|
| |
> In article <Xns924BC4A50EF77nospamcom@198.164.200.20>,
GodEvolved
> <nospam@spam.com> wrote:
>
> > hopems@mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro
Smith) wrote in
> > news:hopems-1407021709410001@cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com:
> >
> > > In article <Xns924BBD43485BEnospamcom@198.164.200.20>,
GodEvolved
> > > <nospam@spam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> hopems@mail.utexas.edu
(Hope Munro Smith) wrote in
> > >> news:hopems-1407021633180001@cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com:
> > >>
> > >> > In article <Xns924BB9432C91Fnospamcom@198.164.200.20>,
GodEvolved
> > >> > <nospam@spam.com>
wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> hopems@mail.utexas.edu
(Hope Munro Smith) wrote in
> > >> >> news:hopems-1407021613330001@cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > In article <Xns924BB4E0CCA44nospamcom@198.164.200.20>,
> > >> >> > GodEvolved <nospam@spam.com>
wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> "John Knight" <johnknight@usa.com> wrote in
> > >> >> >> news:6JkY8.59626$P%6.3948507@news2.west.cox.net:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > "Hope Munro Smith" <hopems@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > >> >> >> > news:hopems-1307021051520001@cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com...
> > >> >> >> >> In article <3D2F9A44.2503D0E9@gwi.net>, "Mark D.
Morin"
> > >> >> >> >> <mdmpsyd@PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> > John Knight wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> > >
> > >> >> >> >> > > "Angilion" <angilion@ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
> > >> >> >> >> > > message news:3d2f507c.20059553@news.freeserve.net...
> > >> >> >> >> > > > [several groups cut to avoid
excessive crossposting]
> > >> >> >> >> > > >
> > >> >> >> >> > > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:19:57
-0500, "Shadow Dancer"
> > >> >> >> >> > > > <insomniac@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@newsguy.com in
> > >> >> >> >> > > 9miftl0239r@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://fathersmanifesto.net/gregeometry.htm
> > >> >> >> >> > >
> > >> >> >> >> > > http://fathersmanifesto.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://fathersmanifesto.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?
| |
|
