Published: 11-11-97
Max Planck Institute for the
History of Science, Berlin
<
<That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the
<ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all along.
<In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that
<"before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc.,
<had created the foundations of the theory of relativity..."
<
SNIKKT! Scientists all over Germany were denouncing "Jewish Science"
during the Nazi regime. (you on the other hand, I'm sure, would have
retained your intellectual integrity and explained in person to Hitler
how he was actually a Jew. I'd love to see that one). By renouncing
"Jewish Science", as you may recall, Germany lost out in the race
to develop the atom bomb, and hence the war (sorry, John). Lise
Mitner, a Jew and a woman who had not even been allowed to finish
high school, played a crucial role in the discovery of fission.
Well, I'd say the above pretty much speaks for itself, eh?
-- cary
Mark D. Morin
you don't understand the concept of reliability. It is scientificly
dishonest to take the measurement that yeilds the best correlation and
then throw out the rest of the data--as your links suggest. Your 0.8795
is a figment of your imagination.
>
> Again, the only outlier is the Black man, and if he's removed from the
> calculations, r-squared gets very close to 1.0. You *must* know that you
> cannot get better correlation than that.
>
> Where are the measurement errors?
brain measurements
>
>
>>>without ever pointing out
>>>specifically where you believe these measurement errors are. This was
>>>simply an attempt to discredit what you know (or at least sense) to be a
>>>FACT.
>>>
>>>You're willing to go to great lengths to attempt to refute the
>>
> correlation
>
>>>between brain size and GRE scores, no matter what the facts are.
>>
>>The fact is, there is a robust correlation between age and brain volume.
>>If age is not controlled for, you can not say anything about between sex
>>differences.
>>
>
>
> This is patently false, and since it's already been explained to you, it's
> not clear if you're just trolling, or if you really don't understand how
> inconsequential age and brain size are to the correlation we're discussing.
>
> Let's try this a different way. Even IF "there is a robust correlation
> between age and brain volume", you cannot also ignore that there is also a
> "robust" correlation between brain volume and GRE scores,
a finding reported at a single site. not published, not reviewed, using
data that were sorted through to find optimal numbers. Point to a
published piece of literature, in a peer reviewed journal that supports
the above assertion.
which means that
> as brain volume increases, so do GRE scores. Any adjustments for
> measurement errors for increased brain volume would be cancelled out by the
> increase in GRE scores, and you'd be back to r-squared = .8795
>
> But since you haven't even attempted to quantify this "robust correlation",
> it should be pointed out that after the age of 20, average brain volume
> remains virtually FIXED by race and sex.
heh? you are disregarding the past twenty years of research? The rate
of shrinkage by age is close to "fixed" but even then, there's a lot of
variation. LOOK at an MRI of a 90 year old brain and compare it to that
of a 20 year old. Even you should be able to see a difference.
John Knight
Let's use a simple example of how wrong you are, cary.
Question K09 on the 12th Grade TIMSS Math test given to 12th graders around
the world in 1995 reveals an astounding difference in math skills between
the sexes in all the countries who participated. The average difference in
all countries was 10.5%, with 47.3% of boys and 36.8% of girls answering
correctly, but the difference in the US was 22.1% (28.6% of girls and 50.7%
of boys). In countries like Cyprus where 60.1% of the boys answered
correctly, guesses on the test would not have influenced the scores by that
much, but where only 28.6% of American girls answered correctly, guesses
must be taken into account.
Since this was a multiple choice question with four possible choices, the
probability of getting the correct answer just by guessing is 25%. In other
words, for every four students who guessed, one of them would have gotten
the correct answer by chance. The maximum score would have been achieved
had all the students who didn't understand the problem guessed at the
answer, so where 28.6% of American girls answered the problem correctly,
23.8% of them got the correct answer by guessing, and 4.8% indicated that
they understood the problem [x = total guesses, 0.25x = correct guesses,
0.75x = incorrect guesses = 71.4%, x = 95.2%, 0.25x = 23.8%, 28.6% got the
correct answer - 23.8% guessed the correct answer = 4.8% understood the
problem]. However, with an estimated error of plus or minus 3%, only 1.8%
are known with certainty to have understood the problem.
American boys didn't do that much better, since [prior to the adjustment for
the 3% error] just 34.3% of them got the correct answer because they
understood the problem, 16.4% got the correct answer because they guessed,
and 49.3% guessed incorrectly. Thus only 31.3% are known with certainty to
have understood the problem.
Prior to adjustment for the 3% error, 53.2% of the boys in Cyprus guessed,
39.9% guessed incorrectly, 13.3% guessed correctly, and 46.8% understood the
problem [x = total guesses, 0.25x = correct guesses, 0.75x = incorrect
guesses = 39.9%, x = 53.2%, 0.25x = 13.3%, and 60.1% correct answers - 13.3%
correct guesses = 46.8% who understood the problem]. Only 43.8% are known
with certainty to have understood the problem, so per capita, compared to
American boys 40% more boys in Cyprus are known to have understood the
problem, and compared to American girls, 24 times as many were. Compared to
American girls, 17 times as many American boys are known to have understood
the problem.
Is this adequate proof that our attempt to establish "gender equality" is a
failure? Yes. To achieve that ephemeral goal, our "educators began an
unnecessary and destructive "gender war" of unprecedented proportions, more
than doubled education spending as a percent of GDP, and out-spent by more
than three times countries whose students far outperformed ours. Japan,
whose 8th graders scored 105 points higher than ours, spends half as much
for education. Korea, whose 8th graders scored 107 points higher than ours,
spends even less per student than Japan.
http://christianparty.net/timssgeometry.htm
John Knight
Hope Munro Smith
<johnk...@usa.com> wrote:
This is because parents assume a larger portion of the
cost of education than they do in the United States.
In most other countries, parents have to buy
all their children's school books, supplies, uniforms,
plus pay for transportation to and from school. No school
buses subsidized by the community or free lunch
programs. There goes part of your theory. Anyone else
want to trash the rest of it?
John Knight
"Shadow Dancer" <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote in message
news:agndj7$mv8r4$1...@ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...
"Dr. Mall" should have all his degrees revoked, and he should be Fed Exed
out of the country.
Do you REALLY believe the following?:
> They have based conclusions on too small a series of
> observations
Do you REALLY believe this?
Every single test administered to millions of students EVERY single year
show precisely the above pattern, and this IDIOT "thinks" that this is "too
small a series of observations", and you *believe* him?
WHO did we leave out? WHICH American hasn't been tested a hundred times?
WHERE is this "exception to the rule" you feminazis keep pretending you
know? HOW can an American "educated" in our fine "education" system be this
STUPID?
The rest of his screed is just as erroneous, but these questions would keep
you occupied for a century if you took them seriously (which you won't).
John Knight
John Knight
"Angilion" <angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d2f507c...@news.freeserve.net...
> [several groups cut to avoid excessive crossposting]
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:19:57 -0500, "Shadow Dancer"
> <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thompson/psychsex.htm
> >
> >To Quote:
> >
> >"The most important single contribution to our knowledge of the facts of
the
> >case is to be found in Dr. Franklin P. Mall's paper 'On Several
Anatomical
> >Characters of the Human Brain Said to Vary According to Race and Sex,
with
> >Especial Reference to the Weight of the Frontal Lobe' (Am. J. of Anat.,
IX.,
> >p. 1, 1909). Dr. Mall's general conclusion is that there is as yet no
> >reliable evidence for the variation of anatomical characters with either
> >race or sex. The belief that the brains of females differ from those of
> >males has been widely accepted, and has been thought to be conclusive
> >evidence of the permanent inferiority of the female mind.
>
> That's obviously out of date - the general belief nowdays is that women
> are *more* intellectually capable than men. Try reading the posts
> John Knight was replying to, for example. Are you going to
> counter those, or are you one of the many who think that female
> people are innately superior to male people?
>
> You are going back to 1910 for that paper. Do you think that's
> actually relevant to today, especially in her conclusions about
> the prevailing belief concerning which sex is mentally superior?
>
> As an aside, I have seen it hypothesised that brain mass correlates with
> height. That would neatly explain the average difference in brain
> mass between men and women (as an artefact of the average
> difference in height) and the hypothesis sounds plausible. However,
> I haven't seen any evidence for it. Do you have any?
>
Because of Wechsler's LIE, they obviously started with the thesis that "men
and women have the same IQ", and then worked backwards from there to prove
the thesis.
They're just like Wechlser.
"When Wechsler was developing his IQ test, he found that out of 105 tests
assessing skills in solving maze-puzzles, involving the most heterogeneous
populations throughout the world, 99 showed an incontrovertible male
superiority. (Wechsler resolved this type of problem by eliminating all
those tests that resulted in findings of significant sex differences.)"
Leonard...@newsguy.com in 9mift...@drn.newsguy.com
They throw out 94% of the test, then proclaim "the sexes are equal".
But GRE enables us to put those questions BACK on the table, and expose
Wechlser's LIE:
http://christianparty.net/gregeometry.htm
http://christianparty.net/gre.htm
John Knight
John Knight
"Hope Munro Smith" <hop...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:hopems-1207...@cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com...
> In article <3d2f507c...@news.freeserve.net>,
> angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>
> > [several groups cut to avoid excessive crossposting]
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:19:57 -0500, "Shadow Dancer"
> > <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > >http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thompson/psychsex.htm
> > >
> > >To Quote:
> > >
> > >"The most important single contribution to our knowledge of the facts
of the
> > >case is to be found in Dr. Franklin P. Mall's paper 'On Several
Anatomical
> > >Characters of the Human Brain Said to Vary According to Race and Sex,
with
> > >Especial Reference to the Weight of the Frontal Lobe' (Am. J. of Anat.,
IX.,
> > >p. 1, 1909). Dr. Mall's general conclusion is that there is as yet no
> > >reliable evidence for the variation of anatomical characters with
either
> > >race or sex. The belief that the brains of females differ from those of
> > >males has been widely accepted, and has been thought to be conclusive
> > >evidence of the permanent inferiority of the female mind.
> >
> > That's obviously out of date - the general belief nowdays is that women
> > are *more* intellectually capable than men. Try reading the posts
> > John Knight was replying to, for example. Are you going to
> > counter those, or are you one of the many who think that female
> > people are innately superior to male people?
> >
> > You are going back to 1910 for that paper. Do you think that's
> > actually relevant to today, especially in her conclusions about
> > the prevailing belief concerning which sex is mentally superior?
>
> Really, use of such dated material is quite puzzling.
>
> >
> > As an aside, I have seen it hypothesised that brain mass correlates with
> > height. That would neatly explain the average difference in brain
> > mass between men and women (as an artefact of the average
> > difference in height) and the hypothesis sounds plausible. However,
> > I haven't seen any evidence for it. Do you have any?
> >
>
> I'd be interested in hearing it as well. It would make
> sense that a larger body would need a larger brain to work
> its various systems, which again would prove that brain size
> says nothing about intelligence.
This is just about like saying: "It would make sense that a larger body
would need larger muscles to work its various systems, which again would
prove that muscle size says nothing about strength."
Do you agree that muscle size and strength are positively correlated? Then
why not brain size and intelligence?
How can SO many people believe "the sexes are equal" with SO much proof to
the contrary?
John Knight
http://christianparty.net/menare.htm
Men on average, versus women on average, are:
Seven percent taller.
Twice as strong.
Fifty percent heavier.
Endowed with 3 1/2 billion more brain cells (22.8 billion vs. 19.3 billion).
Forty seven points (18.5%) higher scoring in SAT Math Exams.
Seven percent higher scoring in SAT Verbal Exams.
One hundred points (42%) higher scoring in Graduate Record Exams.
Twenty two points higher scoring in Numbers & Equations. Exams.
Forty two points higher scoring in Calculus Exams.
Thirty one points higher scoring in Geometry Exams.
Thirty four points higher scoring in Physics Exams.
Fifty three points higher scoring in Mechanics Exams.
Twenty one points higher scoring in Electricity & Magnetism Exams.
Six points higher scoring in Heat Exams.
Eighteen points higher scoring Wave Phenomena Exams.
Twenty points higher scoring in Modern Physics Exams.
Thirty one points higher scoring in Advanced Math Exams.
Twenty three points higher scoring in General Science Exams.
Eleven points higher scoring in General Math Exams.
Forty percent higher scoring in hand/eye coordination contests like Olympic
Platform Diving.
Twelve percent faster in track.
More emotionally stable.
Forty two precent greater income earners overall.
Sixty seven percent greater income earners in sales positions.
Responsible for 90% of average family incomes (California Senate Task Force
on Family Equity).
More than one hundred percent of IRS Personal Income Tax Payees.
Less than 10% of federal social/welfare beneficiaries.
Ninety four percent of the prison population.
Perpetrators of less than half of serious crimes.
94% of child support collection efforts.
Pay more and
Are twice as likely to pay the "child support" ordered.
Acquitted one ninth as often for the same crime.
Sentenced 3 times as long for the same crime.
Less than 1% of harassment and discrimination lawsuits against their
employers.
Recipients of less than 10% of "family leave benefits".
Expected to live seven years shorter.
One third of Social Security recipients.
Eighty percent of murder victims, with no "Violence Against Men Act" to
protect them.
Sixty percent of violent crime victims.
Five times more likely to commit suicide.
Sole initiators of 27% of domestic violence.
Perpetrators of 46% of "severe" domestic violence.
One fourth as likely to file for divorce.
Custodial parents of less than 4% of children of divorce.
One eighth as likely to kill their children.
One eighth as likely to abuse their children.
Holders of less than 35% of the nation's wealth (Fortune Magazine).
Systemically discriminated against by law through affirmative action.
Forty seven percent of the nation's voters.
Ninety seven percent of "Noted American Cartoonists".
Ninety seven percent of "Noted Business Leaders, Industrialists, &
Philanthropists".
Seventy eight percent of "Noted Personalities".
Eighty six percent of winners of "The Springdarn Medal" by the NAACP.
Ninety nine percent of "National Inventors' Hall of Fame".
Eighty five percent of Computer Science Doctorates.
Ninety nine point nine percent of America's 524,732 battle deaths.
One hundred percent of "National Aviation Hall of Fame".
One hundred percent of "National Baseball Hall of Fame".
One hundred percent of "College Football Hall of Fame".
One hundred percent of "Pro Football Hall of Fame".
One hundred percent of "National Basketball Association Champions".
One hundred percent of "National Hockey League Yearly Trophy Winners".
One hundred percent of "American Bowling Congress Champions".
One hundred percent of "World Boxing Title Holders".
One hundred percent of "World Wrestling Championships".
One hundred percent of "Kentucky Derby Winners".
One hundred percent of "Tour de France Winners".
One hundred percent of "Harness Racing Records".
One hundred percent of "Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association Winners".
One hundred percent of "US Open Championships" in golf.
One hundred percent of "Indianapolis 500" auto racing winners.
One hundred percent of "World Gran Prix Driver Champions".
One hundred percent of "America's Cup Record" in yachting.
One hundred percent of "World Champions in Chess".
One hundred percent of "US Champions in Chess".
One hundred percent of Fortune 500 Corporations' CEOs.
One hundred percent of US presidents.
One hundred percent of the authors of constitutions.
One hundred percent of the original disciples of world religions.
One hundred percent of "Poets Laureate of England".
One hundred percent of "Enrico Fermi Award Winners".
One hundred percent of "Templeton Foundation Prize for Progress in
Religion".
Ninety percent of "Bollingen Prize in Poetry Winners".
Ninety nine point seven percent of "Nobel Prize in Physics" winners.
Ninety nine percent of "Nobel Prize in Chemistry" winners.
Ninety six percent of "Nobel Prize for Medicine" winners*.
One hundred percent of "Nobel Prize for Economic Science" winners.
Ninety eight (oops, ninety three, oops ninety) percent of "Nobel Prize in
Literature" winners.
Ninety five percent of "Nobel Peace Prize" winners.
One hundred percent of "Pulitzer Prize for News Photography" winners.
Ninety six percent of "Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting" winnners.
One hundred percent of Navy SEALS.
John Knight
news:tEIX8.742$WF6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> better in mathematics, which means that males have a higher level
> performance. Anything else is an arbitrary assessment, just as it would
be
> to say that males perform better because their brains are different.
> Completely arbitrary.
>
>
Really? "Completely arbitrary"?
What about the following:
Bob LeChevalier
>"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>news:agn34f$hla$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
>> In article <SZCX8.47920$P%6.33...@news2.west.cox.net>
>> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> writes:
>> What Johnny isn't telling you is that he "just" dug these up years ago,
>> and has been drawing erroneous conclusions ever since. For example
>> he also is not telling you that:
>> <
>> <Zero percent of American 12th grade girls correctly solved TIMSS math
>> <problems.
>>
>>
>> Google has it.
>Let's use a simple example of how wrong you are, cary.
>
>Question K09 on the 12th Grade TIMSS Math test given to 12th graders around
>the world in 1995 reveals an astounding difference in math skills between
>the sexes in all the countries who participated. The average difference in
>all countries was 10.5%, with 47.3% of boys and 36.8% of girls answering
>correctly, but the difference in the US was 22.1% (28.6% of girls and 50.7%
>of boys). In countries like Cyprus where 60.1% of the boys answered
>correctly, guesses on the test would not have influenced the scores by that
>much, but where only 28.6% of American girls answered correctly, guesses
>must be taken into account.
But did you not say just above that "Zero percent of American 12th grade
girls correctly solved TIMSS math problems." Now you are admitting that
28.6% solved question K09, thereby admitting your falsehood.
>Since this was a multiple choice question with four possible choices, the
>probability of getting the correct answer just by guessing is 25%. In other
>words, for every four students who guessed, one of them would have gotten
>the correct answer by chance. The maximum score would have been achieved
>had all the students who didn't understand the problem guessed at the
>answer, so where 28.6% of American girls answered the problem correctly,
>23.8% of them got the correct answer by guessing, and 4.8% indicated that
>they understood the problem [x = total guesses, 0.25x = correct guesses,
>0.75x = incorrect guesses = 71.4%, x = 95.2%, 0.25x = 23.8%, 28.6% got the
>correct answer - 23.8% guessed the correct answer = 4.8% understood the
>problem]. However, with an estimated error of plus or minus 3%, only 1.8%
>are known with certainty to have understood the problem.
Lots of handwaving that makes unsupportable assumptions, but with the net
result that you still have a positive percentage that correctly solved the
questions. (Of course even those who guessed correctly solved the questions
if they got the right answer, so your handwaving is irrelevant).
>Is this adequate proof that our attempt to establish "gender equality" is a
>failure? Yes.
No. It is proof that you know how to handwave numbers and come up with
irrelevant conclusions.
lojbab
John Knight
"Hope Munro Smith" <hop...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:hopems-1207...@cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com...
The link on that page might be hard to find, so you can go directly to it at
http://christianparty.net/timssk09.htm
> >
>
> This is because parents assume a larger portion of the
> cost of education than they do in the United States.
> In most other countries, parents have to buy
> all their children's school books, supplies, uniforms,
> plus pay for transportation to and from school. No school
> buses subsidized by the community or free lunch
> programs. There goes part of your theory. Anyone else
> want to trash the rest of it?
Do you REALLY think this would double the cost of "education"?
John Knight
Parse Tree
> "Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tEIX8.742$WF6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > better in mathematics, which means that males have a higher level
> > performance. Anything else is an arbitrary assessment, just as it would
> be
> > to say that males perform better because their brains are different.
> > Completely arbitrary.
> >
> >
>
> Really? "Completely arbitrary"?
>
> What about the following:
>
> John Knight
You can't score anything other than logic and reasoning intelligently, since
other subjects are subjective, rather than objective.
> Seven percent taller.
> Twice as strong.
> Fifty percent heavier.
> Endowed with 3 1/2 billion more brain cells (22.8 billion vs. 19.3
billion).
> Forty seven points (18.5%) higher scoring in SAT Math Exams.
> Seven percent higher scoring in SAT Verbal Exams.
The SAT Verbal exam is not impartial.
> One hundred points (42%) higher scoring in Graduate Record Exams.
> Twenty two points higher scoring in Numbers & Equations. Exams.
That's math.
> Forty two points higher scoring in Calculus Exams.
That's math.
> Thirty one points higher scoring in Geometry Exams.
That's math.
> Thirty four points higher scoring in Physics Exams.
That's math. Some of that's memorization, and picking a certain view of
reality. You are aware that they completely throw away different paradigms,
right?
> Fifty three points higher scoring in Mechanics Exams.
Some more math, with some memorization as above.
> Twenty one points higher scoring in Electricity & Magnetism Exams.
Same as other physics exams.
> Six points higher scoring in Heat Exams.
Same as above.
> Eighteen points higher scoring Wave Phenomena Exams.
See above.
> Twenty points higher scoring in Modern Physics Exams.
See above.
> Thirty one points higher scoring in Advanced Math Exams.
That's math.
> Twenty three points higher scoring in General Science Exams.
Arbitrary. Memorization is not a question of intelligence.
> Eleven points higher scoring in General Math Exams.
Math again.
> More emotionally stable.
This one is completely arbitrary.
> Forty two precent greater income earners overall.
That is not indicative of intelligence.
> Sixty seven percent greater income earners in sales positions.
Also not indicative.
None of these are indicative of intelligence at all.
Mark D. Morin
What test? It wasn't constructed yet.
then proclaim "the sexes are equal".
>
> But GRE enables us to put those questions BACK on the table,
strange, none of the published research, available at
http://www.gre.org/respredict.html support that hypothesis.
> and expose
> Wechlser's LIE:
> http://christianparty.net/gregeometry.htm
>
> http://christianparty.net/gre.htm
>
> John Knight
--
====================================================
I've read that I flew up the hills and mountains of
France. But you don't fly up a hill. You struggle
slowly and painfully up a hill, and maybe, if you work
very hard, you get to the top ahead of everybody else.
Lance Armstrong
Cyclist and cancer survivor
http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
remove peterhood69 for mail
Shadow Dancer
I'm female, and I was a numerical mathematics major in college.
My IQ tested off the scale.
So much for your theories.
Shadow Dancer
It is altogether too obvious that you will forward your msogynistic attitude
no matter what.
It would hardly matter if I dug up statistics proving what women were good
at rather than men (for one thing, in nearly every lab experiment where
there were tasks involving heavy objects, men used brute force, while women
reasoned and *always* came up with an easier way to take care of it. That
is but one example). Having more brain cells, as the studies *I* quoted all
agreed, are present in men, just because they are, on the average, larger
than women. More muscle mass, more need for neurons to control them.
It doesn't make them smarter and their corpus collosums are still screwed
up.
I guess you missed the statistics that:
(1) A woman's pain threshhold is far higher, due to the ability to bear
children; roughly 5 minutes of labor pain would literally kill a man.
(2) A woman's organs are larger, because they bear children.
(3) A woman's endurance is greater because she is the child-bearer.
You can begin by tossing out ALL those sports statistics above. The reason
women are not in those stats is because *they are in stats for WOMEN'S
SPORTS*. Misogynists like you shut them out of the male-dominated sports.
I guess you forgot that people like Marie Curie are solely responsible for
the use of X-rays and similar systems. I guess you did a good job of
ignoring all the women who likewise contributed significantly to health, and
society in general. But then again, they'd skew your male-favoring
statistics, wouldn't they?
Politics and a generally paternal-oriented society are two major factors in
why women do not show up much in your other statistics. It is by chance
that the statistics "appear" to support your claims.
Does your IQ score off the record using the newest test? Mine does. I'm
female. I could continue arguing with you all night but I am intelligent
enough to recognize a narrow-minded, woman-hating individual when I see one.
I won't waste anymore time on your petty concerns. Live in your little
world where you think men are more important; it'll get really small when
there aren't any children born and raised.
--
The Shadow Dancer
Peacefulhaven Networks
http://www.peacefulhaven.net
irc.peacefulhaven.net
nick: Insomniac
channel: #Chateau_Des_Pagan
~Trifle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you art crispy, and tasty,
With catsup~
Parse Tree
> "Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tEIX8.742$WF6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > "Shadow Dancer" <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote in message
> > news:agndj7$mv8r4$1...@ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > better in mathematics, which means that males have a higher level
> > performance. Anything else is an arbitrary assessment, just as it would
> be
> > to say that males perform better because their brains are different.
> > Completely arbitrary.
>
> I'm female, and I was a numerical mathematics major in college.
>
> My IQ tested off the scale.
>
> So much for your theories.
We're talking about the average. And the fact that you think a single
anecdote refutes this, doesn't speak well for your reasoning.
John Knight
> the use of X-rays and similar systems. I guess you did a good job of
> ignoring all the women who likewise contributed significantly to health,
and
> society in general. But then again, they'd skew your male-favoring
> statistics, wouldn't they?
>
Really? Why did Pierre write the following about the HALF of a Nobel Prize
he got (a CENTURY ago), a quarter of which was "awarded" to Marie, but ONLY
after he complained to the committee that:
A joint award is "more satisfying from the artistic point of view".
http://christianparty.net/curie.htm
Does this *really*sound to you that Marie was "solely responsible for the
use of X-rays"?
"members of the l'Académie des Sciences, including Henri Poincaré and Gaston
Darboux, had nominated Becquerel and Pierre Curie for the Prize in Physics.
Marie's name was not mentioned."
Well, maybe not after all.
Do you have any female accomplishments more recent than a century ago?
No?
Didn't think so.
All we've come up with is Hanoi Jane Fonda? Are you fond'a Fonda?
John Knight
For almost a century, feminists have held up Madame Curie as such a paragon
of feminine accomplishments that who Pierre Curie is, that he hired her as a
laboratory assistant, that Professor Henri Becquerel received half the Nobel
Prize, that Madame Curie received only a quarter of the Nobel Prize, that
Pierre was so sick from his experiments with radiation that he couldn't
stand long enough to accept the prize, are all studiously ignored.
If this was such a breakthrough for women, where was the followup?
American textbooks proclaim that Marie Curie discovered radium. But these
textbooks fail to note that radium was discovered in 1898 by Pierre Curie
and G. Bemont, five years before the Nobel Prize was awarded to Pierre Curie
and Henri Becquerrel. It was AFTER this prize was rewarded in 1903 that
Pierre requested that Marie be added to his half of the prize because a
joint award would be "more satisfying from the artistic point of view".
That was not science--that was art.
The central fault of feminism is its rigorous dedication to half-truths
(or quarter-truths in Marie's case)
"In 1903 Marie and Pierre Curie were awarded half the Nobel Prize in
Physics. The citation was, 'in recognition of the extraordinary services
they have rendered by their joint researches on the radiation phenomena
discovered by Professor Henri Becquerel'. Henri Becquerel was awarded the
other half for his discovery of spontaneous radioactivity. In a letter to
the Swedish Academy of Sciences, Pierre explains that neither of them is
able to come to Stockholm to receive the prize. They could not get away
because of their teaching obligations. He adds, 'Mme Curie has been ill this
summer and is not yet completely recovered'. That was certaintly true but
his own health was no better. Not until June 1905 did they go to Stockholm
where Pierre gave a Nobel lecture."
"Now that the archives have been made available to the public, it is
possible to study in detail the events surrounding the awarding of the two
Prizes, in 1903 and 1911. In a letter in 1903, several members of the
l'Académie des Sciences, including Henri Poincaré and Gaston Darboux, had
nominated Becquerel and Pierre Curie for the Prize in Physics. Marie's name
was not mentioned. This caused Gösta Mittag-Leffler, a professor of
mathematics at Stockholm University College, to write to Pierre Curie. That
letter has never survived but Pierre Curie's answer, dated 6 August 1903,
has been preserved. He
wrote, 'If it is true that one is seriously thinking about me (for the
Prize), I very much wish to be considered together with Madame Curie with
respect to our research on radioactive bodies'. Drawing attention to the
role she played in the discovery of radium and polonium, he added, 'Do you
not think that it would be more satisfying from the artistic point of view,
if we were to be associated in this manner?' (plus joli d'un point de vue
artistique)."
"My mother was 37 years old when I was
born. When I was big enough to know
her, she was already an aging woman
who had reached the summit of renown.
And yet it is the 'celebrated scientist'
who is strangest to me - probably
because the idea that she was a
'celebrated scientist' did not occupy the
mind of Marie Curie. It seems to me
rather, that I have always lived near the
poor student, haunted by dreams, who
was Marie Sklodowska long before I
came into the world."
Eve Curie, biographer of her mother
"Pierre Curie, b. May 15, 1859, d. Apr. 19, 1906, obtained his doctorate in
the year of his marriage, but he had already distinguished himself (along
with his brother Jacques) in the study of the properties of crystals. He
discovered the phenomenon of piezoelectricity, whereby changes in the volume
of certain crystals excite small electric potentials. Along with work on
crystal symmetry, Pierre Curie studied the magnetic properties of materials
and constructed a torsion balance with a tolerance of 0.01 mg. He discovered
that the magnetic susceptibility of paramagnetic materials is inversely
proportional to the absolute temperature (Weiss-Curie's law) and that there
exists a critical temperature above which the magnetic properties disappear
(curie temperature)."
"In 1903 Pierre Curie was also awarded the Davy Medal of the Royal Society
of London and appointed professor of physics at the University of Parisin
1904, and in 1905 he was elected to the French Academy of Sciences. Such
positions were not then commonly held by women, and Marie was not similarly
recognized. Pierre's life ended on April 19, 1906, when he was run over by a
horse-drawn cart. His wife took over his classes and continued her own
research."
All of the key research was completed by Henri Becquerel, Pierre Curie,
Wilhelm C. Röntgen in 1895, Henri Poincaré, Edmond Becquerel, G. Schmidt,
Jacques Curie, Ernest Rutherford in January 1899, P. Villard in 1900, André
Debierne in 1899, and William Crookes in 1900.
Questions:
What did Marie do to deserve an award?
Why did the Nobel committee allow a Nobel prize winner to add his wife to
the prize?
If a century-ago award was such a breakthrough for feminist intellectuals,
where are the modern day "Madame Curie"s?
Why do feminists focus so much attention on a woman who received a quarter
of a Nobel Prize?
Why is nothing known about Prof. Becquerel who received half the prize?
Why do feminists promote so many half-truths?
What can be gained by basing an entire ideology on lies and half-truths?
Do women understand physics?
Answers:
Almost a full century after Marie Curie made history, the TIMSS study
demonstrated that a statistical zero percent of American 12th grade girls
were able to correctly answer 30 physics questions which a third of the 12th
grade boys participating from 18 countries around the world answered
correctly:
Only 25% of girls correctly answered Item G01 PATH OF ELECTRONS TRAVELING
THROUGH A MAGNETIC FIELD, which is exactly the percentage who would have
answered correctly if they had just guessed at this 4 part multiple choice
question. Only 22% answered Item G04 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDUCED CURRENT
AND VARYING MAGNETIC FIELD, which is 3% fewer than would have answered
correctly if they had just guessed at this 4 part question. Only 20%
correctly answered Item G05 DIRECTION REFRACTED RAY OF LIGHT, which is
exactly the percent who would have answered it correctly if they had just
guessed at this 5 part question. Only 18% got Item G07 ENERGY
TRANSFORMATION AND COLLISION OF CARS correct, 2% fewer than if they had just
guessed. 11% got Item G08 MECHANICAL ENERGY OF BLOCK AND SPRING SYSTEM
correct, 9% fewer than if they guessed. 17% got Item G09 DIRECTION OF
FORCES IN AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE correct, 8% fewer than if they guessed.20% got
Item G10 MINIMUM VOLTAGE NEEDED TO PRODUCE X- RAYS correct, exactly what
they would have gotten by sheer guesswork. Only 4% correctly answered Item
G11 EFFECT OF ICE MELTING ON WATER LEVEL IN AQUARIUM, only 1% higher than
the standard error of 3%. Only 1.4% (less than the standard error) got G12
CALCULATION OF MASS USING CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM correct. 7% got Item G13
DOPPLER EFFECT AND MOVING CAR correct, but this is barely a physics question
to anyone who has seen an American highway. 2% (less than the standard
error of 3%) got Item G14 PATHS OF ALPHA, BETA, AND GAMMA RAYS THROUGH AN
ELECTRIC FIELD correct. 2% (less than the standard error) got G15 DIRECTION
OF ACCELERATION OF A BOUNCING BALL correct. 3% (about the standard error)
got G16 EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON WATER LEAKING FROM A BOTTLE correct. 1% (less
than the 3% standard error) got G18 ALPHA PARTICLES PASSING THROUGH GOLD
correct. 0% got non-multiple choice Items G19 LENZ'S LAW AND FALLING
ALUMINUM RING, and H18 TELEVISION AS PARTICLE ACCELERATOR correct. 23% got
H03 PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT AND KINETIC ENERGY OF EMITTED ELECTRONS correct, 3%
more than just guessing. 1% got Item H04 TENSION OF STRING BETWEEN TWO
FALLING OBJECTS correct, 19% less than if they had merely guessed. 29% got
Item H06 INDUCED emf IN ROTATING COIL correct, 4% more than would have
correctly answered this 4 part question had they just guessed at it. Only
9% correctly answered Item H07 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE
WITH CONSTANT VOLUME which is 16% fewer than if they had guessed. Only 10%
got Item H08 PATH OF ELECTRONS IN ELECTRIC FIELD correct, 10% less than if
they just guessed. Only 15% got Item H09 REFRACTION AND VELOCITY OF BLUE
LIGHT correct, 5% fewer than just guessing.Only 11% correctly answered Item
H10 VECTOR SUM OF ELECTRIC FORCES, 9% fewer than if they just guessed. 3%
(the standard error) correctly answered H13 INTERPRETATION OF A FORCE VERSUS
DISTANCE GRAPH, a non-multiple choice question. Only 1% correctly answered
H14 EFFECT OF DENSITY ON THE FREEZING OF WATER, which is 24% lower than if
they just guessed. 1% (less than the 3% standard error) correctly answered
the non-multiple choice question Item H17 RESISTANCE OF A SERIES CIRCUIT
COMPONENT.
6% correctly answered Items H12 PARTICLE MOVEMENT IN A TRANSVERSE WAVE, and
H15 DE BROGLIE WAVELGTH OF A MOBILE ELECTRON which are non-multiple choice
questions which suggest that the level of understanding was just slightly
higher than the standard error s12alm95.pdf
John Knight
"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote in message
> > "When Wechsler was developing his IQ test, he found that out of 105
tests
> > assessing skills in solving maze-puzzles, involving the most
heterogeneous
> > populations throughout the world, 99 showed an incontrovertible male
> > superiority. (Wechsler resolved this type of problem by eliminating all
> > those tests that resulted in findings of significant sex differences.)"
> > Leonard...@newsguy.com in 9mift...@drn.newsguy.com
> >
> > They throw out 94% of the test,
>
> What test? It wasn't constructed yet.
>
> then proclaim "the sexes are equal".
> >
> > But GRE enables us to put those questions BACK on the table,
>
> strange, none of the published research, available at
> http://www.gre.org/respredict.html support that hypothesis.
>
Let's face the facts: "education" in this country is not the honorable
profession it is in many other countries. For one thing, our "teachers" are
the lowest scoring students in the crop. Education majors score 88 points
lower than Social Science Majors on SAT Verbal and 161 points lower than
Physical Science majors in SAT Math. Conversely, Japanese teachers come
from the other end of the scale http://christianparty.net/teachers.htm
How can our teachers possibly be expected to teach so many students who
comprehend the material far better than they do? Japanese teachers don't
have that problem.
Our teachers are also not the moral examples they were a century ago. They
willingly pass on the Wechsler LIE about boys' and girls' "IQ scores" being
"equal", so we can't give them any credit for being moral examples for our
children.
What should we expect from such a motley crowd when they read the
nonsensical disclaimer that GRE tests don't measure "intelligence"? An
honest assessment? Absolutely not. An astute analysis? Even less likely.
This disclaimer is a LIE. It measures precisely what it claims that it
doesn't measure. The quantitative portion of the test is what the "IQ test"
SHOULD be, but to prevent mind numbed teachers from understanding that, they
put this phony disclaimer on the test.
John Knight
John Knight
You have to realize that feminazis really don't understand the concept of
"average", so they don't even know how they're exposing their own LIE when
they make such a silly statement.
It might seem like a straightforward concept to most people, but you'll
never, ever be able to explain it to a feminazi. It's one of the most
complex cases of abstract logic they ever run into.
There's no other explanation for why they always make this nonsensical
statement, as they always do.
Why? The most objective measurement of their inability to grasp concepts
like this which the majority of students in many other countries ARE able to
grasp, was TIMSS, with the quesion on the following page being
representative of the problem http://christianparty.net/timssk09.htm
John Knight
Parse Tree
>
> Almost a full century after Marie Curie made history, the TIMSS study
> demonstrated that a statistical zero percent of American 12th grade girls
> were able to correctly answer 30 physics questions which a third of the
12th
> grade boys participating from 18 countries around the world answered
> correctly:
You are aware that a statistical 0 percent is equal to not a single female
answerig them correctly, right?
OhSojourner
> "Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wsOX8.4851$9U1.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > "Shadow Dancer" <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote in message
> > news:ago81k$mgpet$1...@ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "Parse Tree" <pars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:tEIX8.742$WF6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > > "Shadow Dancer" <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:agndj7$mv8r4$1...@ID-150265.news.dfncis.de...
> > > >
> > > > These studies are all quite meaningless. It is a fact that men
> perform
> > > > better in mathematics, which means that males have a higher level
> > > > performance. Anything else is an arbitrary assessment, just as it
> would
> be
> > > > to say that males perform better because their brains are different.
> > > > Completely arbitrary.
> > >
> > > I'm female, and I was a numerical mathematics major in college.
> > >
> > > My IQ tested off the scale.
> > >
> > > So much for your theories.
> >
> > We're talking about the average. And the fact that you think a single
> > anecdote refutes this, doesn't speak well for your reasoning.
True, anecdotes don't make for a sound logical argument, but beyond
that, what's you're point? What's your underlying motivation behind
this thread?
I'll concede that the sexes are not equal. ...But then again, we
don't find "equality" AMONG the sexes either.
For example, you speak of mathematical achievers as being
overwhelmingly male... but that doesn't mean that ALL men are
mathematically gifted. It only means that mathematical achievers are
more likely to be male. And, they may only comprise a tiny fraction
of the entire male population, in which case we cannot make the
assumption that they are even *representative* of the entire male
population.
I'd let the issue drop at that, except I remember that you're that guy
who believes that the Nineteenth Amendment ought to be repealed, women
ought not to have driving privileges nor even be allowed to attend
college.
Question: Which group represents the highest ten percent of IQ
scores?
Is it men?
Is it white people?
No. It's "the individuals who make up that highest ten percent."
This is the most precise answer and eliminates all allowance for
error.
FWIW, if women were not even allowed to attend college, then we would
not have had the contributions of those individuals who have indeed
contributed to society, Nobel Prize or not. Here's an example for
you:
http://www.drredwood.com/interviews/pert.html
Candace Pert, Phd, was a grad student when she discovered the opiate
receptor, the cellular bonding site for endorphins. This discovery
was a breakthrough in the way we understand the workings of the human
mind and behavior. In fact, although it was she who made this
discovery, it was her male superior who took the credit (and the Nobel
Prize). This is because scientific research work is often done in
teams, with the head of the team representing the whole, as well as
internal politics and so forth that affect the decision-making process
of who will be the recipient of the award.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark D. Morin
>
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote in message
> > > "When Wechsler was developing his IQ test, he found that out of 105
> tests
> > > assessing skills in solving maze-puzzles, involving the most
> heterogeneous
> > > populations throughout the world, 99 showed an incontrovertible male
> > > superiority. (Wechsler resolved this type of problem by eliminating all
> > > those tests that resulted in findings of significant sex differences.)"
> > > Leonard...@newsguy.com in 9mift...@drn.newsguy.com
> > >
> > > They throw out 94% of the test,
> >
> > What test? It wasn't constructed yet.
> >
> > then proclaim "the sexes are equal".
> > >
> > > But GRE enables us to put those questions BACK on the table,
> >
> > strange, none of the published research, available at
> > http://www.gre.org/respredict.html support that hypothesis.
> >
>
> Let's face the facts:
please cite some research that substantiate your claims and explain why
published research shows no sex difference.
Parse Tree
news:ce660175.02071...@posting.google.com...
Just clearing some issues about correlations. All we know is that men
perform better on math tests. Which doesn't mean anything at all, because
it is imposible to take upbringing into account.
> I'll concede that the sexes are not equal. ...But then again, we
> don't find "equality" AMONG the sexes either.
No, we don't.
> For example, you speak of mathematical achievers as being
> overwhelmingly male... but that doesn't mean that ALL men are
> mathematically gifted. It only means that mathematical achievers are
> more likely to be male. And, they may only comprise a tiny fraction
> of the entire male population, in which case we cannot make the
> assumption that they are even *representative* of the entire male
> population.
No, I speak of the average make as being a better performer in math than the
average female. This is likely more of a call for feminism, because it
shows the incredible bias in raising a female as opposed to a male.
> I'd let the issue drop at that, except I remember that you're that guy
> who believes that the Nineteenth Amendment ought to be repealed, women
> ought not to have driving privileges nor even be allowed to attend
> college.
I'll assume you're not actually talking about me, because I have said none
of the sort.
Hope Munro Smith
<pars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
She's referring to John Knight.
Hope Munro Smith
<mdm...@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote:
This very page says that "It is a very select group of Americans, less
than 0.1% of the US population, which takes the Graduate Record Exam each
year."
Thus we can conclude absolutely nothing from the data as it is not
representative of the US population, only 0.1% of it.
Shadow Dancer
Thank you, very much. :)
Chronos
> It is now a generally accepted belief that the smaller gross weight of the
> female brain has no significance other than that of the smaller average size
> of the female.
Does this mean the fatter a chick gets, the dumber she gets?
OhSojourner
>Shadow Dancer wrote:
I think what they're trying to say here is that women have a skeletal
structure that is generally smaller in proportion to a man's. A
smaller skull would obviously have to contain a smaller brain,
although the structures may also be proportionately smaller.
However, there are more factors to consider than brain weight itself:
brain folding and convolutions; neural complexity; neural connections;
types of brain cells; size and complexity of the different brain
structures governing behavior; etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard C. August
Mere books and uniforms do not account for the cost of SHEER STUPIDITY in
the American Educational Systems.
My mother related this story to me last night. A gentleman she knows
inquired of three teenage children on the streets of my hometown concerning
who bombed Pearl Harbor at the beginning of US involvement in World War 2.
One teen answered that US Forces bombed our own base under friendly fire.
Another answered that Usama bin Laden bombed Pearl Harbor, when he wasn't
born until c. 1959, since he was 12 in a photo featuring his family in
Sweden in 1971. Yet another answered most intelligently, that he didn't
know.
A former PA state Gubernatorial candidate, Peg Luksik, remarked in a
campaign speech made to senior citizens in a senior center, that a girl who
learned phonetic spelling could never figure out that "apple" was spelled
a-p-p-l-e when she was told that phonetically, she could spell it any way
she pleased, so she chose a-p-l.
Never mind that our kids never learn real American History or Spelling, or
that they learn revisionist standards from highly paid but untrained
professors who earned their degrees from diploma mills and were promoted by
the Peter Principle. Our kids are rapidly becoming even more INCOMPETENT
than are these professors, to the point that they can't even figure out the
numbers on a calculator, much less work a slide rule.
Lastly, I was taking an evening walk last night, when I observed several
teen girls rather provocatively dressed. Granted, it is summertime and they
need to dress to be cool. But to wear clothes only a prostitute would wear
would make one wonder where their brains really are. Can they read clothing
labels, or bottles of hair colourant? Is it any wonder our American Schools
are now wasting more money and talent with day care centers in our high
schools whilst pregnant teenagers usurp our tax dollars ostensibly obtaining
an education when they've been told flat out they can earn more money on
their backs than they can on their feet?
Face it, Mrs. Smith, American Schools are a dungheap, and American Children
are its fodder. Billions of American dollars are wasted educating the
uneducable MTV generation, who care nothing about the real world other than
watching "The Real World" on MTV. Talk to these kids, and find out how
dumb, or how smart, they really are. "Beavis and Butthead" have met their
progeny here.
Sincerely,
Richard C. August
"John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:qaMX8.49430$P%6.34...@news2.west.cox.net...
Parse Tree
news:rK3Y8.33351$Q43.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
> Dear Hope Munro Smith,
>
> Mere books and uniforms do not account for the cost of SHEER STUPIDITY in
> the American Educational Systems.
>
> My mother related this story to me last night. A gentleman she knows
> inquired of three teenage children on the streets of my hometown
concerning
> who bombed Pearl Harbor at the beginning of US involvement in World War 2.
> One teen answered that US Forces bombed our own base under friendly fire.
> Another answered that Usama bin Laden bombed Pearl Harbor, when he wasn't
> born until c. 1959, since he was 12 in a photo featuring his family in
> Sweden in 1971. Yet another answered most intelligently, that he didn't
> know.
And you're suggesting that adults do much better? This ignorance is
characteristic of most Americans, young and old. Other countries are pretty
bad too, but the topic is the US (so I'll ignore them).
> Never mind that our kids never learn real American History or Spelling, or
> that they learn revisionist standards from highly paid but untrained
> professors who earned their degrees from diploma mills and were promoted
by
> the Peter Principle. Our kids are rapidly becoming even more INCOMPETENT
> than are these professors, to the point that they can't even figure out
the
> numbers on a calculator, much less work a slide rule.
I find it amusing that in the US such a high value is placed on American
History. In fact, you apparently place it on the same level of importance
as Spelling.
A slide rule is archaic and useless. We don't teach children how to operate
a spinning wheel, either.
> Lastly, I was taking an evening walk last night, when I observed several
> teen girls rather provocatively dressed. Granted, it is summertime and
they
> need to dress to be cool. But to wear clothes only a prostitute would
wear
> would make one wonder where their brains really are. Can they read
clothing
> labels, or bottles of hair colourant? Is it any wonder our American
Schools
> are now wasting more money and talent with day care centers in our high
> schools whilst pregnant teenagers usurp our tax dollars ostensibly
obtaining
> an education when they've been told flat out they can earn more money on
> their backs than they can on their feet?
Yes, because exhibitionism is equivalent to a vacuous mind. Slutty outfit
does not equal slutty person. It's just that society is moving towards a
state of less clothing since most of the time clothing serves no purpose.
> Face it, Mrs. Smith, American Schools are a dungheap, and American
Children
> are its fodder. Billions of American dollars are wasted educating the
> uneducable MTV generation, who care nothing about the real world other
than
> watching "The Real World" on MTV. Talk to these kids, and find out how
> dumb, or how smart, they really are. "Beavis and Butthead" have met their
> progeny here.
The children are no stupider than the parents...
Bob LeChevalier
>My mother related this story to me last night. A gentleman she knows
>inquired of three teenage children on the streets of my hometown concerning
>who bombed Pearl Harbor at the beginning of US involvement in World War 2.
>One teen answered that US Forces bombed our own base under friendly fire.
Everyone has certain facts that they forget because they aren't particularly
useful. Other than as a cultural reference, to a teen of today Pearl Harbor
is no more important than Lexington, Sumter, the Maine, or the Zimmermann
letter, and perhaps less important to world history than the Rubicon, the
Silk Road, the Visigoths, the Tatars, the Black Death, and the French
Revolution. It is just another name and date among so many others, and they
get them confused.
>Another answered that Usama bin Laden bombed Pearl Harbor,
At least they knew who bin Ladin was
>Yet another answered most intelligently, that he didn't know.
Always an intelligent answer.
>A former PA state Gubernatorial candidate, Peg Luksik, remarked in a
>campaign speech made to senior citizens in a senior center, that a girl who
>learned phonetic spelling could never figure out that "apple" was spelled
>a-p-p-l-e when she was told that phonetically, she could spell it any way
>she pleased, so she chose a-p-l.
I'm sure that a few kids will come to think this no matter how they are
educated. And a few others won't care. I know of people who INTENTIONALLY
spell certain words phonetically because they want to subtly move towards
language reform.
Meanwhile, I just ran across a Civil War diary excerpt that was published
unedited. An Illinois preacher (presumably educated at a seminary), serving
in the war, whose spelling and grammar were every bit as bad as that girl who
chose a-p-l. Indeed for a couple of words, he spelled them multiple ways in
the same excerpt.
>Never mind that our kids never learn real American History or Spelling, or
>that they learn revisionist standards
You mean they learned new "truths" that have replaced the old "truths",
because knowledge advances constantly?
>from highly paid but untrained professors who earned their degrees from diploma mills
Relatively few professors got degrees from diploma mills.
>and were promoted by
>the Peter Principle. Our kids are rapidly becoming even more INCOMPETENT
>than are these professors, to the point that they can't even figure out the
>numbers on a calculator, much less work a slide rule.
Why would anyone need to work a slide rule today?
>Lastly, I was taking an evening walk last night, when I observed several
>teen girls rather provocatively dressed. Granted, it is summertime and they
>need to dress to be cool. But to wear clothes only a prostitute would wear
>would make one wonder where their brains really are.
Assuming that they were not prostitutes, then it clearly is a false statement
that only a prostitute would wear them. At which point the question becomes
why women's standards of dress should be determined by men's perverted
thinking that associates recreational dress with occupation.
Do you still walk the streets in top hat and wearing a vestcoat and cravat?
Should people judge you a slob because you do not dress and act like a
gentleman?
>Can they read clothing labels, or bottles of hair colourant?
Probably better than you do. But they probably don't read the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
>Is it any wonder our American Schools
>are now wasting more money and talent with day care centers in our high
>schools whilst pregnant teenagers usurp our tax dollars ostensibly obtaining
>an education when they've been told flat out they can earn more money on
>their backs than they can on their feet?
Have they been told this? By who? And who is paying them - gentlemen like
you?
>Face it, Mrs. Smith, American Schools are a dungheap, and American Children
>are its fodder. Billions of American dollars are wasted educating the
>uneducable MTV generation, who care nothing about the real world other than
>watching "The Real World" on MTV. Talk to these kids, and find out how
>dumb, or how smart, they really are. "Beavis and Butthead" have met their
>progeny here.
This from a guy who thinks that "John Knight" has anything to do with the
"real world". He makes Beavis and Butthead seem both intelligent and
well-connected with reality.
lojbab
Hope Munro Smith
<rau...@ptd.net> wrote:
Dear Mr. August,
I was not taking about the quality of education, I was merely
making an observation about the source of funds. More money
comes out of public funds for education in North America,
whereas in other countries parents assume a larger share
of the cost. However, we also guarantee universal education,
whereas in many parts of the world only those who can afford
to send their kids to school do so.
OhSojourner
Addendum: here's an additional link of interest showing that brain
mass is not necessarily the ultimate indicator of intelligence:
http://members.tripod.com/Dolphinity/intelligencebrain.htm
The Dolphin Brain
Dolphins have very large and folded brains, which (besides the large
body mass) suggest exceptional intellectual capacity. According to
brain researcher Pilleri, it can be called into question whether or
not the brains of Homo Sapiens(human) are the highest in the rankings.
Dolphins are easily trained and they learn exceptionally fast.
However, recent research has shown that the amount of braincells found
in dolphins is comparatively small. Scientists are coming to the
conclusion that the dolphin is probably less intelligent than once
thought. Humans have many more braincells and can therefore learn and
think a lot quicker.
[...]
Some of the most extensive modern comparative studies have been made
by Jerison (e.g.1978), who has developed an index, the encephalization
quotient (EQ), to express the brain weight/body weight relationship.
His studies do show some cetaceans (e.g. toothed whales like the
killer whale and sperm whale) with an EQ similar to humans. However,
other studies conclude that relative brain size is not necessarily
related to "intelligence". Pilleri, Gihr and Kraus (1985) made an
exhaustive study of rodent brain size in relation to behavior and
concluded that "intelligence", whether human or animal, is not a
unified brain function, but one which is too complex to be
characterized with a single numerical index. They found that cerebral
quotients (various ways of expressing relative brain and body size)
are generally inconclusive as criteria for mammalian "intelligence".
[...]
John Knight
> John Knight wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D2EA20B...@NOSPAMgwi.net...
> >
> >>John Knight wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdm...@NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>The mere mention of the differences between the sexes, in your mind, is
> >>>>>"prejudice"!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Do we have that right?
> >>>>
> >>>>No.
> >>>>You are exercising circular reasoning.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Is this your final answer?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>John Knight
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>ps--and now that you've concluded that "prejudice" is involved,
> >>>>
> >>>>Prejudice has been involved for millenia. Prejudice exists despite
> >>>>evidence and prejudice is what blinds people to evidence. Prejudice
> >>>>evokes the circular reasoning that you have been so good at. Prejudice
> >>>>is independant of data--show me the data fool.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, it's pretty clear that you're just trolling now.
> >>>
> >>>You haven't got the slightest idea if anyone's "prejudiced" regarding
> >>
> > their
> >
> >>>opinion, whether it's their opinion of the data, or of the crooks who
> >>>manipulated it. You didn't level that charge because you wanted to
> >>
> > avoid or
> >
> >>>critique any possible prejudice. You levelled that charge only because
> >>
> > you
> >
> >>>(and I) know that it's impossible for you to defend your position.
> >>>
> >>>You keep repeating the mantra about "measurement errors" of one of the
> >>>simplest things in the world to measure,
> >>
> >>Who is trolling? What do you know about measuring brain volume or number
> >>of neurons in a brain? Both are exceptionally unreliable.
> >
> >
> > If it was this unreliable, then r-squared for brain size versus GRE scores
> > would be nowhere NEAR 0.8795. The ONLY thing that could be gained by even
> > more reliable measurements would be an increase in r-squared.
>
> you don't understand the concept of reliability. It is scientificly
> dishonest to take the measurement that yeilds the best correlation and
> then throw out the rest of the data--as your links suggest. Your 0.8795
> is a figment of your imagination.
>
Your argument is that there are measurement errors. But if that were
true, then correlation would be much lower than 0.8795. And even IF
there are measurement errors, they clearly aren't significant enough
to interfere with the correlation.
You can bet that Philippe Rushton didn't pick and choose the numbers
that fit the curve, because he attempted to correlate brain size to
"IQ scores" rather than to GRE scores. He was surprised at the low
r-squared he got from doing this. The error was that IQ scores were
intentionally manipulated when Wechsler et. al. threw out 94% of the
IQ problems which are EXACTLY the most important problems.
They weren't removed from the GRE, nor the TIMSS.
>
> >
> > Again, the only outlier is the Black man, and if he's removed from the
> > calculations, r-squared gets very close to 1.0. You *must* know that you
> > cannot get better correlation than that.
> >
> > Where are the measurement errors?
>
> brain measurements
>
>
> >
> >
> >>>without ever pointing out
> >>>specifically where you believe these measurement errors are. This was
> >>>simply an attempt to discredit what you know (or at least sense) to be a
> >>>FACT.
> >>>
> >>>You're willing to go to great lengths to attempt to refute the
> >>
> > correlation
> >
> >>>between brain size and GRE scores, no matter what the facts are.
> >>
> >>The fact is, there is a robust correlation between age and brain volume.
> >>If age is not controlled for, you can not say anything about between sex
> >>differences.
> >>
> >
> >
> > This is patently false, and since it's already been explained to you, it's
> > not clear if you're just trolling, or if you really don't understand how
> > inconsequential age and brain size are to the correlation we're discussing.
> >
> > Let's try this a different way. Even IF "there is a robust correlation
> > between age and brain volume", you cannot also ignore that there is also a
> > "robust" correlation between brain volume and GRE scores,
>
> a finding reported at a single site. not published, not reviewed, using
> data that were sorted through to find optimal numbers. Point to a
> published piece of literature, in a peer reviewed journal that supports
> the above assertion.
>
Guess what? I don't care WHAT's been published. Do you know why?
Because what I've read from the MORONS who now get PhDs doesn't
deserve a second of my time. It's precisely this "published research"
from affirmative action graduates with an amoral agenda which misled
educators and politicians (and the public) in the first place.
Publishing it would DISCREDIT it. The simple fact is that TIMSS
demonstrated that most men in this country ARE capable of sorting
through the feminazi bs without having to see it published, at the
same time that it demonstrated precisely why feminazis are not capable
of doing that http://christianparty.net/timssk09.htm
>
> which means that
> > as brain volume increases, so do GRE scores. Any adjustments for
> > measurement errors for increased brain volume would be cancelled out by the
> > increase in GRE scores, and you'd be back to r-squared = .8795
> >
> > But since you haven't even attempted to quantify this "robust correlation",
> > it should be pointed out that after the age of 20, average brain volume
> > remains virtually FIXED by race and sex.
>
> heh? you are disregarding the past twenty years of research? The rate
> of shrinkage by age is close to "fixed" but even then, there's a lot of
> variation. LOOK at an MRI of a 90 year old brain and compare it to that
> of a 20 year old. Even you should be able to see a difference.
>
The point you keep ignoring, probably because you don't understand the
futility of your argument, is that adjusting for any "shrinkage" in
brain size is NOT necessary in the first place, because correlation is
already remarkable. The other point is that adjusting for "shrinkage"
could not possibly reduce r-squared, because it's inevitible that if
brain size and GRE scores are correlated (which they obviously are),
and if there really is some significant "shrinkage" that needs to be
considered, that r-squared would *increase*.
You can deny, deny, deny all you want. Your argument gets weaker the
longer you fail to demonstrate how you think there are "measurement
errors" in the fact of an r-squared of almost 0.9.
John Knight
John Knight
Can you name any way in which women benefitted from any of this? Does
it compensate for the 50 fold increase in the divorce rate, or the 10
fold increase in the homicide rate, or the two thirds plunge in family
incomes in the last 4 decades?
I doubt it.
John Knight
John Knight
Can you name any way in which women benefitted from any of this? Does
John Knight
> "Richard C. August" <rau...@ptd.net> wrote in message
> news:rK3Y8.33351$Q43.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
> > Dear Hope Munro Smith,
> >
> > Mere books and uniforms do not account for the cost of SHEER STUPIDITY in
> > the American Educational Systems.
> >
> > My mother related this story to me last night. A gentleman she knows
> > inquired of three teenage children on the streets of my hometown
> concerning
> > who bombed Pearl Harbor at the beginning of US involvement in World War 2.
> > One teen answered that US Forces bombed our own base under friendly fire.
> > Another answered that Usama bin Laden bombed Pearl Harbor, when he wasn't
> > born until c. 1959, since he was 12 in a photo featuring his family in
> > Sweden in 1971. Yet another answered most intelligently, that he didn't
> > know.
>
> And you're suggesting that adults do much better? This ignorance is
> characteristic of most Americans, young and old. Other countries are pretty
> bad too, but the topic is the US (so I'll ignore them).
It's actually very nice to go to cities like Tokyo or Beijing or
Moscow or Stockholm and see normal people dressed in their non-slutty
national dress. What we call "fashion" most of the rest of the world
calls trash. It used to be the other way around--we were the leaders
in fashion. Now we're the leaders in trash and not parent anywhere
wants their children looking like "Americans" any more.
>
> > Never mind that our kids never learn real American History or Spelling, or
> > that they learn revisionist standards from highly paid but untrained
> > professors who earned their degrees from diploma mills and were promoted
> by
> > the Peter Principle. Our kids are rapidly becoming even more INCOMPETENT
> > than are these professors, to the point that they can't even figure out
> the
> > numbers on a calculator, much less work a slide rule.
>
> I find it amusing that in the US such a high value is placed on American
> History. In fact, you apparently place it on the same level of importance
> as Spelling.
>
> A slide rule is archaic and useless. We don't teach children how to operate
> a spinning wheel, either.
>
Yes, and that's why even American companies are moving their
manufacturing to every possible off-shore location--to get away from
morons who "think" that history, spelling, slide rules, and the trades
are "amusing".
The REST of the world disagrees with this "liberal" assessment, just
as Mr. August does.
> > Lastly, I was taking an evening walk last night, when I observed several
> > teen girls rather provocatively dressed. Granted, it is summertime and
> they
> > need to dress to be cool. But to wear clothes only a prostitute would
> wear
> > would make one wonder where their brains really are. Can they read
> clothing
> > labels, or bottles of hair colourant? Is it any wonder our American
> Schools
> > are now wasting more money and talent with day care centers in our high
> > schools whilst pregnant teenagers usurp our tax dollars ostensibly
> obtaining
> > an education when they've been told flat out they can earn more money on
> > their backs than they can on their feet?
>
> Yes, because exhibitionism is equivalent to a vacuous mind. Slutty outfit
> does not equal slutty person. It's just that society is moving towards a
> state of less clothing since most of the time clothing serves no purpose.
>
Wrong. Dead wrong. The only vacuous mind is the one who doesn't even
appreciate Mr. August's point, which you obviously don't.
> > Face it, Mrs. Smith, American Schools are a dungheap, and American
> Children
> > are its fodder. Billions of American dollars are wasted educating the
> > uneducable MTV generation, who care nothing about the real world other
> than
> > watching "The Real World" on MTV. Talk to these kids, and find out how
> > dumb, or how smart, they really are. "Beavis and Butthead" have met their
> > progeny here.
>
> The children are no stupider than the parents...
oh, really? When their parents went to school, SAT scores were 98
points higher, teachers didn't think accurate spelling or history
lessons were "amusing", dress codes were decent, most had spoken
Christian prayers in their classrooms, and our "education" system
wasn't the laughing stock of nations.
Do you think there's possibly anything you could say to contribute to
the solution, or will you instead continue to make excuses for the
FAILURE?
John Knight
John Knight
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 01:35:12 +0000 (UTC), ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
> Kittrell) wrote:
>
> >In article <hopems-1207...@cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com>
hop...@mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) writes:
> ><
> ><In article <3d2f507c...@news.freeserve.net>,
> ><angi...@ypical.fsnet.co.uk (Angilion) wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> ><> As an aside, I have seen it hypothesised that brain mass correlates
with
> ><> height. That would neatly explain the average difference in brain
> ><> mass between men and women (as an artefact of the average
> ><> difference in height) and the hypothesis sounds plausible. However,
> ><> I haven't seen any evidence for it. Do you have any?
> ><sense that a larger body would need a larger brain to work
> ><its various systems, which again would prove that brain size
> ><says nothing about intelligence.
> >That's quite standard in biology: neurological comparisons
> >are always made on a brain/body mass basis, never on absolute
> >brain size. (what's the smartest blue whale you've ever met?)
>
> 1) No-one has suggested trying it across different species, due
> to the differences in brain structure.
>
> 2) You are making a standard argument to "prove" that
> "female people are more intelligent than male people", because
> the average brain mass to body mass ratio is higher in
> female people than in male people. I've seen that often
> enough in children's TV shows, as part of the endemic conditioning
> to make male people feel inferior and female people feel
> superior.
>
> 3) You are making a stupidly irrational argument to support
> the prevailing sexism. By your argument, losing weight
> would make a person more intelligent. Losing a lot of
> weight would make them a lot more intelligent. After all, the
> more weight they lost, the higher their brain mass to body mass
> ratio would become. By your argument, anorexia is a sure
> route to genius. A very nasty argument.
>
> 4) You appear unable to tell the difference between height
> and weight.
>
> 5) You do not provide any evidence concerning the
> hypothesis I mentioned, which is what I was asking for.
> You just used it as a means to promote an idea which
> is harmful both directly and through the sexism it promotes.
>
Very well said, Angilion.
To feminazis, there's no difference between blue whales and humans, because
they both "evolved" from the same "common ancestor", so it must somehow make
sense to them to make such a suggestion.
But to the rest of the normal people in the country, namely the 91% who
reject this "theory" of evolution, human beings have a unique role on the
planet because they are a unique species, so to suggest that we must make
comparisons across species is merely the easiest way out of replying
logically to your question.
TIMSS and GRE are evidence enough of the correlation between human brain
size and human intelligence--but this forum sure did add some nice data to
the equation, didn't it?
John Knight
John Knight
> >>responsible for the use of X-rays and similar systems. I guess you
> >>did a good job of ignoring all the women who likewise contributed
> >>significantly to health, and society in general. But then again,
> >>they'd skew your male-favoring statistics, wouldn't they?
>
> >Really? Why did Pierre write the following about the HALF of a Nobel
> >Prize he got (a CENTURY ago), a quarter of which was "awarded" to
> >Marie, but ONLY after he complained to the committee that:
>
> >A joint award is "more satisfying from the artistic point of view".
> >http://christianparty.net/curie.htm
>
> >Does this *really*sound to you that Marie was "solely responsible for
> >the use of X-rays"?
>
> >Gaston Darboux, had nominated Becquerel and Pierre Curie for the Prize
> >in Physics. Marie's name was not mentioned."
>
> >Well, maybe not after all.
>
> >Do you have any female accomplishments more recent than a century ago?
>
> >No?
>
> >Didn't think so.
>
> >All we've come up with is Hanoi Jane Fonda? Are you fond'a Fonda?
>
> a computer in the Information Age yet you're still living in the 1960s
> and invoking moldy invectives that are relevent mostly to the over-45
> crowd. (I'll wager "Hanoi Jane" was before some of our times here).
>
> ...To wit, you have the World Wide Web at your disposal, where you are
> free to look up any such information in question. Type a few words into
> the Google search engine: "women inventors" or "women scientists" for
> instance. One does not need to be a feminist scholar to find out this
> information, you know. ...In fact, unless one has been living under a
> rock for the past 50 years, the idea that there have been no women who
> have accomplished *anything* at all is beyond the realm of the absurd,
> as we have seen plenty of examples of female achievers over the course
> of the past century.
I'm not the one who dredged up Hanoi Jane--the feminazis are. THEY added
her to "The Top 100 Women", which suggests that THEY are the ones desperate
to find some great women
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa050299.htm
Do you know what's wrong with your list of names? They were hired during
the era of affirmative action. Do you know what that does to their
reputation, no matter whay you may think about it? It TAINTS them, for the
rest of their lives. Even IF they're completely worthy of the awards, the
simple fact that the awards were handed out during that affirmative action
era discredits each and every one of them, forverer, throughout the rest of
time.
In addition to that, now that the Gaussian Distribution of intellectual
skills for men and women are fully known and can be easily compared, would
you not have some serious reservations about how they even got their
degrees? If not, then you are not a credible witness.
http://christianparty.net/timss.htm
John Knight
John Knight
This MAKES the case.
Theoretically (and of course affirmative action threw all such theory out
the window) this would not be just 0.1% of the population--it would be the
*top* 0.1%.
iow, this is the BEST of the BEST in women in academia, science, math,
physics, chemistry, etc.
And the BEST of the BEST of women come nowhere close to the median of men in
MANY of these test scores. For example, at
http://christianparty.net/gre.htm you will see that the top 2 percentile of
female education majors score lower than the median of male engineering
majors. Needless to say, the gap between the top 2 percentile of each group
is even bigger than the gap in the median scores, which is 239 points.
This bears repeating. The putative BEST of the BEST of women in education
scored almost three standard deviations lower than the MEDIAN of 32,810 men
engineers, and almost four standard deviations lower than the top tenth
percentile of men engineers. But that's not all--they also scored 130
points [more than a standard deviation] lower than ALL 98,314 American men,
and 229 points [two standard deviations] lower than ALL 51,261foreign men,
who took GRE in 1997.
The creme de la creme of women intellectuals are the 12,042 women physics
majors who scored 638, with a standard deviation of 115, which is still 37
points lower than the *average* of ALL the 512,61 foreign men who took GRE
in 1997.
Can you even comprehend how huge this gap is at the HIGH end of female
intelligence? Can you interpolate that in your mind to the rest of the
female population?
If you can't, and if you're really worried that somehow the gap in the
intellectual skills of the rest of Americans isn't reflected by the gap in
GRE scores, then you need to investigate TIMSS which shows an identical
pattern http://christianparty.net/timss.htm for ALL Americans.
John Knight
John Knight
> In article <B6FX8.47995$P%6.33...@news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"> <news:agn4an$i8m$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> <> In article <ZksX8.46464$P%6.32...@news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
> <<johnk...@usa.com> writes:
> <> <
> {...}
> <>
> <> SMURFLE!! Yeah, those primitive early twentieth century Krauts, why
> <> it sometimes took several weeks for the latest issue of "Annalen der
> <Physik"
> <> to reach the universities.
> <>
> <>
> <
> <Are you denying that Einstein was a LIAR, and a PLAGIARIST, cary?
>
> Yep.
>
> <
> <
> <
> <http://christianparty.net/einstein.htm
> <Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher
> <quality than Einstein's. It is known today that there are many problems
with
> <assumptions made in Einstein's General Theory paper. We know today that
> <Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert's paper is the forerunner
of
> <the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the
work
> <of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum
> <mechanics. [Note: see critique].
>
> From the thoroughly Aryan Max Plack Institute:
>
>
>
> Einstein Freed from Charge of Plagiarism
>
> According to the accepted view, the mathematician David Hilbert
> completed General Relativity five days before Albert Einstein in
> November 1915. Einstein may thus have copied crucial equations of
> this theory from Hilbert.
> Members of an international research group at the Max Planck
> Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, argue in their
> study, published in this week's issue of Science, that it was
> instead Hilbert who appropriated crucial results from Einstein and
> then published his paper under a misleading dateline.
>
> Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on General
> Relativity on 25 November 1915. David Hilbert, one of the most
> eminent mathematicians of the 20th century, published a paper in
> March 1916 which also contains the correct field equations of
> General Relativity. Einstein came to know Hilbert's contribution
> in late November, even before he found his final equations. He
> immediately claimed that Hilbert had appropriated his results. The
> dateline of Hilbert's paper, "20 November 1915," however, suggests
> that it was submitted five days earlier than Einstein's
> contribution. Did Einstein even copy the correct field equations
> from Hilbert's paper, as has been argued? This possibility can now
> definitely be excluded.
>
> The authors of the present paper succeeded in identifying proofs
> of Hilbert's article that are dated "6 December 1915," that is
> after the submission of Einstein's conclusive contribution. Their
> detailed analysis of these proofs has revealed that they contain
> only an immature version of General Relativity, without the
> explicit field equations. These equations must have been inserted
> only later - after 6 December and before the published version
> appeared in 1916. Hilbert was, so the authors argue, still deeply
> ingrained in wrong assumptions about the physical meaning of his
> formalism, asssumptions which Einstein had meanwhile painfully
> overcome. Einstein can hence definitively be freed from the charge
> of plagiarism.
>
> Hilbert's contribution, on the other hand, cannot even be
> considered as an independent alternative discovery of the field
> equations of General Relativity. Clearly, before he published the
> final version of his article, he must have seen Einstein's
> conclusive paper. If Hilbert had only altered the dateline of this
> paper to the date when he inserted the correct equations into the
> proofs no later priority discussion could have arisen.
>
> Although disputes about priority and plagiarism can be crucially
> important to working scientists, they are not necessarily a key
> issue in the history of science. Historians of science are often
> less interested in who made an important new discovery but rather
> in how new insights become possible. In the case of Einstein's and
> Hilbert's struggle for establishing the field equations of a new,
> relativistic theory of gravitation the situation is, however,
> different since the approaches taken by the two scientists were
> dramatically distinct: Whereas Einstein combined mathematical
> strategies with a search for physical meaning, Hilbert very much
> relied on the power of his superior mathematical formalism.
> Clearly, in this case, the who of the discovery tells indeed much
> about the how.
>
> Since 1907 Einstein had attempted to carefully reconcile, step by
> step, tentative mathematical formulations of his heuristic goal to
> formulate a relativistic theory of gravitation with the then
> available physical knowledge. Hilbert, on the other hand, had only
> begun to work on General Relativity in the second half of 1915. He
> boldly aimed from the beginning at an axiomatic foundation of
> physics and at a kind of world formula, unifying gravitation with
> electromagnetism. This approach caused the wrong impression that
> the field equations of General Relativity could be found by pure
> mathematical reasoning.
>
> The results reported in the article in Science are an outcome of
> an international research project dedicated to the history of
> General Relativity. The project is centered at the Max Planck
> Institute for the History of Science in Berlin and has produced in
> the last years several new insights into the development of this
> theory.
>
> Published:
11-11-97
>
> Max Planck Institute for
the
> History of Science, Berlin
>
> <
> <That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the
> <ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all
along.
> <In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that
> <"before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré,
etc.,
> <had created the foundations of the theory of relativity..."
> <
>
> SNIKKT! Scientists all over Germany were denouncing "Jewish Science"
> during the Nazi regime. (you on the other hand, I'm sure, would have
> retained your intellectual integrity and explained in person to Hitler
> how he was actually a Jew. I'd love to see that one). By renouncing
> "Jewish Science", as you may recall, Germany lost out in the race
> to develop the atom bomb, and hence the war (sorry, John). Lise
> Mitner, a Jew and a woman who had not even been allowed to finish
> high school, played a crucial role in the discovery of fission.
>
> <However, the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The
Jewish
> <media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but instead they
promoted
> <the work of the Jew Albert Einstein. As we mentioned earlier, this
General
> <Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by
Einstein
> <second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive
> <object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars
> <passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory.
This
> <evidence supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the
> <Jewish-controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to prop
up
> <Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true genius, David Hilbert.
> <
> <On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of
> <which proclaimed, "Revolution in science - New theory of the Universe -
> <Newtonian ideas overthrown." This was the beginning of the force-feeding
of
> <the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following years, Einstein's
earlier
> <1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the
originator
> <of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the Jewish media,
in
> <1922, Einstein received the Nobel Prize for the work he had stolen in
1905
> <regarding the photoelectric effect.
> <
> <The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an
> <important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been
> <established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his
> <image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to
be
> <today. As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World
Zionism.
> <The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to
> <change our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we
> <ought to listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues.
This
> <is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of
> <social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David
Hilbert
> <to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from
a
> <strong German, Christian background. His grandfather's two middle names
were
> <'Fürchtegott Leberecht' or 'Fear God, Live Right.' In August of 1934, the
> <day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf Hitler as
> <President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf
> <Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was published in
> <the German newspapers. So the Jews certainly did not want David Hilbert
> <receiving the credit he deserved.
> <
> <
>
> Well, I'd say the above pretty much speaks for itself, eh?
>
>
>
> -- cary
Would you like a little hint at how easy it is to mislead the entire country
with FALSE writings like the above, Cary?
Would you like to know how seriously misled you've been all your life?
Would you like to know the TRUTH about worldwide zionism, and how they've
taken control of your very life?
Hitler WAS a jew http://christianparty.net/hitler.htm and
http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm
John Knight
John Knight
No. That's not correct.
READ the statement carefully, and answer your own question.
Instead of me just continually explaining how it's possible, it's time for
you to apply that "superior" female intellect and figure it out for
yourself.
ALL this requires is a little bit of addition and subtraction. It doesn't
require you to resolve a million third order partial differential equations.
It doesn't require calculus. It doesn't even require algebra if you do it
right.
John Knight
John Knight
> [,alt.religion,alt.education,alt.feminism.individualism
> cut to avoid spam. Crossposting to 7 unrelated groups is very
> rude. 4 is too many, but it's relevant to 3 of them and I think
> the 4th is where Shadow Dancer "lives"]
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:08:17 -0500, "Shadow Dancer"
> <inso...@winterslight.org> wrote:
>
> [concerning men]
>
> >It doesn't make them smarter and their corpus collosums are still screwed
> >up.
> >
> >I guess you missed the statistics that:
> >
> >(1) A woman's pain threshhold is far higher, due to the ability to bear
> >children; roughly 5 minutes of labor pain would literally kill a man.
>
> If it wasn't so sad, it would be amusing to see these two extreme
> sexists babbling crap to "prove" their sexism is reasonable.
>
> I know for a fact that you cannot provide any evidence to support
> your statement, above, or any part of it. You are just burbling
> the prevailing sexism.
>
> If anyone wishes to look for themselves, just do a search
> for "pain threshold +men +women" at, for example, www.google.com
>
> You will find numerous studies, some of which conclude that
> women have a higher pain threshold than men and some of
> which conclude the reverse. None of them come anywhere
> near supporting the ridiculous statement made by Shadow Dancer.
>
> >(2) A woman's organs are larger, because they bear children.
>
> On average, they are smaller because women are, on average, smaller.
>
> Do you believe the rubbish you write, or are you just cunning
> enough to realise that a lie is effective propaganda to promote
> prejudice?
>
> You don't even understand the difference between a trend and
> an absolute, do you?
>
> >(3) A woman's endurance is greater because she is the child-bearer.
>
> I know for a fact that you cannot provide any evidence to support
> your statement, above.
>
> All you are doing is making circular arguments from child-bearing.
> That's it. You have no evidence to support your sexist spew.
> John Knight is just as sexist as you, but he has evidence behind
> him. Carefully selected evidence strongly spun, but some evidence
> none the less. You are just babbling female supremacist propaganda.
>
> >You can begin by tossing out ALL those sports statistics above. The
reason
> >women are not in those stats is because *they are in stats for WOMEN'S
> >SPORTS*. Misogynists like you shut them out of the male-dominated
sports.
>
> Don't be silly. Women have their own protected sporting events because
> they aren't good enough to compete with the best men in any sport
> requiring athleticism. Women get as much fame and money for doing less
> work at a much lower level of ability and sexist hypocrites like you still
> complain that women are being discriminated against.
>
> I would very much like all sex-specific sporting events to be scrapped
> and replaced with the same events, but based solely on sporting
> performance. Just for a short while, to make it abundantly clear
> that sexist whiners like you are talking silly rubbish. After a couple
> of years without a single famous female athlete and with famous
> sportswomen only in sports like darts, it should be clear even to
> the sheeple who go along with the normal belief that men are
> oppressive scumbags forcing women down that women cannot
> compete with men on an equal footing in almost any sport at the
> highest levels. You wouldn't get a woman in the top 100 in the
> vast majority of sports.
>
> Here's where you mention the famous Billie Jean King vs. Bobbie Riggs
> tennis match....which proved that the best female tennis player in
> the world at the height of her abilities could beat a 56 year old man
> who hadn't been good enough to play competetively for well over
> a decade, if not two.
>
> There have been other tennis matches between men and women,
> including another one with Bobbie Riggs against the best female
> player, which he won in straight sets (at the age of 56). There was
> also one in which the man had a much large court area to defend
> and still won in straight sets. None of those matches got any
> publicity of course, as they didn't help to promote antimale sexism.
>
> >I guess you forgot that people like Marie Curie are solely responsible
for
> >the use of X-rays and similar systems.
>
> People as sexist as yourself usually are. There are thousands of
> people who are responsible for the use of X-rays and similar systems.
> Marie Curie did some of the most important work in the early days
> of the investigation of radioactivity and is rightly regarded as a
> brilliant scientist, but she was not solely responsible for the use of
> such a large field and didn't do that much work in the field of X-rays
> (she was investigating a different form of radiation). I am not surpised
> to see you ignoring the work of Pierre Curie, who won a Nobel prize for
> his work in the same field. After all, he was a man, so you think of him
> as grossly inferior. What about Henri Becquerel, who made the discovery
> that inspired Marie Curie's work, or all the other men in the field?
>
> In fact, the use of X-rays was invented by Wilhelm Conrad
> Röntgen on November 8th, 1895. A week later, he took
> the first x-ray of a person's bone structure, one of the most
> important uses of X-rays. You can see the photo here:
>
> http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blxray.htm
>
> None of this information is hard to find. Bigots like you rely
> on people not checking the lies you make. Since you
> have the prevailing sexism behind you, you are correct
> in thinking that can say anything you like (as long as
> it glorifies women, denigrates men, or both) and few people
> will even take a couple of minutes to check whether you
> are lying, as you will be.
>
> For a more complete guide to the people involved in the
> discovery of the use of X-rays, click on the "Discovery of
> the X-ray" link. That shows that the development of understanding
> in a scientific field is not the sole responsibility of anyone. They
> all build on the work of earlier scientists.
>
> [more sexist crap and chest-beating from Shadow Dancer]
>
The truly amazing thing about feminazis is that they just don't *care* that
they always LIE, and they just don't care that they always get caught LYING.
This was also, of course, a classic demonstration of the female intellect,
or lack thereof, at work.
btw, Marie Curie wasn't even on the list when Pierre Curie and Henri
Becquerel' were awarded the Nobel Prize these feminazis claim Marie won:
"In 1903 Marie and Pierre Curie were awarded half the Nobel Prize in
Physics. The citation was, 'in recognition of the extraordinary services
they have rendered by their joint researches on the radiation phenomena
discovered by Professor Henri Becquerel'. Henri Becquerel was awarded the
other half for his discovery of spontaneous radioactivity. In a letter to
the Swedish Academy of Sciences, Pierre explains that neither of them is
able to come to Stockholm to receive the prize. They could not get away
because of their teaching obligations. He adds, 'Mme Curie has been ill this
summer and is not yet completely recovered'. That was certaintly true but
his own health was no better. Not until June 1905 did they go to Stockholm
where Pierre gave a Nobel lecture."
http://christianparty.net/curie.htm
The simple fact that they have to go back a century and dredge up a woman
who got a Nobel Prize BECAUSE her husband requested she be added to the list
is proof enough of the lack of women Nobel Prize winners, eh?
John Knight
John Knight
Question L10 on the 12th Grade TIMSS Math test given to 12th graders around
the world in 1995 reveals an astounding difference in math skills between
the sexes in all the countries who participated. The average difference in
all countries was 8.3%, with 31.9% of boys and 23.6% of girls answering
correctly, but the difference in the US was 12.3% (14.9% of girls and 27.2%
of boys). In countries like Sweden where 59.8% of the boys answered
correctly, guesses on the test would not have influenced the scores by that
much, but where only 14.9% of American girls answered correctly, guesses
must be taken into account.
Since this was a multiple choice question with five possible choices, the
probability of getting the correct answer just by guessing is 20%. In other
words, for every five students who guessed, one of them would have gotten
the correct answer by chance. The maximum score would have been achieved
had all the students who didn't understand the problem guessed at the
answer, so where 14.9% of American girls answered the problem correctly, 20%
of them would have gotten the correct answer if all of them had just guessed
at the question. It's not clear how they managed to score lower than if
they had just guessed, but discovering why may go a long way towards
understanding what has gone wrong with American "education".
27.2% of American boys got the correct answer, 22.75% by guessing, and 4.45%
indicating that they understood the problem [x = total guesses, 0.2x =
correct guesses, 0.8x = incorrect guesses = 72.8%, x = 91%, 0.25x = 22.75%
guessed correctly, 27.2% got the correct answer - 22.75% guessed the correct
answer = 4.45% understood the problem]. However, with an estimated error of
plus or minus 3%, only 1.45% are known with certainty to have understood the
problem.
Prior to adjustment for the 3% error, 59.8% of the boys in Sweden got the
correct answer, 10.05% guessed correctly, 49.75% indicated that they
understood the problem, and 40.2% guessed incorrectly [x = total guesses,
0.2x = correct guesses, 0.8x = incorrect guesses = 40.2%, x = 50.25%, 0.2x =
10.05% = correct guesses, and 59.8% correct answers - 10.05% correct guesses
= 49.75% who understood the problem]. After adjustment for the 3% error,
only 46.75% are known with certainty to have understood the problem. Per
capita, compared to American boys, 32 times as many boys in Sweden are known
to have understood the problem, and compared to American girls, an infinite
number are. Even though American boys did poorly on this question, compared
to American girls, an infinitely larger number of them are known to have
understood the problem.
Is this adequate proof that our attempt to establish "gender equality" is a
failure? Yes. To achieve that ephemeral goal, our "educators" began an
unnecessary and destructive "gender war" of unprecedented proportions, more
than doubled education spending as a percent of GDP, and out-spent by more
than three times countries whose students far outperformed ours. Japan,
whose 8th graders scored 105 points higher than ours, spends half as much
for education. Korea, whose 8th graders scored 107 points higher than ours,
spends even less per student than Japan.
John Knight
GodEvolved
Hold on a sec here. You can't do that. You can't compare education majors
to engineering majors and then claim that its proof positive that women
aren't as smart as men. That's like comparing apples and oranges.
Having just looked at the data, I find it interesting that supporting pages
will either not display and are disallowed by the server. Be that as it
may, however, you still can't compare people in different majors and draw
some sort wild, generalized conclusion. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.
>
> This bears repeating. The putative BEST of the BEST of women in
> education scored almost three standard deviations lower than the
> MEDIAN of 32,810 men engineers, and almost four standard deviations
> lower than the top tenth percentile of men engineers. But that's not
> all--they also scored 130 points [more than a standard deviation]
> lower than ALL 98,314 American men, and 229 points [two standard
> deviations] lower than ALL 51,261foreign men, who took GRE in 1997.
>
> The creme de la creme of women intellectuals are the 12,042 women
> physics majors who scored 638, with a standard deviation of 115, which
> is still 37 points lower than the *average* of ALL the 512,61 foreign
> men who took GRE in 1997.
>
> Can you even comprehend how huge this gap is at the HIGH end of female
> intelligence? Can you interpolate that in your mind to the rest of
> the female population?
>
> If you can't, and if you're really worried that somehow the gap in the
> intellectual skills of the rest of Americans isn't reflected by the
> gap in GRE scores, then you need to investigate TIMSS which shows an
> identical pattern http://christianparty.net/timss.htm for ALL
> Americans.
>
> John Knight
>
>
>
--
-----------------
"...What you have to understand, young lady, is that the Greeks, not
content with dominating the culture of the Classical world, are also
responsible for the greatest, some would say the only, work of true
creative imagination produced this century as well. I refer of course to
the Greek ferry timetables. A work of the sublimest fiction. Anyone who
has travelled the Aegean will confirm this..." Professor Watkin - Dirk
Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
-----------------