hopems at mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) wrote in
news:hopems-1407021744540001 at cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com:
> 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
You're suggesting that the verbal scores are not included because they
would interfere with his agenda, but you're forgetting that such a
statement smacks of sexism in itself.
> 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?
Don't know about that.
>
--
-----------------
"...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
-----------------
