snip snip


George wrote:mail.com> wessage , they can't.start out life as males.
The dominant male in the brood
> will become the viable female.  So define "maleness".
>
> No, your "wishful thinking" needs to come up with valid scientific
evidence to
> clearly demonstrate why it is necessary to show whether men and women
have
> innate difference in math and science skills, and why they would have
these
> differences (if they have them at all) at all.


It is hubris to imagine that the science of psychometric testing is
remotely capable of measuring the innate abilities needed to succeed at
difficult tasks. Testing can be useful but much silliness (or worse)
sprouts up when the test results are confused with the bigger picture.
For example, it is fairly easy to give a test that will yield a
score of "verbal ability". Females on average score better. Yet the
vast majority of important books have always been written by men. One
could say:
1. This proves that women have been cheated out of their rightful
place.
2. Maybe our tests can see only about 10% of what must go into the
writing of a book that will influence history and be read for
generations.
I have never arguued for limiting the opportunities open to someone
on the basis of gender or anything else. My daughter is going to
medical school, afterall. However, I believe that men and women are
very different in regard to what most of them really want. Psychometric
tests are completely blind in regard to such things as ambition, a
willingness to sacrifice, passionate enthusiasm. Women probably have as
much of those things as men do but they are most often aimed at other
goals and always will be.
Women, especially with children, are vastly more interested in every
type of security than most men. That is fine but one cannot expect to
benefit from risks that one has not taken. A torrent of your
counter-examples will now follow but they are all irrelevant. Men are
the natural born risk takers by a mile. Maybe this is a fault in your
book but one cannot expect to have it both ways -- to stay inside where
it is safe and also to lead from the front.



>
> > You have stated nothing yet that improves on 1985 response of the
mad
> > friend of Leicester University Women's Officer Suzi Boulin's to me
>
> I am supposed to know what this means?
>
> > when I asked why if men looked so different to women, that she
thought
> > they
> > thought the same. (This was, "Because they do. Now fuck off" (I
> > paraphrase))
>
> Perhaps if you hade rephrased you question so as not to appear so
arogant and
> condescending, you might have gotten a more forthright answer to your
question.
> This appears to be a bad habit of yours.
>
> >> It got me where I am today.  I for one am proud of who I am, and
what
> > I've
> >> accomplished in my life, and believe I can do even more.
Obviously,
> > you have
> >> reservations about your own.
> >
> > I'm sure you can, I'm glad for you, but this doesn't mean anything.
> >
>
> It does to me.
>
> >> Ok, Einstein, you want a simple science quiz?  So be it.  What
scale
> > is
> >> currently used to determine earthquake magnitude, and on what
> > physical
> >> parameters is it based? What are the different types of seismic
> > waves, and how
> >> do they interact with earth materials?  What is the terminal
velocity
> > of a
> >> swallow?  :-)
> >
> > This isn't science. It's stamp collecting. You can call yourself a
> > scientist,
> > when you tell me a month in advance that the next tsunami is due.
>
> Oh.  I see. Seismologists are stamp collectors, are they?  And your
last
> response tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
And I do
> note your inability to answer those fundamental science questions.
You get an F
> for content, and an F for effort.
>
> >>
> >> So you have evidence that what I've said in this regard is not
> > correct?  No?  I
> >> didn't think you did.
> >
> > When is the next tsunami then Scientist?
>
> The question is not when.  Noone can tell you that because the
current state of
> the science isn't advanced to that point.  And it may never be simply
because
> there are too many variables.  Its not like predicting the weather.
The
> question is how big might it become once it reaches a shoreline. That
can be
> estimated with a reasonable degree of confidence.  Earth science is
not like
> physics or chemistry.  It is much more difficult to extract the data
needed.
> And many earth processes until relatively recently, have been very
difficult to
> model in a laboratory.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/20/05 10:25:07 PM ---