hopems at mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote in
news:hopems-1407021709410001 at cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com:
> In article <Xns924BBD43485BEnospamcom at 198.164.200.20>, GodEvolved
> <nospam at spam.com> wrote:
>>>hopems at mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote in
>> news:hopems-1407021633180001 at cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com:
>>>> > In article <Xns924BB9432C91Fnospamcom at 198.164.200.20>, GodEvolved
>> > <nospam at spam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> hopems at mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote in
>> >> news:hopems-1407021613330001 at cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com:
>> >>
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure what purpose verbal scores would serve on a
>> >> engineering degree.
>> >
>> > Well, I'm sure that math scores are more important than verbal
>> > scores for engineering, but I think any engineering school would
>> > pass on someone with a verbal score of less than 300 even if they
>> > had a perfect quantitative score. Anyway, my points was that all
>> > of this guy's charts seem to be based on quantitative scores.
>> > This makes me wonder why verbal scores were omitted and makes
>> > me suspect the reason is that they would not support Knight's
>> > sexist and racist agenda.
>>>> The question, though, is whether the results of such tests would
>> suffice to prove *your* point.
>>>> >
>> > Here is an article on a study done by Cornell and Yale
>> > that proves my point about the GRE not predicting success
>> > in graduate school:
>>>>>> >
>> > The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) does little to predict who
>> > will do well in graduate school for psychology and quite likely in
>> > other fields as well, according to a new study by Cornell and Yale
>> > universities.
>>>> I won't quibble over terminology, but I'll point out that the
>> research conducted appears to have been done for *psychology*
>> studies, and the results are extrapolated for *other* fields. Not
>> exactly categorical approval of *your* point.
>>>> Ok, I think you're misunderstanding me. My agenda is not
> to prove the superiority of one gender over another. I'm simply
> trying to show that the GRE is not an effective predictor of
> how well someone will do in graduate school. Here is more
> information on the matter:
But you're not arguing with John Knight based on this. You're arguing
based on your perception of *his* sexism, and you counter it with *more*
sexism.
<Snip - I'm not arguing the merits(or lack thereof) of any testing
methodology>
--
-----------------
"...What you have to understand, young lady, is that the Greeks, not
content with dominating the culture of the Classical world, are also
responsible for the greatest, some would say the only, work of true
creative imagination produced this century as well. I refer of course to
the Greek ferry timetables. A work of the sublimest fiction. Anyone who
has travelled the Aegean will confirm this..." Professor Watkin - Dirk
Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
-----------------
