In article <Xns924BB4E0CCA44nospamcom at 198.164.200.20>, GodEvolved
<nospam at spam.com> wrote:
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in
> news:6JkY8.59626$P%6.3948507 at news2.west.cox.net:
>> >
> > "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 That's obviously out of date - the general belief nowdays is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.
>> 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.
>
Good point GE. Again, I also find it strange that verbal scores
tend to be omitted from the few charts I was able to load.
