Gorilla Testing: Re: Differences in Aptitude


abb wrote:
Hyerdahl
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.

You mean like the BELL CURVE? Yes, we can clearly see what those kinds
of tests can be used for. :-) However, all tests have some inherent
bias and testing companies spend thousands of dollars trying to avoid
that bias. Also, these tests don't take EQ into consideration, so you
could have a person who appears to be genius who cannot use common
sense or who is a social misfit, not good for any job.

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.

Empiracal data is only satisfactory to the degree that it is
universally correct, and many studies using empirical data have been
found lacking and usurped by newer testing. On that basis, how much
shrift should we actually give them? So, I suggest that small
differences in data, such as what you have provided here, should NOT
have the effect of limiting a group of people from any societal
institution. I'm sure you'd think otherwise.

Nevertheless, if you want to even enter this competition, you have to
get your mind wrapped around such weird concepts as probability
distribution.

Sure. In fact, I have a terrific book I've used to educate myself
called "How to Lie With Statistics".
:-) I'm sure you've heard of it. >


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

Apparently not, since it is feminism that has catapulted western women
into the real world of property ownership, voting rights, bodily
rights, and working for equal pay. I'd say those things are pretty
real.

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.

Again, testing has inherent bias so I'm more impressed with actual
results. For example, today there is no area of the workforce where
women are not included. There are women in math, science, and
technology. Women are doctors and lawyers and judges. The world has
not ended since women took these positions. :-) And that speaks
volumes. Also, women appear to have more test phobia than men which
may be the best indicator of why they don't succeed quite as well on
testing.

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.

Again, in the real world what job is there that requires ONLY someone
who has that degree of difference? :-) Do you suggest, that when a
mathmatician is hired they give all the hirelings a test of upper scale
testing and that they ALWAYS hire the one who has a slight upscale
difference? If you are suggesting that, I'd say you were full of ***.
:-)

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.

While I totally believe that nurture is more important than genetics(
and that girls are constantly told in so many ways that math is for
boys) I also don't see why you think the slight difference in the
graph you provided would be important in the real world. To me, it's
just one of the few things patriarchs have left to them to brag
about...some line on a graph. Pathetic, really.

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.

Silver medals aren't really part of "the real world". :-) You're
talking about an event that takes place every four years where only one
can get the gold. The real world is about working and supporting ones
family. In fact, today, most companies look for cooperation moreso
than competition. I guess well leave competitions to something that's
only every two to four years. :-)

?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.

The 'Bell Curve' follows a similar rationale, trying to pigion-hole
people based on subtle nuances in IQ testing. Like your theory, it
only considers a tiny part of human capability and intelligence. It
is rather like seeing only one small part of a human being and using
that to classify said human.

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.

I'm a secular humanist, dear and don't believe in the smoke and mirrors
of religion any more than I beleive in the smoke and mirrors of the
patriarchal use of testing designed to keep out women and minorities.>

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.

The opt out, windbag.

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 don't need to whine, patri-boy. Science is turning the tide for me.
We are getting all kinds of new scientific information showing that
women are, for example, able to transfer more thought process from the
right to left spheres of the brain, and that women's brains to not
deterorate as swiftly from age related complications. Of course, you
needn't worry; I won't use that science to prevent men from getting
jobs. :-)

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.

Your desire to type cast women is telling and your denigration alone
will not improve your argument.

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!

You're welcome! :-)


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.

The tests aren't really testing true cognation tho. What if the person
being tested was raised by gorillas....do you really think that person
would test as highly as one raised near Stanford? :-)
I don't think so. Grunt grunt..... Of course, the IQ of gorilla baby
could be much higher if only we were able to accurately test it.
Perhaps you could help. I'm sure you speak gorilla.

..

.