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 (23651)	10/8/2007 5:35:04 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217739

"an engineer"? More like a frustrated biologist, DNA, Chimp, IQ differential, gender development, melanin rich vs poor all that associated with social factors which displays Nazi inclinations. Note for instance your invectives about lebensraum when you want to sell nationalities and make people pay for ground-base infrastructure. According to you, a human being been born today, landing in the country, out of a womb, inherits all the infrastructrue of a given land and pay no single penny for it. All free of charge. How comes a guy landing on an airport, out of a plane, needs to pay for any infrastructure? This is weird Australia and NZ who wants to got there and pya aborigines for the land they'd got free of charge, once they got there by canoe during the glaciation when the oceans we much lower than today. Those themes frequently written by you here displays more a biologist rather than an engineer. and by the way engineers do not deal with causal relationships: engineers solve problems.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (23651)	10/8/2007 8:13:24 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217739

Mq, thank you for admitting through clenched teeth that I am correct about the fact that since there is no IQ testing of females in government, no conclusions worth anything can be drawn. It's refreshing to find such intellectual honesty at SI. I can suggest to you other reasons why there are lots of females in government. First, government work, though it pays less, never requires overtime nor much additional effort over and above putting in a 9 to 5 day. And there are also lots of holidays. These factors are a great inducement to a woman with child-rearing and home making responsibilities. A male who assumes the breadwinner role would not want to work in government because of the relatively lower pay. Government work for his wife, however, when added to the low hours and holidays, meshes nicely with his assumed role and the family's requirements, particularly if children are involved. I think my reasons are as good as yours, perhaps better and certainly not as sexist, but both suffer from a lack of data. I refuse in the absence of data to be as certain as you, suggesting that perhaps I should have been the engineer and you the lawyer. vbg The NIH is a very sophisticated designer of experiments. I doubt selection bias was involved in the study we've been discussing. Since we know little about selection details, I'll keep then possibility open.