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: Maurice Winn who wrote (23572)	10/7/2007 12:19:42 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217701

: Checkout the marketplace. In Why g Matters (Intelligence, 24(1), 79–132), Linda Gottfredson estimates that a minimum IQ of 120 is needed to be competitive in "high-level" jobs. She cites research analyst and advertising manager as examples. The problem is that only 37% of the workforce meeting this test will be female. If, Gottfredson is correct, and a 120 IQ is a necessary condition for these jobs, g distributions will impose a soft ceiling on women in industry, not glass but statistical. According to EEOC, in 2003, 35.2% of"officials and managers" in the private sector were female -- a number suspiciously close to 37%. Among federal employees, women held 66% of "management" jobs. But that is a story for another interview. "What it says is that women are preferentially hired on a sexist basis for federal government jobs, despite them having lower intelligence." Absurd, Mq, unless it can be established that the 66% of high end females who do government work have IQs less than 120. Yes, indeed, it is a story for another day because the materials do not affirmatively show the alleged bias towards less intelligent females in government for the simple reason that their IQ was not measured. Until this 'fact' is definitively established, there are no worthwhile 'conclusions' which can be made. Mq, your opinions are arguments and bias in search of data. The NIH study, when it is finished, will be a gold mine despite your criticism because it will study all these things longitudinally. Its selection of children from all walks of life unaffected by drugs, alcohol and other environmental factors means that it will do a fair job of eliminating these influences as they affect intelligence and development. I think it is a mrvelous thing. I'm willing to wait for the conclusions, which preliminarily seem to debunk your claims. Are you?