John Knight <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:fEVZ8.8866$Fq6.717539 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "The 9th Witch" <appalachian_witch at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ah5h4v$qdq01$1 at ID-131540.news.dfncis.de...> >
> >
> > "At two, humans have the most brain cells that they will ever have in
> their
> > lifetime. If these cells are not used, they are simply deleted."
> > http://students.ou.edu/I/Feather.K.Inman-1/concepts.html> >
> > "We now know that an infant's brain contains 100 billion cells, the most
> > brain cells a person will ever have."
> > http://www.nccic.org/pubs/mirrors/intro.html> >
> >
> > How did infants score on your test, John? According to your theory,
since
> > they have more brain cells than either men or women, they should have
> scored
> > much higher than either category.
> >
>> You could only make such a silly observation if you lacked 3 1/2 billion
> brain cells from the start, which is the point: male babies also have 3
1/2
> billion more brain cells than female babies, just as adult males have 3
1/2
> billion more than adult females.
No, they don't. There is no difference in infants.
>> The point you missed is that this is proof that the difference is by
design
> and not because of "discrimination" or some other silly feminazi theory.
>> > "Women's brains are more tightly packed with cells in the area that
> controls
> > mental processes such as judgement, personality, planning and working
> > memory, researchers have discovered.
> > A team from McMaster University, Ontario, Canada, found that women have
up
> > to 15% more brain cell density in certain areas of the frontal lobe,
which
> > controls so-called higher mental processes. "
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1653000/1653687.stm> >
>> Is this why men score 18-50% higher than women on ever test ever devised,
> across races, nations, and continents, and have since Day One?
>
That is not true. In many countries, women scored higher than men.
> > "Women are just as good at math as men. At Earlham, half the math majors
> are
> > women, and those women include some of our strongest majors. Half the
> > students in our elementary classes are women. A survey of recent
calculus
> > classes showed equal numbers of male and female students. The average
> female
> > student scored about half a letter grade better than the average male
> > student. At the faculty level, half of Earlham's math professors are
> women,
> > and our female faculty members have published more scholarly papers in
> > mathematics than have their male colleagues. To anyone believing that
> women
> > cannot do well at mathematics - or that men cannot do badly - our
> experience
> > offers abundant evidence to the contrary."
> >
> > http://www.math.earlham.edu/WomensBrains.html>> Did you even notice that this completely ignores performance? Just because
> half the students sitting in a classroom is women is not proof of anything
> except their ability to waddle to class and plant their big fat as.es in a
> chair. Just because those teachers give girls a letter grade higher than
> they give boys (who score a standard deviation higher than on ALL
> *objective* tests), is proof that those teachers are too STUPID to even
> detect such huge differences in performance.
>
Hello? What part of "The average female student scored about half a letter
grade better than the average male student. At the faculty level, half of
Earlham's math professors are women, and our female faculty members have
published more scholarly papers in mathematics than have their male
colleagues." did your 3 1/2 billion extra brain cells miss?
> Can you even imagine the mentality of a teacher teaching children all her
> life, never knowing that all boys across the world, throughout history,
> across all races, score a full standard deviation higher than girls in
many
> subjects?
>
No, I can't. Seems to me, she'd push the girls harder, as my *male* Jr. High
teacher, Mr. Ziler did. He fully expected us to do as well as the boys, and
did not allow girls to "fake dumb" to attract a male.
> Why should we even permit such ignorant "teachers" to get anywhere near
our
> children?
>> >
> > "Neanderthals had larger brains than we do, she pointed out, but
obviously
> > they weren't smarter."
> >
>> How does she know that? Did she test Neanderthal? He left behind some
> excellent art, something that not a single nigger in Africa, with very
small
> brains, were ever able to accomplish.
>
You're an idiot. African primitive art sells very well. I own some pieces
myself. How many Neanderthal artifacts do you own.
> > "Overall, however, men lose slightly more brain cells than do women"
> >
> > http://www.csuchico.edu/pub/inside/archive/98_04_09/brain.html> >
>> Men could lose a billion more brain cells than women and still have an
extra
> 2 1/2 billion to play with--but "slightly more" is most likely nowhere
close
> to a billion, wouldn't you say? Why are you quoting these typical
> nonsensical feminazi statements?
In the grand scheme of things, it's just a drop in the bucket, considering
both genders start with around a hundred billion.
>> > "The exact reason for this difference is not known, but the opinion of
> > experts is that it is simply related to a larger body size in man (the
> more
> > cell muscles you have, more brain cells you need). This difference
should
> > not be interpreted as a difference in intelligence or memory."
> >
> > http://www.epub.org.br/cm/perguntas/031-how-many-cells.html>> This is precisely the absurd, silly, nonsensical, uneducated, ignorant,
> illogical "reasoning" we might expect from a 3 1/2 billion brain cell
> limited brain--so you know it's not true, don't you? As already noted
above
> in your other absurd, silly, nonsensical, uneducated, ignorant, illogical
> statement, it takes PRECISELY the same amount of memory, computer power,
and
> brain cells to operate a human male baby's body as it does to operate an
> adult male body.
>> Don't you ever check your work?
Provide a reference, please. And I will not accept the christian party's
lame website.
>> > "At this point, researchers do not know how the structural differences
> > influence brain function. It's possible that male and female brains work
> at
> > a similar capacity but process information differently. For example, one
> > study shows that men and women perform equally well in a test that asks
> > subjects to read a list of nonsense words and determine if they rhyme.
> Yet,
> > imaging results found that women use areas on the right and left sides
of
> > the brain, while men only use areas on the left side to complete the
test.
>> Also note that Wechsler found that men far outperform women on the 94% of
> the "IQ problems" which he eliminated from his "IQ test", which is clear
> evidence that women perform "equally" to men in only 6% of these problems,
> and my bet is that it was something like these "nonsense words".
>
Post a reference please, and I will not accept the lame christian party's
website.
> > Other research suggests that, on average, the female brain
performs
> > better on some skills while the male brain executes other tasks at a
> higher
> > level. For example, tests show that women generally can recall lists of
> > words or paragraphs of text better than men. On the other hand, men
> usually
> > perform better on tests that require the ability to mentally rotate an
> image
> > in order to solve a problem. Mental rotation is thought to help people
> find
> > their way, according to researchers. Does that leave the majority of
women
> > lost? Obviously not. Scientists believe that women may rely on their
> memory
> > advantage and recall landmarks to find a destination."
> >
> > http://web.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/gender.brain.html> >
> > Have a nice day. Or not. Your choice...
> >
> > T9W
>> Which ignores that this difference in construction is precisely why men
have
> a 42% advantage over women in hand/eye-oriented Olympic events like
> springboard, or are one quarter as likely per mile driven to have an auto
> accident, or one third as likely per mile flown to have an airplane
> accident, or score 18-50% higher on ever standardized test which even
> feminazis have managed to create.
If you can't design a website properly, you ought not advertise it. Post
proof please, and I will not accept the lame christian party's website.
>> The fact that you're willing to accept this statement carte blanche,
without
>> any statistical evidence to back it up, or even a quantification of some
> type to give you perspective, is evidence enough of your ability to be
> misled by intentionally misleading and erroneous statements like this.
>> This is exactly the problem. This is exactly why so many American girls
> went into the TIMSS test with the objective of providing the right answer,
> but came out having scored lower on the test than if they had merely
guessed
If you cannot design a website properly, you shouldn't advertise it.
I have a question. A test is designed with 20 questions, what is the
probability of getting all the questions correct by just guessing. You have
24 hours.
Hint: It's not 25%.
>> You girls were deceived. You were deceived by some of the world's best
> experts at deception. And you're obviously just as incapable of
recognizing
> why or who did it as you are at adequately verifying and carefully
> critiquing these above statements, which is exactly how feminist mass
> hysteria propagates.
Well, considering I just made the Dean's list for the spring quarter in the
Computer Programming Technology, deceive on MacDuff.
T9W
