brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at
Tue Jul 16 15:34:34 EST 2002

"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at> wrote in message
news:ce660175.0207151836.317f32e8 at
> John Knight wrote:
> >"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at> wrote in message news
> >>FWIW, if women were not even allowed to attend college, then we
> would
> >>not have had the contributions of those individuals who have indeed
> >>contributed to society, Nobel Prize or not. Here's an example for
> >>you:
> >>
> >>Candace Pert, Phd, was a grad student when she discovered the opiate
> >>receptor, the cellular bonding site for endorphins. This discovery
> >>was a breakthrough in the way we understand the workings of the
> human
> >>mind and behavior. In fact, although it was she who made this
> >>discovery, it was her male superior who took the credit (and the
> >>Nobel Prize). This is because scientific research work is often done
> >>in teams, with the head of the team representing the whole, as well
> >>as internal politics and so forth that affect the decision-making
> >>process of who will be the recipient of the award.
> [Note: I stand corrected on this, it was actually the Lasker Prize,
> and not the Nobel Prize, although a Nobel nomination was considered].
> >Why is it that when men win a Nobel Prize or get a patent on their
> >own, it's ok to claim that men get most of the prizes and awards, but
> >when a man let's a woman on his research team, it's all of a sudden
> >the woman who "deserved" the award?
> >No wonder men don't want women around in the lab.
> Point being, her work was a contribution to society, whether or not
> she was a recipient of any prize.
> >Women got 4% of the patents last year, and my bet is that 95% of
> those
> >SHOULD have gone to men.
> WTF?  Now you're saying that people shouldn't be entitled to ownership
> of their own idea or invention?
> FWIW, an original invention need not be that complicated.
> >Why? Because women are too far down the bell
> >curve to really have the intellect to do this
> >
> Circular logic again, I see.
> (Next you'll be saying that female cartoonists are impossible...)

I suspect that any possible "contribution to society" made by Candace
doesn't even come close to justifying the cost to get her there.  It's
probably like women combat pilots, who've already crashed and destroyed more
expensive military jets and pilots than we've lost in combat for the last
quarter of a century.  If we keep letting women fly, we won't need a war to
justify increased military spending--they'll wipe out the entire Air Force
all by themselves

To be specific, it was partly because of women that the raw cost of
education in this country as a percent of GDP almost doubled while it even
decreased slightly in countries like Japan and Korea (who BLEW us away in
8th grade TIMSS, scoring more than 100 points higher than us).  Had  SAT
scores not plunged 98 points, our "education" system wouldn't be on the
endangered species list, but as it is, it's more of a third world
"education" system than real third world countries have.  That was an extra
$8 trillion cost that women like Candace couldn't ever hope to recover.
That money is lost and this nation is indebted to the hilt because of
efforts that put her in a position she didn't deserve and probably wouldn't
have gotten without affirmative action

Should I appreciate her contribution?  No.  And neither should you.

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list