brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Wed Jul 17 22:24:09 EST 2002


"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:7hmbjukf7qep55vfv5384b1abvf2cta56j at 4ax.com...
>> 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.

That is indeed what you are.

>> 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 chosen
>> with equal frequency within the expected margins to support a "random"
>> selection.  This would among other things require one to know how many girls
>> selected each answer, and those numbers are not published - only the numbers
>> 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.

That is indeed what you are.

>> >> Then the article makes the shockingly stupid conclusion that NONE of the
>> >> 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 of
>> >them understood the problem?
>>
>> You can't.  There is no data available to make such a calculation, and since
>> 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.

That is indeed what you are.

>> >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 disproves
>> your assumptions about guessing.
>
>Wrong and wrong.

That is indeed what you are.

>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 are beyond ad hominem.  You have no character to assassinate.  You have
to be a human being to be subject to ad hominem, and you are a subhuman
nincompoop who pulls numbers out of his strange orifice.

I use thought, logic, and discussion to show other people how incapable of
reason you are.  Their responses show that I communicated quite well with
them.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list