brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at usa.com
Wed Jul 10 03:05:15 EST 2002


"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
news:3D2BA1AB.3090604 at NOSPAMgwi.net...
> John Knight wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D2AB9D5.4090207 at NOSPAMgwi.net...
> >
> >>Tom Breton wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at PETERHOOD69gwi.net> writes:
> >>
> >>>>How?  Point me to one peer reviewed article that makes this challenge.
> >>>>Are you even familiar enough with the tests to make this idiotic
> >>>>statement? What specific items are biased?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Now, be fair.  You know there are severe political and ideological
> >>>pressures against publishing anything like that.
> >>
> >>No, I don't know that.
> >>
> >
> >
> > hmmm, even the left wing "news" is full of reports of such bias, so it
> > shouldn't take long for you to locate it if you look.  If you can't find
it,
> > let me know and I'll give you a ton of leads.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Scientists like
> >>>Suzanne Steinmetz have received death threats against themselves and
> >>>their children simply for publishing results that went against
> >>>Feminist interests.  At the very least, anyone who published about
> >>>anti-male bias in IQ tests could look forward to great difficulty ever
> >>>getting another research grant.  Anyone who reviewed it favorably
> >>>would be taking a political chance too.  So you can't just assume that
> >>>such information would make its way into peer-reviewed journals.
> >>>
> >>>But the *information* is out there.  Credit to Leonardo
> >>><Leonardo_member at newsguy.com> in <9miftl0239r at drn.newsguy.com> for the
> >>>following:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>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.)
> >>>
> >>Which is supposed to support the original poster's position?
> >>
> >>There are a lot of empirical data out there on these tests--data that
> >>break down by multiple variable including gender. If there is a systemic
> >>bias, it needs to be demonstrated, not simply asserted.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > You seem to miss the incredible significance of throwing out 94% of the
> > problems when developing a purportedly objective "IQ test".
>
> you seem to miss the principles behind test construction. 94% of "the
> test" was not thrown out.  "the test" did not exist before it was
> constructed.
>
>
> >
> > About the only way this could be justified is if you agreed right from
the
> > start that you wanted to develop a test which did NOT measure the
> > differences in mental skills between men and women.  And exactly who
would
> > agree to such a thing, and why would they do it?
>
> Where did you ever get the idea that that was the purpose of IQ testing?
>
> >
> > The irony is that what's called an "IQ test" is exactly what Wechsler
did
> > NOT develop, whereas what's called "the Graduate Record Examination"
which
> > contains numerous disclaimers that it's not an IQ test, IS.
>
> That is not consistent with Wescher's documentation.  Look at the
> original scales--they don't look much like the GRE.
>
>
> >
> > How else can it be explained that the average Black man taking the GRE
> > scores 42 points higher in Quantitative than the average Black woman?
Or
> > that the difference for Puerto Ricans is 59 points (men = 505 and women
=
> > 446)?  For Hispanics it's 74 points (542 vs. 468).  Mexicans 62 points
(516
> > vs. 454).  Whites 73 points (589 vs. 516).  Asians 68 points (643 vs.
575).
> >
> > This isn't an anomaly.  The pattern's repeated year after year.  If
anything
> > changed, GRE scores of American citizens have actually decreased
relative to
> > GRE scores of immigrants.
> >
> > Where it appears that Hispanic men score 15.8% higher than Hispanic
women,
> > the reality is that the base score is close to 298, because only a
handful
> > of Black women, the lowest scoring group, scored lower than that.  So
the
> > comparison of Hispanic men to Hispanic women is really 244 to 170 rather
> > than 542 to 468, which is more like a 44% difference.
> >
> > How could IQ tests possibly have missed such a huge difference in
> > fundamental skills that industry and universities believe are crucial to
> > potential employees?
>
> how is it that IQ scores continue to be a robust predictor of later
> performance?
>
>

Says who?  Wechsler?  And you trust statements like that from yoyos like
him?

If it's so "robust", then why's it incapable of detecting the difference in
mental aptitude between men and women, when men historically, from the
beginning of time, in every country on the Earth today, earn 42% more than
women?

If it's not "robust" enough to predict something as huge as that, then what
possible kind of "later performance" is it "robust" enough to predict?

If it was really that effective, then we wouldn't have needed test after
test, standard after standard, ACT, SAT, SAT II, SAT III, NAEP, IAEP, GRE,
MCAT, TIMSS, and on and on, would we?

It's much worse than a mere failure.  It's an intentional effort to
undermine our culture.

John Knight








More information about the Neur-sci mailing list