In article <Xns924BC4A50EF77nospamcom at 198.164.200.20>, GodEvolved
<nospam at spam.com> wrote:
>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>
>
Eh what? I must be misunderstanding my own posts
because I don't understand how I was countering with
more sexism. Please quote the text you are talking
about. I did say Knight has a sexist
agenda, but that is quite obvious to anyone looking
at his site (IF it loads). How is pointing this
out sexist? By the way, did I also mention that he's
quite obviously racist and anti-semitic too?
