Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bridge Player who wrote (102469)	2/27/2005 6:49:19 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

How totally politically correct. Whether there are fat tails or not, what aspects of the distribution might mean, what might cause the tails, what socio=economic or nurturing or genetic or any other factors might be applicable....none of this can even be discussed. Yesterday, I tried to get someone else to explain to me why they think that real scientists are being kept from researching these issues, and also why they think that it's appropriate to debate them before scientists actually come up with support for their arguments. No reply. So, I'll try you. Do you really have any evidence that real scientists are not being allowed to research the parameters of male and female abilities? If so, please post it. Also, can you please post actual scientific studies that show that women are genetically unsuited for science? If so, please post them, especially ones that demonstrate a consensus among scientists on this issue. Because Mary's point all along has been that real scientists are not in support of Summers' argument, but that he's using pseudoscience, or as we discussed yesterday, pop psychology. You can't make a valid scientific argument by claiming that "everybody knows" that something is true. For example, "everybody knew" that blacks were inferior mentally, but that turned out to be mere prejudice masquerading as science. In fact, someone (maybe Lindy) linked a movie review of "Hotel Rwanda" that explained that the basis of the Hutu-Tutsi rivalry was 19th century British prejudice in favor of Tutsis against Hutus masquerading as science, claiming that Tutsis were genetically superior to Hutus. These arguments are very dangerous. Millions of people were killed in the 20th century because they were alleged to be genetically inferior. That's not "political correctness," that's history. Sneering about "political correctness" may make you feel superior, but I'd like to see some evidence for your argument.

To: Bridge Player who wrote (102469)	2/28/2005 10:41:46 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

Whether there are fat tails or not, what aspects of the distribution might mean, what might cause the tails, what socio=economic or nurturing or genetic or any other factors might be applicable....none of this can even be discussed. Educated and intelligent people simply cannot make this point. Too risky. Someone might be offended. Here are three different ways that intelligent people could look at this. The way engineers look at things, the way physicist look at it, and the way mathematicians look at it. Take this situation for example: There is a room with a small fire in it going out of control and sitting in that room is a fire extinguisher. The engineer would be able to "muse" what "may" happen when a fireman comes into the room. The physicist wouod look at it and ponder. The physicist would then be able to give a very clear and scientific explanation as to what would happen when the output of the fire extinguisher is applied to the fire. The mathematician would look at it very quickly and conclude the problem is very trivial and is very emphatic when he proclaims the solution exists . When it comes to fat tails, you and Dr. Summers are like engineers - except I don't think you ever took a basic college level course in statistics (I am only guessing) and I assume Dr. Summers was probably overqualified to ever take a basic course in anything. Nevertheless you would look at the fat tail in question and muse about the "possiblities" that it "may suggest" innate causes. Our CobaltBlue is like the physicist. She is trying to explain to you in every way possible that fat tails or not, crazy distributions curves not withstanding, these correlations say nothing about cause and effect. That is one of the very first things they teach you in a college level statistics class. Correlation does not say anything about causation. When you have no evidence to link cause and effect, you can't scientifically infer things. Of course, CB, is much more articulate than I am. She is a lawyer and she can explain things I can't. Neverthe less, I am more like a mathematician in approach on this matter. I would look at the situation and see a photo of Dr. Summers with what looks like a very large head and I would conclude; This is trivial. Fat heads and fat tails do not mix <GGGGGG>.