"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
news:3D336D98.6080503 at NOSPAMgwi.net...
> >>
> >>you don't understand the concept of reliability. It is scientificly
> >>dishonest to take the measurement that yeilds the best correlation and
> >>then throw out the rest of the data--as your links suggest. Your 0.8795
> >>is a figment of your imagination.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Your argument is that there are measurement errors. But if that were
> > true, then correlation would be much lower than 0.8795.
>> and the authors reported r's less than 0.8. MUCH lower. And didn't
> bother to say why they simply picked the higher.
>
bs. WHICH authors reported any such thing?
The only published correlation is the one between brain size and "IQ
scores", which we KNOW right off the bat are wrong, because "IQ scores
measure absolutely nothing". Wechsler's IQ test couldn't even pick up the
WHOPPING 72 point difference between men and women in quantitative skills,
which the putative "non-IQ" test, GRE Quantitative, measured easily, for
every race and sex.
>> And even IF
> > there are measurement errors, they clearly aren't significant enough
> > to interfere with the correlation.
>> Which correlations?
>> a correlation is simply a measure of association between two numbers.
> you have yet to demonstrate that the correlation in question can be
> reliably reproduced.
It has been reproduced year after year for the last 50 years. The reason
that only the last 3 years are at
http://christianparty.net/greracesexyear.htm is because the test scores
aren't on the net, but this is consistent with every other standardized test
you can get your hands on.
>>> >
> > You can bet that Philippe Rushton didn't pick and choose the numbers
> > that fit the curve, because he attempted to correlate brain size to
> > "IQ scores" rather than to GRE scores. He was surprised at the low
> > r-squared he got from doing this. The error was that IQ scores were
> > intentionally manipulated when Wechsler et. al. threw out 94% of the
> > IQ problems which are EXACTLY the most important problems.
>> The articles you cite in your sig line do in fact suggest that numbers
> were picked and choosen.
>
bs. He goes into extensive detail at http://christianparty.net/rushton.htm
regarding the various techniques for making such measurements, and explains
*precisely* how the figures were arrived at.
>> >
> > They weren't removed from the GRE, nor the TIMSS.
>> Strange, the GRE research was not able to replicate the findings you cite.
>
Year after year, they manage to reproduce the exact same pattern between the
sexes and races without any "measurement errors" to worry about
http://christianparty.net/greracesexyear.htm
Why?
John Knight
