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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (23542)	10/5/2007 5:40:37 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217695

I think what is not disputed is that the intelligence distribution curve is broader for males than for females. There are more male outliers at both ends of the curve, hence more male extreme geniuses, as well as more male imbeciles, than females. Perhaps there are some rare extreme intelligence and extreme stupidity genes on the Y chromosome, which are masked in most females that possess them by their other Y chromosome.

To: carranza2 who wrote (23542)	10/5/2007 5:45:16 PM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 217695

>>assessing the neurological and behavioral development of 450 American children carefully selected to be free of problems and representing the diversity of the country's population.<< Why didn't they use a random sample? Boys tend to have a lot more "problems" than girls, so right away I'm suspicious that this study is corrupted by selection bias.

To: carranza2 who wrote (23542)	10/6/2007 5:15:22 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217695

C2, the study was only 450 children getting older. That's 225 males and 225 females if they split it evenly. The chances of having a high end male or female are poor, let alone enough to measure the difference. If the selection process wasn't too distorted, and they say it excluded "problem children", whatever that means, it would give some information on the middle of the road children. Note that all we are fed are some dopey conclusions and not much information. They will release data to trained professionals [not normal people] one of these days. So we can't check out their research for ourselves. For example, right there at the beginning, they make a comment which suggests the whole thing won't be worth the paper it's written on <On the other hand, the amount of money a child's family makes may have a big impact on his or her intellectual ability, with IQs rising alongside incomes > It is quite obvious that the amount of money a child's family has isn't the issue. Even the slightest concept of causation would lead one to realize that the smart parents earn more money because they are smarter and another consequence of them being smart is that they have smart children. Giving $1 million to dull parents won't make their offspring more intelligent. If the people doing the study come up with such dopey ideas in the summary of the report, you can be sure that the whole thing is not of much use but there will no doubt be some general things which can be concluded. Another major defect in the commentary: <"This is being done to learn more about the structural and functional development of the normal brain," explained Deborah P. Waber, associate professor of psychology at Children's Hospital Boston, lead author of the report. "The data will be used as baseline for all kinds of disorders of childhood brain development." > Deborah doesn't seem to understand that the "normal brain" is in a very wide range. A LOT of human DNA is allocated to brain construction and there's also a wide range of maternal inputs such as iodine, iron, folic acid and other essential ingredients, not to mention toxicities such as mercury, lead, ethanol, carbon monoxide. A well-fed unpoisoned brain could be in a wide range. Without DNA analysis, it would be hard to say whether a child's brain is normal or not for the particular child. A genius child could be deficiencied or poisoned down to 110 IQ and Deborah would consider them fine rather than mortally wounded. You are premature to leap to any conclusions from the pathetic amount of bung information that they released. Certainly, your prejudices about women are NOT supported by the information. I stand by my theory and the scientific studies I quoted, and note that you have not pointed out a single fault in any of it. Simply saying "Bah!" is not rigorous critique. "Bahhh!!" is what sheep say. Scientific review is polysyllabic. Mqurice PS: That does not mean that "Bahhh bahhh black sheep ... " is a scientific critique just because it's polysyllabic.