brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at usa.com
Fri Aug 16 17:23:32 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:tcqpluosgtf9m4375ucargd4sal7s5uo5g at 4ax.com...
> Joseph A Nagy Jr <pagan_prince at charter.net> wrote:
> running this country?
> >>The brain size and brain cell
> >> count studies all show that men have a proportionately larger brain
than
> >> women,
> >
> >Bob, Shadow Dance, I've never heard of such a study, please point me to
somewhere that ISN'T
> >christianparty.net?
>
> Sigh.  As best I've been able to determine, back in the days of
> Darwin, there were theories that the different races had different
> brain sizes, and that this determined different intelligence levels.
> I can't find at the moment the definitive reference to these theories,
> but they fell out of favor, having failed to derail evolution.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_brains.html
>
> is a summary of the results, and I think the guy named "Morton" in the
> discussion is the one that matters if you want to look further.
>
> One modern researcher, a J Phillipe Rushton, psychology professor of
> the U of Western Ontario, has resurrected these theories, apparently
> in support of a racist/eugenicist agenda.  He has been looking for
> racial and sexual differences in brain size and IQ.  He's got people
> who have used modern techniques like MRI scans to make the
> measurements and claims to have confirmed the correlations.  His
> critics have cogent arguments that the research is flawed.
>
> http://www.eugenics.net/papers/rushton.html
>
> gives Rushton's critique of Gould's analysis of IQ testing, if you
> want something discussing technicalities.  The fact that Rushton
> argues that Gould had a political motive in his book at the end, in my
> mind merely relegates the argument from the ostensibly scientific one
> that it appears to be into the realm of politics.
>
> http://www.cpa.ca/Psynopsis/petertxt.htm
> http://www.cpa.ca/Psynopsis/rushtxt.htm
>
> give examples of the sort of debate and counter debate that have gone
> on.  All very technical and inconclusive in my opinion, and the
> introduction of politics into the matter means that the science is
> playing second fiddle to the political spin.
>
> The bottom line is that there is no definitive genetic basis for
> racial classification, and the relationships between various ways of
> determining brain size and actual brain size are suspect.
>
> More recently, the nincompoop has dredged up some other study that has
> shown a difference in the number of brain cells in different sized
> brains, possibly by Rushton, leading to his oft-used reference to men
> having 3 1/2 billion more brain cells than women.  Of course the fact
> that brains do not work by sheer size or neuron count alone get
> ignored.  Researchers have noted that whales have much larger brains
> than human beings.

You just cannot say that there's no relationship between brain size and
"intelligence" as measured by relatively non-politicized tests like TIMSS or
GRE.  When J Phillipe Rushton collected all the brain size measurements, he
correlated them with IQ tests rather than GRE or TIMSS.  The data STILL
correlated, but the correlation is much higher between brain size and GRE
scores, which is something he never did (unless he did it recently).
http://christianparty.net/grebrainsize.htm

Having just correlated TIMSS by race and sex, I can tell you that the TIMSS
scores support precisely the correlation of GRE scores by race and sex with
brain size by race and sex.  The fact that his brain size data correlates so
well with GRE scores can't be just an accident, and the TIMSS correlation
cinches it.

http://christianparty.net/timssrace.htm

So the 29% of the men and 43% of women on the Gallup Poll who stated that
they believe that women are more intelligent than men, and the 40% of men
and 40% of women who stated that they believe that men and women are equally
intelligent, are plain flat wrong.  They've been seriously misled.  Or,
they're just plain STUPID.


This leaves us with only 28% of men and only 14% of women who know the truth
about "intelligence".
http://christianparty.net/gallupsexdifference.htm

This disinformation campaign began with Wechsler during WWII when he threw
out 94% of the questions so he could create a test where men and women had
"equal IQ"s:

"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

And Gallup is propagating this LIE by LYING about their very own data:

>>>Neither sex is most likely to be described by the terms "intelligent,"
"easy-going," and "ambitious."

This is bunk.  Gallup's very own data shows that men are 1.4 times more
likely than women to believe that men are more ambitious, 1.2 times more
likely to believe that men are more easy-going, and twice as likely to
believe that men are more intelligent, but women are 1.1 times more likely
to believe that women are more easy-going, 1.3 times more likely that women
are more ambitious, and 1.5 times more likely to believe that women are more
intelligent.

iow, this statement is a LIE, pure and simple.

Not only does Gallup LIE about actual differences in intelligence between
races and sex, but they LIE about what people *think* about these
differences.

John Knight






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list