"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
news:3D2C0FF9.5050309 at NOSPAMgwi.net...
> John Knight wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D2BA019.3060808 at NOSPAMgwi.net...> >
> >>John Knight wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:3D2ABC38.4040305 at 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.
>
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
