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 (23635)	10/8/2007 3:08:19 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217709

C2, I'm an engineer [scientist/mathematician] dealing in causal relationships, you are a lawyer dealing in wordsmithing and property confiscation/protection/regulation. <your opinions are arguments and bias in search of data. > Not at all. My original bias was the fashionable ones acquired before I had gained enough data and knowledge about how things work. For example, I was an environmentalist and total recycler before the concept was invented as a fashion. I was dealing in Greenhouse Effect and solutions for it in the real world of Big Oil and the fuels industry before a good number of the fanatical religionists now going on about it were born. Here is the fact. Women are fully grown before males by about 3 years. I have made conclusions on what that means based on various things I know to be true [such as the difficulty in learning languages after puberty and especially after wisdom teeth are grown]. How about you say what you think it might mean? I note that your arguments against my conclusions are akin to "Bah! That's humbug. What's more, that's prejudice." "Bah! Humbug!" isn't usually considered much of an argument. The disproportionate hiring of women for Federal government jobs isn't necessarily evidence of sexist discrimination against males. Just as a dearth of Negroes in corporate management isn't evidence of racial discrimination. But it's enough to make one have a look and see why such a thing might happen. I can see that women would appeal more to Federal bureaucracy kleptocrats as employees. I won't tempt you to accuse me of prejudice by saying just why they might be more suitable [in the eyes of the employers], but they obviously are. True, it's possible that the Federal employers managed to disproportionately attract high-end women to the employment ranks. But I wouldn't bet any of my money on it. I bet women are chosen either because female stereotypical behaviour is preferred in government circles [low aggression, less theft, not so smelly, will sit in small cages longer without going nuts], but more likely that it's simply sexist hiring practises. C2, it won't debunk my data and conclusions because they are right. The study already can be shown to be not much use in various ways, as I pointed out. For example, how many Negro children do you think they have included? Do you really think they can develop data on children way out of the norm on such trivial numbers? Anyway, I'll be interested to read their data [not so much their obviously prejudiced and ignorant conclusions] to see if I can add to my wealth of knowledge. We don't have any choice but to wait. But we can make some conclusions about what we will be able to conclude. For example, the sample size it too tiny to determine the genes that lead to super high-end intelligence. You might get some rules of thumb which apply to average people [more or less]. Mqurice