brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at usa.com
Sun Jul 14 14:57:54 EST 2002


"Hope Munro Smith" <hopems at mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:hopems-1307021051520001 at cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com...
> In article <3D2F9A44.2503D0E9 at gwi.net>, "Mark D. Morin"
> <mdmpsyd at PETERHOOD69gwi.net> wrote:
>
> > John Knight wrote:
> > >
> > > "Angilion" <angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:3d2f507c.20059553 at news.freeserve.net...
> > > > [several groups cut to avoid excessive crossposting]
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:19:57 -0500, "Shadow Dancer"
> > > > <insomniac at 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 That's obviously out of date - the general belief nowdays is that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 at newsguy.com in 9miftl0239r at 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://christianparty.net/gregeometry.htm
> > >
> > > http://christianparty.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://christianparty.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.

This bears repeating.  The putative BEST of the BEST of women in education
scored almost three standard deviations lower than the MEDIAN of 32,810 men
engineers, and almost four standard deviations lower than the top tenth
percentile of men engineers.  But that's not all--they also scored 130
points [more than a standard deviation] lower than ALL 98,314 American men,
and 229 points [two standard deviations] lower than ALL 51,261foreign men,
who took GRE in 1997.

The creme de la creme of women intellectuals are the 12,042 women physics
majors who scored 638, with a standard deviation of 115, which is still 37
points lower than the *average* of ALL the 512,61 foreign men who took GRE
in 1997.

Can you even comprehend how huge this gap is at the HIGH end of female
intelligence?  Can you interpolate that in your mind to the rest of the
female population?

If you can't, and if you're really worried that somehow the gap in the
intellectual skills of the rest of Americans isn't reflected by the gap in
GRE scores, then you need to investigate TIMSS which shows an identical
pattern http://christianparty.net/timss.htm for ALL Americans.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list