brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at usa.com
Sun Jul 14 11:20:42 EST 2002


"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message news:<3D2F69E4.1020304 at NOSPAMgwi.net>...
> John Knight wrote:
> > "Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D2EA20B.6040504 at NOSPAMgwi.net...
> > 
> >>John Knight wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at NOSPAMgwi.net> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>The mere mention of the differences between the sexes, in your mind, is
> >>>>>"prejudice"!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Do we have that right?
> >>>>
> >>>>No.
> >>>>You are exercising circular reasoning.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Is this your final answer?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>John Knight
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>ps--and now that you've concluded that "prejudice" is involved,
> >>>>
> >>>>Prejudice has been involved for millenia.  Prejudice exists despite
> >>>>evidence and prejudice is what blinds people to evidence. Prejudice
> >>>>evokes the circular reasoning that you have been so good at. Prejudice
> >>>>is independant of data--show me the data fool.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, it's pretty clear that you're just trolling now.
> >>>
> >>>You haven't got the slightest idea if anyone's "prejudiced" regarding
> >>
> > their
> > 
> >>>opinion, whether it's their opinion of the data, or of the crooks who
> >>>manipulated it.  You didn't level that charge because you wanted to
> >>
> > avoid or
> > 
> >>>critique any possible prejudice.  You levelled that charge only because
> >>
> > you
> > 
> >>>(and I) know that it's impossible for you to defend your position.
> >>>
> >>>You keep repeating the mantra about "measurement errors" of one of the
> >>>simplest things in the world to measure,
> >>
> >>Who is trolling? What do you know about measuring brain volume or number
> >>of neurons in a brain?  Both are exceptionally unreliable.
> > 
> > 
> > If it was this unreliable, then r-squared for brain size versus GRE scores
> > would be nowhere NEAR 0.8795.  The ONLY thing that could be gained by even
> > more reliable measurements would be an increase in r-squared.
> 
> you don't understand the concept of reliability. It is scientificly 
> dishonest to take the measurement that yeilds the best correlation and 
> then throw out the rest of the data--as your links suggest.  Your 0.8795 
> is a figment of your imagination.
> 

Your argument is that there are measurement errors.  But if that were
true, then correlation would be much lower than 0.8795.  And even IF
there are measurement errors, they clearly aren't significant enough
to interfere with the correlation.

You can bet that Philippe Rushton didn't pick and choose the numbers
that fit the curve, because he attempted to correlate brain size to
"IQ scores" rather than to GRE scores.  He was surprised at the low
r-squared he got from doing this.  The error was that IQ scores were
intentionally manipulated when Wechsler et. al. threw out 94% of the
IQ problems which are EXACTLY the most important problems.

They weren't removed from the GRE, nor the TIMSS.  

> 
> > 
> > Again, the only outlier is the Black man, and if he's removed from the
> > calculations, r-squared gets very close to 1.0.  You *must* know that you
> > cannot get better correlation than that.
> > 
> > Where are the measurement errors?
> 
> brain measurements
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> >>>without ever pointing out
> >>>specifically where you believe these measurement errors are.  This was
> >>>simply an attempt to discredit what you know (or at least sense) to be a
> >>>FACT.
> >>>
> >>>You're willing to go to great lengths to attempt to refute the
> >>
> > correlation
> > 
> >>>between brain size and GRE scores, no matter what the facts are.
> >>
> >>The fact is, there is a robust correlation between age and brain volume.
> >>If age is not controlled for, you can not say anything about between sex
> >>differences.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > This is patently false, and since it's already been explained to you, it's
> > not clear if you're just trolling, or if you really don't understand how
> > inconsequential age and brain size are to the correlation we're discussing.
> > 
> > Let's try this a different way.  Even IF "there is a robust correlation
> > between age and brain volume", you cannot also ignore that there is also a
> > "robust" correlation between brain volume and GRE scores, 
> 
> a finding reported at a single site. not published, not reviewed, using 
> data that were sorted through to find optimal numbers.  Point to a 
> published piece of literature, in a peer reviewed journal that supports 
> the above assertion.
> 

Guess what?  I don't care WHAT's been published. Do you know why? 
Because what I've read from the MORONS who now get PhDs doesn't
deserve a second of my time.  It's precisely this "published research"
from affirmative action graduates with an amoral agenda which misled
educators and politicians (and the public) in the first place. 
Publishing it would DISCREDIT it.  The simple fact is that TIMSS
demonstrated that most men in this country ARE capable of sorting
through the feminazi bs without having to see it published, at the
same time that it demonstrated precisely why feminazis are not capable
of doing that http://christianparty.net/timssk09.htm

> 
> which means that
> > as brain volume increases, so do GRE scores.  Any adjustments for
> > measurement errors for increased brain volume would be cancelled out by the
> > increase in GRE scores, and you'd be back to r-squared = .8795
> > 
> > But since you haven't even attempted to quantify this "robust correlation",
> > it should be pointed out that after the age of 20, average brain volume
> > remains virtually FIXED by race and sex.
> 
> heh?  you are disregarding the past twenty years of research?  The rate 
> of shrinkage by age is close to "fixed" but even then, there's a lot of 
> variation.  LOOK at an MRI of a 90 year old brain and compare it to that 
> of a 20 year old.  Even you should be able to see a difference.
> 

The point you keep ignoring, probably because you don't understand the
futility of your argument, is that adjusting for any "shrinkage" in
brain size is NOT necessary in the first place, because correlation is
already remarkable.  The other point is that adjusting for "shrinkage"
could not possibly reduce r-squared, because it's inevitible that if
brain size and GRE scores are correlated (which they obviously are),
and if there really is some significant "shrinkage" that needs to be
considered, that r-squared would *increase*.

You can deny, deny, deny all you want.  Your argument gets weaker the
longer you fail to demonstrate how you think there are "measurement
errors" in the fact of an r-squared of almost 0.9.

John Knight



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list