Re: Differences in Aptitude


abb wrote:
And now this again:

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/mathfig1.gif

You cut it obviously, but it shows that there are solid biological
reasons why women were and still are simply less capable on average.

Your 'offering' did not show that tho.

Yes, it does precisely that.

It showed a scale where women
were higher at some points and lower at others.

Higher meaning the size of the group, not capacity. The math capacity
is reflected on the horizontal axis.

That you do not know how to interpret a Gauss curve (a.k.a "normal
distribution" curve) is quite telling.

There is no study (including the one you offered) showing that women
are not able to compete with men in math, your attempt at disparagement
aside.

The blue curve (men) being higher on the right side of the graph than
the red curve (women) means that the group of particular math capacity,
say, at 2 standard deviations from the center, is that more numerous,
i.e. the group of men that have this particular level of capabilities
is about twice more numerous than the group of women of the same
capacity.

abb....you can manipulate graphs to show almost anything. :-) Most
testing out there shows that women and men are 1) more alike than
different in most abilities, and 2) that any slight difference that
does occur is too small to affect what they do in life. The Bell Curve
folks simply have a vested interest in MANaging women's roles and the
opportunities for people of color.

Since doing all the innovative and advanced stuff requires being pretty
high on this scale, this is the best explanation why the inventors and
scientists and the highest performing people in history have been men -
and that is not dependent on cultural or "discrimination" factors no
matter how hard you want to believe.

The old nature vs nurture debate has been out there for a very long
time, and I find it amusing that you think one MANipulated graph can
change that. :-) In the end, I'm convinced that nurture has much more
to do with it. However, you are free to believe as you will.

And, I didn't cut anything. Plus, if women have been kept back (and
they have) it would
make sense they would do less well.

Except if they have less innate capacity, which this massive study has
shown - I would not call sample of 73 thousand people as "unrepresentative".

Ah, but I don't think your little wiggle test addresses actual innate
capacity, but rather the capacity built over centuries of being held
back. IOW, we evolve. Women who have been held back will tend to
evolve with that element.

And no, it has little to do with training: there isn't much one can do
to enhance one's own IQ/other cognitive abilities in tests like these
and it is not dependent on "self-esteem" either.

IQ tests may not measure exactly what YOU THINK they do, and without
including an EQ or emotional quotient, do not, obviously test the
innate capacity of a whole, complete person. MANiputlation of these
tests is done to give bigots an excuse to be bigots, nothing more.

Training can enhance cognitive abilities a little bit for a short time,
but the effect is disappearing quite quickly. And even then it's tiny
in comparison to massive differences between men and women at high
capacity levels.

It's inborn. You have it or you don't.

You mean like the white gene? :-) Again, you're free to be a bigot
and attempt to use MANipulated testing practices to explain your
bigotry, but keep in mind that, as we evolve, more information will
come out against your theory. More already has.

No, it doesn't stand to reason, it only stands to feminist mythology.
Which is on it way out, due to factors including but not limited to
this:

Ah, but I have already PROVEN beyond doubt that women HAVE been
shortchanged in being denied equal opportunities and rights in voting,
working and educating, and even in matters of property rights and over
their own bodies.

Except that you have not proven anything, you have merely lied over and
over again - e.g. with voting the franchise has historically
shortchanged men as well as women, giving vote only to rich landowners
for example.

There is no discrimination against men based on sex, abb. Women were
denied these things, not based on land ownership, but rather, based on
them being women. It's not the same thing, you see.

Given that women typically vote badly, a small bit of delay was actually not that unreasonable.

So you want to MANipulate the vote the same way you want to MANipulate
testing?
:-) That's very telling. Of course, women don't much care if YOU
think they vote "badly". It's simply not your call.



Yes, women getting lots of useless "degrees" like liberal arts and
other bull*** that is worthless for doing real jobs in marketplace,
because women apparently lack the following skills NOT due to cultural
reasons:

:-) Sounds an awful lot like sour grapes to me.

Women are advancing,

They're not advancing. Merely the standards have been reduced, e.g. the
educational standards, which makes the impression that women are
"advancing". The requirements are watered down to make them
"inclusive", that's all. Women still fail the test of real world, as
the recent posting of Google being unable to find women engineers to
work in IT in Australia has demonstrated.

Ah, so you must be connor's puppetmaster. Good to know. And as more
women become interested in engineering, Google will have fewer
problems. Besides, I didn't know that nerds like you and connor were
as well educated as doctors , lawyers, and scientists. :-)


buying their own houses,

Yeah, because no sane man wants to live with a lawyer bitch:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Maureen2.shtml

Why bother living with a shrill mediocrity like Dowd really? Best to
avoid those airheads with useless degrees who _think_ they are smart.
Marrying a nurse or a secretary is much better option. Two New Year
Eve's parties back I've been introduced to this single woman, English
teacher by profession, by her female friend (who wants to get her
hooked up with some man). After having pleasant conversation for some
time she started talking shrill at me, saying literally "men suck, men
are hopeless" (I am not making this up).

Hehehehehe! You see, women really don't care what you think of them
and Dowd was making that very clear in her article. You can accept
women as they are or leave them be. It doesn't matter. Today, women
design their own lives so when your boss tells you what to do, why not
surprise her with your graph...I'd love to know how she responds. :-)



.