Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
ef25147 at i-one.at
Sun Jul 21 15:07:32 EST 2002
I believe that intelligence and creativity, inventivity (?) does not depend
on the SIZE but the FUNCTION of the brain....
And on how you maintain the "hardware" (brain) biochemically, and how you
use the "software" (intellectual knowledge) in a kognitive way. Includes
being broadminded and open to new ideas and new paths.
Einstein was a creative genius, but he had a little brain when compared to
many rather average individuals that lived at the same time.
OhSojourner <ohsojourner at aol.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
ce660175.0207210645.959fcfa at posting.google.com...
> John Knight wrote:
> >"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message news
> >>Both you and Mr. Knight are attempting to maintain that because of
> >>these "averages", either the exceptional individuals must apparently
> >>not exist; their feats and accomplishments are invalid for one
> >>or another, or that it's dangerous to society to suggest that their
> >>birth-group as a whole be allowed to have open access to certain
> >>opportunities, privileges, freedoms and rights.
> >>...So, in other words, you are trying to use these averages to
> >>justify bigotry against individuals NO MATTER THEIR CAPABILITY.
> >It's hard to tell if you're just too STUPID to be able to comprehend
> >single word that was posted, or if you post such things just to
> >attempt to confuse the issue. Either way, they sure are great debate
> >tactics, aren't they?
> >So this reply isn't for you--it's only to set the record straight.
> >NOBODY claims that "exceptional individuals must apparently not
> >exist". This is a LIE.
> I am inferring that you mean the "exceptional individuals" can only be
> >We are the ones noting that exceptional individuals DO exist. The
> >point you don't seem to grasp, or don't want to admit, is that the
> >real exceptional individuals aren't getting recognition because
> >affirmative action hirees are handed all the resources on a silver
> >platter, which does nobody any good.
> However, according to the replies you have written, "Affirmative
> Action" is the sole reason ANY woman achieved recognition in *any*
> field at *any* time -- *including* the nineteenth century. It appears
> that you don't wish to acknowledge the idea that some of those
> "exceptional individuals" might have two X chromosomes. I provided a
> list of mostly pre-1960s-era "accomplished women" and without even
> bothering to take a closer look, you dismissed them as probably having
> attained their positions due to "affirmative action".
> Your point about the unfairness of forcing 50-50 parity is understood.
> Yet you wish to go further and dismiss every last female individual
> who has ever worked to accomplish something, as having gotten there
> through less than honest or valid means. Instead of letting the debate
> drop,and explain that you were merely trying to point out why
> Affirmative Action is a bad idea, you went further and attempted to
> make excuses for why you thought none of the women in the list were
> worthy of being considered "accomplished".
> >In terms of intellectual accomplishments, the high scores of East
> >Asians suggests that they should have most of the exceptional
> >individuals, and their recent accomplishments in technology, family
> >incomes, social stability, and personal savings is entirely
> >consistent. They are so far up the curve, that the most exceptional
> >White American women don't even reach their median scores, which is a
> >very good indication that there's something awry about all this
> >hooplah about Curie and Hopper. GRE shows that the upper sixth of
> >American White women score 632, which is 11 points LOWER than the
> >median Asians in the US, and they score much lower than Asians in
> >[read: the very brightest White American women are the dull knives in
> >the drawer compared to the MEDIAN Asian man].
> >We actually do know what you mean by "bigotry against individuals NO
> >MATTER THEIR CAPABILITY". What you mean is that, no matter how low
> >American girls scored in TIMSS Math and Science, regardless of the
> >fact that they scored lower than if they'd just guessed on ONE third
> >of TIMSS physics problems, even though the creme de la creme of women
> >who took GRE quantitative scored 127 points lower than Asian
> >only because of "bigotry" that women don't get 50% of all patents
> >rather than 4%.
> Mr. Knight: the measure of success goes BEYOND merely having the
> ability to score well on a test. What the TIMSS test DOESN'T measure
> are *other* highly important factors such as: motivation, enthusiasm,
> discipline, willingness to work hard, ability to work well with
> people, interest in subject matter, ideas, inspiration, creativity,
> You wrote:
> >Women got 4% of the patents last year, and my bet is that 95% of
> >SHOULD have gone to men.
> ...Apparently you feel you need to make guesses about even that 4%,
> that somehow even the majority of those 4% couldn't possibly have done
> it themselves. ...With of course, absolutely NO evidence other than
> your fallacious guesswork based on a test which does NOT take other
> factors into account such as insight, inspiration, and creativity. One
> can possess these attributes independent of a working knowledge of
> mathematices and physics, and I am assuming a patent is awarded to
> ORIGINAL inventions, correct? ...Original inventions that were
> original because someone was inspired with an IDEA, and that isn't
> something that can be easily measured by test-taking.
> >Dead wrong. John Knight
> Admittedly I came into the thread late, and did not read all the way
> back. However, I think many of us here can remember this proposal you
> ...and this one:
> Now certainly, it is an injustice to force affirmative action/ 50-50
> parity that excludes more capable and deserving individuals who happen
> to be men. However, it doesn't help your argument when the motive
> behind it seems to be one of overt sexism and bigotry.
More information about the Neur-sci