John Knight wrote:
> "Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> news:3D2AB9D5.4090207 at NOSPAMgwi.net...>>>Tom Breton wrote:
>>>>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at 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.
>>>>>>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
>>><Leonardo_member at newsguy.com> in <9miftl0239r at 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
>>>
--
====================================================
You can't make someone love you, but you can let
yourself be loved by someone.
http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
