brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Thu Aug 22 00:20:57 EST 2002


"Tom Breton" <tehom at REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com> wrote in message
news:m3d6scno3d.fsf at panix.com...
> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
>
> > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > >To normal people, she was the "winner" of a quarter of a Nobel Prize
> >
> > Normal people don't pay attention to whether the prize was shared or
> > not, because other than the prize money award, the sharing is
> > considered irrelevant.  Meanwhile, it remains the fact that she was a
> > winner of TWO Nobel prizes, not one.
>
> I think I see the source of the misunderstanding.  You seem to be
> thinking of it as wholly unquestioned recognition.  And certainly
> no-one is plucked off the street to be given a Nobel solely because of
> their birth group.
>
> But there is also a legitimate question of favoritism towards a
> birth-group, women.  Consider just the facts we saw in the Curie case,
> well before Feminism reached its current power: A confessed advocate
> for women scientists sitting on the nominating committee and taking
> direct action to secure a woman's nomination, the admitted fact that
> Pierre secured Marie her part of the prize by his letter, Marie's
> second prize for which the cited work was at best joint work with
> Pierre, a prize which the committee admitted (not noted on either site
> AFAICT) was aimed at giving her unshared recognition.
>
> Thus when a prize is shared between man and woman, there's a
> legitimate suspicion that the man provided disproportionately more of
> the gravitas and credibility, since the woman also provided the
> rewarded quality of being female.
>
> Of course, favoritism to women is not the only factor, it's probably
> not even the dominant factor, but one shouldn't overlook it.
>
> --
> Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom.  http://www.panix.com/~tehom

You're close, Tom, but still off the mark.  Let me give you an example of
how far off the mark.

A fellow officer got a Gold Medal at an Olympic event.  There was another
Gold Medal winner in the same event who got a Gold Medal, who scored 32%
higher.  There were 9 other men in this event who all scored more than 30%
higher; one got a Silver Medal, one got a Bronze Medal, and 7 got no medals.

I'll bet you know why this fellow officer got a Gold medal, while the 7
contestants who scored more than 30% higher got no medal?

John Knight












More information about the Neur-sci mailing list