brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Shadow Dancer insomniac at winterslight.org
Fri Jul 19 16:16:22 EST 2002


"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:fEVZ8.8866$Fq6.717539 at news2.west.cox.net...
>
> "The 9th Witch" <appalachian_witch at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ah5h4v$qdq01$1 at ID-131540.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> > news:r0dcju48rkn9rrtcg9385hacfeak7ssf1i at 4ax.com...
> > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
> > > >> There are animals with more brain cells than humans have, no?
> > > >
> > > >Correct.  "no".  None of them.  Even 9 foot apes have brains a
quarter
> > the
> > > >size of human brains.  Dynasaurs had brains the size of an orange.
The
> > > >human brain is a quantum leap in size, quality, and output.
> > >
> > > The human brain is around 1400 grams. Porpoises have brains weighing
> > around
> > > 1700 grams.
> > > http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Size1.html
> > >
> > > Elephants and whales have significantly larger brains than humans
> > > http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Size5.html
> > > http://brainmuseum.org/Evolution/paleo/
> > > http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/animals/whale.html
> > > with elephants having brains 3 times the size of humans and sperm
whales
> > > having brains more than 6 times the size of humans (20 pounds).  Blue
> > whales
> > > have the largest brains
> > >
> > > lojbab
> >
> > "At two, humans have the most brain cells that they will ever have in
> their
> > lifetime.  If these cells are not used, they are simply deleted."
> > http://students.ou.edu/I/Feather.K.Inman-1/concepts.html
> >
> > "We now know that an infant's brain contains 100 billion cells, the most
> > brain cells a person will ever have."
> > http://www.nccic.org/pubs/mirrors/intro.html
> >
> >
> > How did infants score on your test, John?  According to your theory,
since
> > they have more brain cells than either men or women, they should have
> scored
> > much higher than either category.
> >
>
> You could only make such a silly observation if you lacked 3 1/2 billion
> brain cells from the start, which is the point:  male babies also have 3
1/2
> billion more brain cells than female babies, just as adult males have 3
1/2
> billion more than adult females.

I see that you entirely ignored her point, that babies are born with
essentially the same amount, regardles of sex (oh, check THIS out for
biology while you're at it - all fetuses begin life in the womb as FEMALE
till a damaged chromosome comes along and changes their growth to male.
That means you are the result of one damaged Y-chromosome).

You are also ignoring the very valid point that it isn't the number of brain
cells but how or whether they are USED.  Ever hear the expression "use it or
lose it"?  That is very true when it comes to the human brain.  It's just
too bad you allowed too big of a share of YOUR brain cells to die from lack
of intellectual use.

>
> The point you missed is that this is proof that the difference is by
design
> and not because of "discrimination" or some other silly feminazi theory.
>
> > "Women's brains are more tightly packed with cells in the area that
> controls
> > mental processes such as judgement, personality, planning and working
> > memory, researchers have discovered.
> > A team from McMaster University, Ontario, Canada, found that women have
up
> > to 15% more brain cell density in certain areas of the frontal lobe,
which
> > controls so-called higher mental processes. "
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1653000/1653687.stm
> >
>
> Is this why men score 18-50% higher than women on ever test ever devised,
> across races, nations, and continents, and have since Day One?

Is that why you keep mis-using copyrighted statistics to further your narrow
agenda?  I'm certain TIMSS and the National Center for Educational
Statistics won't be too happy to find out how you are abusing their
material, and without permission, to boot.

>
> > "Women are just as good at math as men. At Earlham, half the math majors
> are
> > women, and those women include some of our strongest majors. Half the
> > students in our elementary classes are women. A survey of recent
calculus
> > classes showed equal numbers of male and female students. The average
> female
> > student scored about half a letter grade better than the average male
> > student. At the faculty level, half of Earlham's math professors are
> women,
> > and our female faculty members have published more scholarly papers in
> > mathematics than have their male colleagues. To anyone believing that
> women
> > cannot do well at mathematics - or that men cannot do badly - our
> experience
> > offers abundant evidence to the contrary."
> >
> > http://www.math.earlham.edu/WomensBrains.html
>
> Did you even notice that this completely ignores performance? Just because
> half the students sitting in a classroom is women is not proof of anything
> except their ability to waddle to class and plant their big fat as.es in a
> chair.  Just because those teachers give girls a letter grade higher than
> they give boys (who score a standard deviation higher than on ALL
> *objective* tests), is proof that those teachers are too STUPID to even
> detect such huge differences in performance.

Did you even notice that your statement completely ignores the fact that it
is the percentage used, and how used, versus total number of brain cells,
that truly counts?

>
> Can you even imagine the mentality of a teacher teaching children all her
> life, never knowing that all boys across the world, throughout history,
> across all races, score a full standard deviation higher than girls in
many
> subjects?

No teacher worth his or her salt would agree with your fallacy.

>
> Why should we even permit such ignorant "teachers" to get anywhere near
our
> children?

We certainly won't permit you to teach our children hatred and lies.

>
> >
> > "Neanderthals had larger brains than we do, she pointed out, but
obviously
> > they weren't smarter."
> >
>
> How does she know that?  Did she test Neanderthal?  He left behind some
> excellent art, something that not a single nigger in Africa, with very
small
> brains, were ever able to accomplish.

Yes they were.  See what you're missing by being so racist?

>
> > "Overall, however, men lose slightly more brain cells than do women"
> >
> > http://www.csuchico.edu/pub/inside/archive/98_04_09/brain.html
> >
>
> Men could lose a billion more brain cells than women and still have an
extra
> 2 1/2 billion to play with--but "slightly more" is most likely nowhere
close
> to a billion, wouldn't you say?  Why are you quoting these typical
> nonsensical feminazi statements?

Doesn't matter how MANY.  It is the percentage used and how they are used.
This, as well as T9W's quoted statements, are not "feminazi" statements.
They are scientific fact - facts that refute your political agenda entirely.

>
> > "The exact reason for this difference is not known, but the opinion of
> > experts is that it is simply related to a larger body size in man (the
> more
> > cell muscles you have, more brain cells you need). This difference
should
> > not be interpreted as a difference in intelligence or memory."
> >
> > http://www.epub.org.br/cm/perguntas/031-how-many-cells.html
>
> This is precisely the absurd, silly, nonsensical, uneducated, ignorant,
> illogical "reasoning" we might expect from a 3 1/2 billion brain cell
> limited brain--so you know it's not true, don't you?  As already noted
above
> in your other absurd, silly, nonsensical, uneducated, ignorant, illogical
> statement, it takes PRECISELY the same amount of memory, computer power,
and
> brain cells to operate a human male baby's body as it does to operate an
> adult male body.
>
> Don't you ever check your work?

And this is what we expect from someone who wasted more than his share of
the brain cells he was born with - and devoted a high percentage of the rest
to hatred and bigotry.

It's amusing how you resort to petty insults when science slams you in the
face, and proves how deluded you are.

>
> > "At this point, researchers do not know how the structural differences
> > influence brain function. It's possible that male and female brains work
> at
> > a similar capacity but process information differently. For example, one
> > study shows that men and women perform equally well in a test that asks
> > subjects to read a list of nonsense words and determine if they rhyme.
> Yet,
> > imaging results found that women use areas on the right and left sides
of
> > the brain, while men only use areas on the left side to complete the
test.
>
> Also note that Wechsler found that men far outperform women on the 94% of
> the "IQ problems" which he eliminated from his "IQ test", which is clear
> evidence that women perform "equally" to men in only 6% of these problems,
> and my bet is that it was something like these "nonsense words".

There you go again, attempting to skew statistics to make yourself feel
better.  When will you realize how hopeless your agenda really is?  Get your
mind out of the 19th century and join the rest of us in the 21st.

>
> >       Other research suggests that, on average, the female brain
performs
> > better on some skills while the male brain executes other tasks at a
> higher
> > level. For example, tests show that women generally can recall lists of
> > words or paragraphs of text better than men. On the other hand, men
> usually
> > perform better on tests that require the ability to mentally rotate an
> image
> > in order to solve a problem. Mental rotation is thought to help people
> find
> > their way, according to researchers. Does that leave the majority of
women
> > lost? Obviously not. Scientists believe that women may rely on their
> memory
> > advantage and recall landmarks to find a destination."
> >
> > http://web.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/gender.brain.html
> >
> > Have a nice day. Or not. Your choice...
> >
> > T9W
>
> Which ignores that this difference in construction is precisely why men
have
> a 42% advantage over women in hand/eye-oriented Olympic events like
> springboard, or are one quarter as likely per mile driven to have an auto
> accident, or one third as likely per mile flown to have an airplane
> accident, or score 18-50% higher on ever standardized test which even
> feminazis have managed to create.
> http://christianparty.net/olympics.htm

More mis-use of copyrighted materials.  The original owners will not be
happy to find out what you have done.

>
> The fact that you're willing to accept this statement carte blanche,
without
>
> any statistical evidence to back it up, or even a quantification of some
> type to give you perspective, is evidence enough of your ability to be
> misled by intentionally misleading and erroneous statements like this.

She quoted plenty of solid, scientific evidence.  The part of your brain
which would've been responsible for comprehending such things was withered
long ago by your blinding hatred.  I still insist you'd better yourself by
seeking psychiatric therapy rather than constantly making yourself a target
of law enforcement.

>
> This is exactly the problem.  This is exactly why so many American girls
> went into the TIMSS test with the objective of providing the right answer,
> but came out having scored lower on the test than if they had merely
guessed
> http://christianparty.net/timssphysics.htm

Just can't handle quoting from the original source, can you.  That's because
there is corroborating materials which end up refuting your hypotheses.

>
> You girls were deceived.  You were deceived by some of the world's best
> experts at deception.  And you're obviously just as incapable of
recognizing
> why or who did it as you are at adequately verifying and carefully
> critiquing these above statements, which is exactly how feminist mass
> hysteria propagates.
>
> John Knight

Looks more like you were the one hopelessly decieved, and forced to live a
life colored by rampant mental illness, John Knight.  You truly can't handle
it when true, unbiased scientific evidence puts YOU in your place.

The Shadow Dancer





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list