brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at usa.com
Sat Jul 20 19:10:30 EST 2002


"Jet" <thatjetnospam at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D38CE03.F8173C72 at yahoo.com...
>
>
> John Knight wrote:
> >
> > "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> > news:f3bcju8u4kmc3k3engod0496aqc835q0ku at 4ax.com...
> > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
> > > >> > 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, then
> > > >> > some of them HAD to guess.
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, that's a reasonable assumption, but so what? Some people
probably
> > > >> guess on every multiple choice question on ever test.
> > > >
> > > >You and I agree.  LeChevalier is an idiot.  He said, and I quote:
"we
> > don't
> > > >know that people guess randomly when faced with a test question they
do
> > not
> > > >understand.  Indeed, we know that they do not".
> > > >
> > > >This is not the stupidest thing he's ever said.  And he'll deny even
said
> > it
> > > >as time goes by.  But only a real moron "thinks" like this.
> > >
> > > I see no reason to deny I said it.  I believe it is true.  People are
> > > incapable of behaving truly randomly.  More likely, if someone were to
> > have
> > > no idea what the answers were, but wanted to guess, they would mark
the
> > > answers NON-randomly, like marking "A" for all of them or repeating a
> > > pattern.
> > >
> >
> > I don't blame you for trying to retreat from your stupid remark, so let
me
> > repeat it for you:
> >
> > "This makes the assumption that those who know nothing guess randomly.
IN
> > reality, we don't know that people guess randomly when faced with a test
> > question they do not understand.  Indeed, we know that they do not."
> >
> > Note that you said "we KNOW that they do not" guess randomly.
> >
> > "WE" "know" no such thing.  "WE" know that when students are confronted
with
> > a question which they don't have even a clue about, and they STILL
answer
> > that question, that the only thing they could possibly do is "guess
> > randomly", but I agree that *YOU* will probably never "know" that.
>
> Wow, are you dumb. It's possible to know *something* about a problem,
> and eliminate a wrong answer or two.
>

Sure, and from the scores, we can tell that American girls DID answer the
wrong question fairly consistently.

But they also bumped into problems that they knew absolutely nothing about,
and thus guessed randomly, because their responses were spread evenly across
all four or five answers.

That is called "random".  Nobody needs a random number generator to make a
random selection from four undecipherable answers as the moron lojbab
claims, does he?


> >
> > > >You don't seem to understand the point either.  If *all* students
just
> > > >*guessed* on a four part multiple choice question, and didn't have a
clue
> > > >about what the answer was, they would have gotten 25% of them correct
> > just
> > > >by chance.
> > >
> > > But the converse is NOT true, that "if just 25% of them got the
question
> > > correct, then all students just guessed".
> > >
> >
> > What kind of a freak are you?  It IS true.  It's a basic FACT of
probability
> > and
> > statistics that if you have a four choice answer, and exactly 25% of
> > students select the correct answer, that this could be nothing BUT a
random
> > selection.
>
> You dumb ass! If I turn a hose on my car, I know it will get wet, that
> doesn't mean that if my car is wet, I  know turned a hose on it!
>

Many of us used to think that feminazis retorted with such nonsensical
answers just to try to cause confusion in a discussion, but now their known
performance on reasoning problems  makes it quite clear that they really
don't know how nonsensical such statements are.

Spraying your car with a hose has no relationship whatsoever to the
probability of selecting a particular answer by chance, but it's crystal
clear that you'll never understand that statement.

> This is particularly true when all four of the answers are as close to 25%
> > as they were.
> >
> > If 26% selected the correct answer, then 74% got the WRONG answer, and
the
> > obvious scenario when there is such a low correct response rate is that
> > students GUESSED.  This is too close to the standard error to be
> > significant, though.
> >
> > If 30% got it right, then 70% got it wrong, and it's very rare that 70%
of
> > students would have been taught the wrong thing.  Certainly it happens,
but
> > if the answers are spread evenly across the other options, then it's
> > inevitable that many of them just RANDOMLY guessed.
>
> Says the person who claimed a negative number of people got the answer
> right without guessing.

You don't even know how to accurately paraphrase the original statement, so
by continuing to repeat this disinformation, you're only making yourself
look silly.


>
> >
> > > >The only way for them to get less than 25% correct would be to know
> > > >something about the problem and select the wrong answer on purpose,
or to
> > > >have the wrong information in the first place.
> > >
> > > A slight dawn of understanding.  Of course when they "select the wrong
> > answer
> > > on purpose", they don't think it is the wrong answer.
> > >
> >
> > No, there was no dawn here.  There would have been a dawn if you'd
realized
> > that American girls literally cannot score lower than if they'd just
guessed
> > on a THIRD of the problems unless they knew enough about the subject to
> > subconsciously select the wrong answer (unless they were taught wrong in
the
> > first place, which is silly, because they were taught in the same
classroom
> > as boys who didn't do this).  http://christianparty.net/timssphysics.htm
> >
> > On one or two questions we could chalk it up to an unknown anomaly.  On
a
> > THIRD of the questions, you have a condition that can't just be swept
under
> > the carpet.
>
> What is the answer to H0?, Give an explanation.
>

Look it up yourself.

> >
> > > >If 30% of them got it correct, this doesn't mean that 30% of them
knew
> > the
> > > >answer.
> > >
> > > It might or it might not.
> > >
> > >   If they didn't have the wrong information, or didn't make an error,
> > > >then of the 30% who got it correct, 23% would have gotten it correct
> > because
> > > >they guessed, and only 7% would have gotten it correct because they
> > > >understood the problem [ x = total guesses, 0.25x = correct guesses
0.75x
> > =
> > > >wrong guesses = 70%, x = .93, 0.25x = .23 = correct guesses, correct
> > total
> > > >answers of 30% - 23% correct guesses = 7% (those who knew the
problem)].
> > >
> > > You cannot determine the percentage who guessed.  You persist in
assuming
> > > that everyone who got the answer wrong guessed randomly, and there is
no
> > > evidence of this.
> > >
> >
> > Lookit, if they scored *exactly* the same as if they'd just guessed,
then
> > ALL you have is proof that this is what they did.
>
> No, dumb ass, you do not.
>

Then what do you think this is proof of?

>  If they scored
> > significantly higher than the 3% standard error added onto the 25%
they'd
> > get just for guessing [read: significantly higher than 28%], only then
do
> > you have evidence that more than guessing was involved.  If they scored
50%,
> > and the other 50% answered ONE of the wrong questions, then you may have
> > evidence that they didn't guess, but actually misunderstood the problem,
or
> > were not taught properly.  But if that 50% is spread evenly over the
other
> > three answers, then you have statistical evidence that 50% of them
GUESSED.
> >
> > > >> This would only make sense if everyone in the group knew they
didn't
> > > >> know, and just started guessing.
> > > >
> > > >Which was the case for many of the questions that American girls
> > answered.
> > > >You can't score that low, consistently, if you know something about
the
> > > >subject
> > >
> > > They did NOT score "that low, consistently"
> > >
> >
> > Count the questions.  Tell me what percentage of them scored lower than
if
> > they'd just guessed http://christianparty.net/timssphysics.htm
>

The answer is "ONE THIRD".  Another ONE THIRD scored very close to zero, or
to the standard error.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list