Re: Differences in Aptitude

Hyerdahl napisal(a):
abb wrote:

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


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. :-)

Look, airhead: Gauss curve, or some kind of probability distribution
derived either from math or from empirical research is about the most
standard way of presenting experimental data. There's nothing special
about it, you just don't have the clue about it apparently. Any
sociologist or economist, even a psychologist (who often get a bit of
trainining in statistics) can immediately recognize that curve and they
typically know well how to interpret it.

I do realize that testing reality, real world, finding empirical data,
as opposed to blabbering your prejudices pulled out of depths of
squishy and sappy imagination is a concept very alien to feminists.
Nevertheless, if you want to even enter this competition, you have to
get your mind wrapped around such weird concepts as probability
distribution.

Unless, of course, feminism is completely baseless and detached from
real world.

Most
testing out there shows that women and men are 1) more alike than
different in most abilities,

Can you name any? Because I bet there's 90% chance you have not read a
single piece of good research in your life. By research I mean again
something derived from testing real world, not a bunch of feminists
meeting together and letting their standard paranoias loose.

and 2) that any slight difference that
does occur is too small to affect what they do in life.

No, the differences are not only significant at higher levels of
aptitude, they are massive there. Since you obviously deliberately lie
against the evidence, you don't want to notice that the blue curve is
quite significantly higher than the red curve on the right hand side of
the graph to men being more naturally competitive as article in The
Economist shows - unless you think 8-9 years old boys and girls are
somehow 100% product of socialization - et voila, the feminist dogma of
"glass ceiling" supposedly forced on women by society falls apart.

And even if they were small, even the small differences can be very
significant in practice, since all it takes is a slight advantage in
the competitive process like job selection. It doesn't matter if I am
98% as good as the other guy trying to get this job, he's going to get
it and I won't. Silver medals are almost worthless in real world.

?The Bell Curve
folks simply have a vested interest in MANaging women's roles and the
opportunities for people of color.

"Bell Curve" of Charles Murray per se doesn't have much to do with
standard statistics, which above is, in particular Project Talent was.
You blabber the same nonsense over and over again - I know that since
you are obviously religious type believing in your dogma no matter what
empirical evidence shows you are not going to stray from your emotional
dogma. But more and more people out there wake up to the fact they've
been simply emotionally blackmailed by your kind.


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. :-)

Your whining gets worn out. Well of course, it's all evil Satan of
Patriarchy manipulating, excuse me, MANipulating everything. This
pathetic whining cannot distort plain scientific evidence no matter how
much paranoidal innuendo you produce.

I could just as well explain your silly behavior by "feminist cabal" -
but I am not doing that, since I don't want to sink to your low level.

In the end, I'm convinced that nurture has much more
to do with it. However, you are free to believe as you will.

Oh thank you, you are so generous! Am I really free to believe that?
Oh my God, err, Goddess, I am so grateful that I am allowed by your
Feminist Lowness to believe as I 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,

I wouldn't call battery of 26 cognitive tests

but rather the capacity built over centuries of being held
back.

Cognition doesn't depend on nurture, airhead. If it were dependent on
nurture, a wide range of intellectual skills in kids would not be found
across the entire economic spectrum. Poor kids would be almost
uniformly dumb, and kids from wealthy households with lots of education
would be almost uniformly intelligent, while that is not true - the
Gauss curve applies there as well, the distribution of talents among
kids from poor and wealthy families is the same normal distribution
(well, almost "normal", strictly speaking the empirical distributions
have "thick tails", it's called leptocurtosis in mathematical jargon).

IOW, we evolve. Women who have been held back will tend to
evolve with that element.

IOW, you blabber what you want to blabber even though evidence shows
something exactly opposite.


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,

EQ has nothing to do with mathematical aptitude, capability to do the
hard intellectual stuff, airhead. Strictly speaking it wasn't IQ that
was measured in Project Talent, those were different cognitive
abilities. Asians are known to have greater spatial imagination for
example. There might be differences in interpretation of data from
Project Talent, but it's not about "EQ".

do not, obviously test the
innate capacity of a whole, complete person.

That wasn't the subject, airhead. Aerospace engineers are not selected
on basis of being interesting people or people with very good hearts.
They are (or at least supposed to be) selected on basis of INTELLECTUAL
CAPABILITY to do the job properly. Or else aircrafts fall from the sky.
Whether the inept engineer was "whole, complete person" is of no
relevance to anybody then.

MANiputlation of these
tests is done to give bigots an excuse to be bigots, nothing more.

Are you an idiot or an automaton? Or both?

Am I talking to a Turing test program or smth?

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? :-)

More innuendo about motives, airhead?

Hint: I don't know if Chinese or Hindus qualify as white. But they
obviously can perform and tests show that.

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.

Can you name any? I doubt you can. I think you just imagine all that
stuff without ever getting your hands dirty with any sort of empirical
research. I have done a bit, not much but some.


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.

The results of it have effects on us. Imperfections of democracy like
some groups of people typically voting very badly (I don't mean right
or left, but rather bad policies) are steadily undermining it. One
political scientist I've been talking to on this subject told me that
the consensus is we don't really live in democracies, we lived in
highly "mixed" systems, that contain bits of democracy, bits of
republic, bits of monarchy-like power, bits of kritarchy (rule of
judges), etc. That such systems can survive in context of universal
suffrage is not given at all.

Example: over 60% of women in USA IIRC believe in UN more than they
believe in most democratic governments, while every person with any
sort of familiarity in politics can't take the joke that UN is
seriously in any regard.

Bad choices women make in their lives are their own, but when their
choices affect everyone badly, it becomes everybody's problem. Suffrage
is not a God-given right. It was given, it can be revoked, too, if the
interest of society requires that.

If such a political action fails, because the airheads like you block
it, the real world forces it the hard way when the democracy collapses
voluntarily, like it did in Algeria or in Third Reich.

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.

No, I merely have ability to read, believe it or not.

Good to know. And as more
women become interested in engineering,

Except they're not. That's exactly what is not happening. In spite of
PC and all the brainwash and massive efforts mandated by progressive
legislation and done by the progressive state.

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. :-)

It's not like I am a professor or a first league researcher, though MSc
degree from my school still counts for smth I think.

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.

Be careful what you lash out to others, you might get the same in
return. Dowd is still single though she blabbers she wants to get
married, and so is that English teacher, who as far as I knew from her
friend, wanted to get hooked up.

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. :-)

I doubt I will have an opportunity, as I simply don't want to see her
and haven't seen her since that party.

You obviously had no reply and cut the entire part on showing that she
WANTS to find husband or a man to live with - and she's unable to.
She's still single.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Gorilla Testing: Re: Differences in Aptitude
    ... the red curve means that the group of particular math capacity, ... Gauss curve, or some kind of probability distribution ... standard way of presenting experimental data. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Diagram with more than one curve
    ... I think the first problem is likely to be that you've got the wrong chart ... copy your Capacity column to after your Sound pressure column, ... Capacity in the second column, and hopefully Insert/ Chart will interpret ... I select the data for the first curve and choose the linear diagram no. ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.misc)
  • Re: Differences in Aptitude
    ... reasons why women were and still are simply less capable on average. ... Higher meaning the size of the group, not capacity. ... That you do not know how to interpret a Gauss curve (a.k.a "normal ... Why bother living with a shrill mediocrity like Dowd really? ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Differences in Aptitude
    ... reasons why women were and still are simply less capable on average. ... Higher meaning the size of the group, not capacity. ... That you do not know how to interpret a Gauss curve (a.k.a "normal ... So you want to MANipulate the vote the same way you want to MANipulate ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: sin x / x tends to 1...
    ... from the _standard_ definition of arc length. ... resolve honest onfusion on your part. ... The definition I gave for the length of a curve is ...
    (sci.math)