Peter Douglas Zohrab wrote:
>> See my comments below.
>> Peter Zohrab
> --
> Domestic Violence Bibliography http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm> New Zealand is run by Lesbians, and men are afraid they won't be real men if
> they contradict them! Manufacturing Concern
>http://mera.50megs.com/boycecnt.html The Next US President is a Batterer
>http://www.glennjsacks.com/is_there_a.htm Review of Sex, Lies & Feminism by
> J. Steven Svoboda in Everyman: A Men's Journal
>http://mera.50megs.com/evereviw.html>> "Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2822AC.3D00D8B6 at gwi.net...> > Peter Douglas Zohrab apparently has no grasp of statistical analyses and
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Morin tried unsuccessfully to cover up his inability to refute my
> > > points, in his message (repeated below, with my comments added):
> > >
> > > "Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3D26D82C.CDCF294F at gwi.net...> > > > Peter Douglas Zohrab wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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,
> > > >
> > > > ah no. it's because you compare apples to apples not to oranges.
> > >
> > > I don't know what you consider to be an intelligent refutation, but
> using a
> > > primary school metaphor doesn't cut any ice with me. Could you please
> > > attempt -- however pathetically -- to explain the relevance of fruit to
> this
> > > discussion ?
> >
> > If you have an apriori reason to believe to samples are different and
> > you have an anomolous subject in one sample, you test for differences
> > from the sample the subject came from, not the other one.
> >
> 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.
and that's why female brains were not part of the comparision sample.
There was an apriori reason. Whether or not there is any basis in fact
for that reason is another question.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > and the relevance to function is?
> > > >
> > > I am not using the vague term "function". I am using the terms "IQ" (a
> test
> > > result), on the one hand, and "size/weight" on the other. I believe in
> > > clear thinking.
> >
> > "IQ" is no less vague than function as IQ is defined as one's
> > functioning on IQ tests.
> > same question.
> >
> That is not at all vague. An IQ test is a precise numerical value. What it
> actually represents is, of course, another issue.
a value defined by one's functioning on specific tasks.
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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. I have plenty of experience of academics preferring
> to
> > > state
> > > > > what is politically correct than what is true.
> > > >
> > > > well, you can look into the empirical data--there is no significant
> > > > difference.
> > >
> > > I have already said that I don't trust the academics who construct the
> tests
> > > that produce the IQ data.
> >
> > Then if you are looking for differences in IQ, you are talking in
> > circles.
> > You can not trust all you want. In so doing, you reflect your own
> > paranoia not the lack of integrity of the test.
> >
> Not at all. I can accept that IQ tests are the best that we have for
> certain purposes, and I can also say that I don't trust the biases of the
> people who compose them for other purposes.
like I said. Don't trust all you want. Provide evidence of bias.
> Because of the general
> Left-Wing bias of universities, academics tend to take seriously claims that
> IQ tests are culturally biased against Non-Whites, while dismissing as
> "paranoia" claims that they might be biased in favour of females.
you need to update your reading list. All the tests in question have
been revised since that literature was published.
> >
> > > The various "abilities" that IQ tests test for,
> > > and the test items that are used, have been challenged for alleged
> cultural
> > > bias,
> > > and they can be challenged for (anti-male) sex bias, as well.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> Well, obviously, if it is "peers" like you who control the gateways to
> scholarly publication, no such article has a hope of being published. I
> don't have much respect for the peer-review process,
obviously
> since I have seen the
> most incredible rubbish published, as long as it scratches the right backs.
> While I have done no work in this area myself,
obviously
> I suspect that, if you send
> me the relevant material, I will be able to find prima facie biases in such
> tests.
try your local library.
...
> > > These
> > > "abilities" and test items are not grounded in observable psychological
> or
> > > neurological reality in any direct way.
> >
> > I beg to differ. Neurosurgeons ask me to assist in identifying lesion
> > location and IQ tests are one of the tools that I use in that process.
> >
> There are two issues here:
> 1. I said "grounded in", not "applied to".
read what I wrote then read the literature in the neurology journals.
> 2. Human beings -- especially social scientists -- are notorious for using
> the best tools that they have available (and who can criticise them for that
> ?), without requiring that these tools be foolproof before they agree to use
> them.
if i was going to have someone removing part of my brain, i'd want the
instruments used in the assessment to be pretty close to foolproof and
grounded in known neurological processes. That's why I include
intelligence testing in my battery.
> >
> > > The issues surrounding IQ tests
> > > have been politicised -- I can recall a lot of students protesting when
> > > Eysenck came to speak at my university, for example. I suspect
> political
> > > interference, since men are an underclass in Western universities at
> > > present.
> > > >
> > > > > In fact, many academics
> > > > > consider it to be the height of naivety to state something that is
> > > merely
> > > > > true, when the opposite is widely known to be politically correct !
> > > >
> > > > and it's pretty stupid to ignore empirical evidence so that you can
> > > > focus on your own biases.
> > > >
> > > It's extremely stupid to ignore logical argument and reiterate your own
> > > biases.
> >
> > Show me the data that support your logical argument. Any argument that
> > stands in contrast to the data is not logical. Or, did you fail stats in
> > undergrad?
> >
> A logical argument is an argument that has a certain form. Stats and data
> are peripheral to logic.
and any logical argument that lies in face of reality can hold up the
banner of logic but is meaningless.
> I don't want to stoop to your level of spite, but I
> suggest you take a catch-up course in philosophical reasoning.
been there, done that. saw, constructed, and critiqued many a "logical"
argument that had no bearing in reality.
--
====================================================
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
