brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at
Wed Jul 17 17:43:20 EST 2002

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at> wrote in message
news:7hmbjukf7qep55vfv5384b1abvf2cta56j at
> "John Knight" <johnknight at> wrote:
> >> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> > "John Knight" <johnknight at> wrote:
> >> > >Believe me, Parse, you don't need algebra or calculus to calculate
> >> > >statistical average for American girls in TIMSS math.  Even
adjusting for
> >> > >guesses doesn't require anything but some very basic probability
> >> > >
> >> > >It's as simple as this:
> >> > >
> >> > >If you're asked a question which has four multiple choice answers,
and you
> >> > >haven't got a clue what the answer is, what is the probability of
getting a
> >> > >correct answer?  Since you have once chance in four of getting the
> >> > >answer, your probability is 0.25.  If you guess on two questions,
> >> > >probability is .5, and three it's .75, and four, it's 1.0.
> >> > >
> >> > >In other words, over the long run, or over millions of test takers,
> >> > >on such a question will yield 25% correct answers, or conversely,
> >> > >fourth answer will be correct.
> >> >
> >> > This makes the assumption that those who know nothing guess randomly.
> >> > reality, we don't know that people guess randomly when faced with a
> >> > question they do not understand.  Indeed, we know that they do not.
> >> >
> >
> >Wrong.  Dead wrong.  You could make that argument about one question, but
> >when the pattern is repeated over and over again, then you can detect a
> >pattern:  American girls scored lower on many questions than if they'd
> >guessed because they didn't have a clue about what the answer was.  Many
> >these questions had zero misses [read: 0% failed to provide an answer at
> >all], which means you're nuts to even hint that "Indeed, we know that
> >do not"  "guess randomly".
> >
> >The ONLY time you could apply that argument is when a large percentage of
> >them answered correctly, but even then, if 0% failed to respond at all,
> >some of them HAD to guess.
> You have no logical basis to conclude that *any* kid guessed on *any*
> question of TIMSS.  There is *no* statistical basis on which to conclude
> same.  The number not responding is totally irrelevant.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

> The best evidence for guessing (which would not prove it, but it would be
> evidence) would be if all of the answers, correct and incorrect, were
> with equal frequency within the expected margins to support a "random"
> selection.  This would among other things require one to know how many
> selected each answer, and those numbers are not published - only the
> for all American kids.  A couple of questions have approximately equal
> distribution among the 4 answers, but not many.  And guessing does not
> explain instances where more than half of each gender got the question
> correct, nor D12 where fewer than 17% got the question correct.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

> >> Then the article makes the shockingly stupid conclusion that NONE of
> >> girls who got the answer right understood the problem!
> >
> >If guessing on a multiple choice question would yield 25% correct, but
> >American girls only got 5% correct, then how would YOU calculate how many
> >them understood the problem?
> You can't.  There is no data available to make such a calculation, and
> TIMSS was not trying to measure "understanding the problem", there is no
> reason to fault them for not providing such data (Even if we had a clear
> definition of what you mean by "understood the problem")

Man, you're batting a thousand.  Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
> >> Isn't it odd that someone who is harping on math ability doesn't seem
> >> realize that 17 and 6 are both lower than 25? :)
> >
> >What's your point, J?  Who exactly do you think made the point that
> >17% correct on a four part multiple guess problem is a lower score than
> >everyone just guessed?
> >
> >What part of that don't you understand (other than the typical and
> >infinitely STUPID statement by lojbab that no students guessed)?
> You haven't explained how 17% or 6% correct is even possible on a multiple
> choice problem given the assumptions you made about guessing. This
> your assumptions about guessing.
> lojbab

Wrong and wrong.

Well, now, it's clear as a bell what it is about "liberals" that they're so
incapable of thought, discussion, debate, logic, or even basic
communication, and always feel compelled to resort to ad hominems and
character assassination.

You're literally uneducable, lojbab.  There's obviously nothing anyone can
teach you about it at this moment in your life, and I doubt if there ever
was a time when you were capable of learning it.

There may not be one other person on this feminized forum who does
comprehend that you managed to 14 LIES or false statements into 4 short
paragraphs, but that's exactly what you did.

This was a classic.  I *really* appreciate that belly laugh.  Whoever could
have guessed that your drab posts are some of the best comedy around!

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list