In article <6JkY8.59626$P%6.3948507 at news2.west.cox.net>, "John Knight"
<johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
> "Hope Munro Smith" <hopems at mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:hopems-1307021051520001 at cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com...> > In article <3D2F9A44.2503D0E9 at gwi.net>, "Mark D. Morin"
> > <mdmpsyd at PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote:
> >
> > > John Knight wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Angilion" <angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:3d2f507c.20059553 at news.freeserve.net...> > > > > [several groups cut to avoid excessive crossposting]
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:19:57 -0500, "Shadow Dancer"
> > > > > <insomniac at 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 That's obviously out of date - the general belief nowdays is that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.)"
> > > > Leonardo_member at newsguy.com in 9miftl0239r at 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.
> > >
> > > > and expose
> > > > Wechlser's LIE:
> > > > http://christianparty.net/gregeometry.htm> > > >
> > > > http://christianparty.net/gre.htm> > > >
> > > > John Knight
> > >
> >
> > 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.
>> 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
No, this makes me still say "so what." The purpose of the GRE
(or any standardized test for that matter)
is for placement. It cannot predict how well someone will do
in graduate school, or the quality of the research they produce.
Sure, someone is probably not going to get into Harvard with a combined
GRE of 1000 but would get into UT Austin, especially with a high GPA
to counter the GRE score. I've known plenty of people
with a combined score of 1000 (the minimum required
by UT Austin) but who produce outstanding research,
and people with nearly perfect scores who dropped out of grad school.
Also, you seem to only be looking at quantitative scores.
This leads me to suspect that factoring in verbal scores
would skew the data in an entirely different direction, one which
did not support your sexist and racist agenda.
