4 ms·

"Women are known to score higher (and have since the 60's) on tests of calculation, which is just one example." That's true. Usually, the breakdown is that wom

by _h4xr 19y ago

"Women are known to score higher (and have since the 60's) on tests of calculation, which is just one example." That's true. Usually, the breakdown is that women are much better at arithmetic and the like, but men are much better at more abstract problems. Which is going to make someone a better EE professor?

DaniFong 19y ago
Well, we weren't talking about EE professors. But, if we were, we're talking about the top 1% of quantitative ability, in which case there's barely any statistical validity in what is written there at all. Here's a good piece of data. The Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins has been testing youth (~12 years old) across the country since 1972. One of the first things that they noticed was that of the students scoring above 700 on the math SAT, boys outnumbered girls 13 to 1. Okay, wow. They have, of course, run the tests every year since then, and now it's down to a 3:1 ratio. This indicates a very, very strong cultural variable. The fact that this isn't even mentioned, again, betrays bias.
- _h4xr 19y ago
  I hadn't heard about that. I imagine it may be cultural, but again, note that the SAT's ability to measure top scorers has been dampened. As far as I know, standard deviation is more significant than absolute difference in the men/women IQ debate. Men swamp women at the high ends because there are more male geniuses and male morons.
  - DaniFong 19y ago
    The thing is that intelligence isn't some kind of nice, statistically normed quantity. There's more to most variables than a mean and a standard deviation -- so I don't know why people seem to always think that you can restrict a discussion of intelligence to such concepts. One thing that is actually correct is that there's more variation in gene expression between men and women. On of the reasons for this is because, chromosomally, women have two X chromosomes, which pair up, and then randomly one or another turns off. These means that the gene expression is mixed between both parents. On the other hand, the Y chromosome is largely only effective at turning off gene expression. You can see how there's less redundancy here. But intelligence isn't a gene. Researchers have, since the time of Dalton, tried to find a simple, biological basis for genius. You know, memory capacity, reaction times, brain size, brain structure convolution, etc. They haven't found anything -- literally everything has turned out to be a false start, even brain size, which, has been shown, within families does not even predict g. In the mid ranges, there are greater standard deviations, yes. But every single normed test is normed on a sample on the order of 1000. They're designed for regular people. The designer of the Weschler has adamantly opposed the use of IQ tests for anything other than clinical settings, for this reason. It's just no good at drawing conclusions on the extremes of ability. A better guide might be actual performance. The IOI this year had more girls than ever before -- 11. That's nearly 300% more than last year, where they had 4, and one medal. They are: Emina Bukva (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Constanza Contreras (Chile) Anna Currel (Spain) Romina Huenchunao (Chile) Vaiva Imbrasaite (Lithuania) Taksapaun Kittiakrastien (Thailand) [Silver] Sepideh Mahabadi (Iran) [Gold!] Radwa Metwali (Egypt) Katie O'Mahony (Ireland) Phitchaya Phothilimthana (Thailand) [Silver] Ye Wang (USA) [Silver] Sepideh Mahabadi had one of the best performances of anyone. If you're familiar with IOI scoring, only the top 1/12 are to get golds, and 2/12 to get silvers, thus 1 gold and 3 silvers out of 11 implies that they did at least as good as the boys, and in fact somewhat better. Were the 'standard deviation' explanation correct they should have, instead, had 0.4 girls earning maybe 0.01 medals. It just doesn't work. Psychometrics are a non-science.
    - _h4xr 19y ago
      "But intelligence isn't a gene. Researchers have, since the time of Dalton, tried to find a simple, biological basis for genius. You know, memory capacity, reaction times, brain size, brain structure convolution, etc. They haven't found anything -- literally everything has turned out to be a false start, even brain size, which, has been shown, within families does not even predict g." I hadn't heard that about brain size. The correlation I read about was 40%, over a number of studies. It would be interesting to know if this had been updated, since I know individual cases belie it. But that's a small sample size (like your IOI numbers -- 11 people in one year is extraordinary, unless it's an outlier). But even if those numbers don't predict g, you're, uh, left explaining how g varies when what it's made up of doesn't vary. You're implying a correlation between any two intellectual activities (e.g. counting and calculus, or reading comprehension and analogies) of zero. Unless your sample size has five idiot savants for every Gauss, I just don't see how that's possible. "Psychometrics are a non-science." How do you account for the explanatory power of IQ, then? Is it a myth we've all bought into? Is it suggestion?
      - rms 19y ago
        >>"Psychometrics are a non-science." >How do you account for the explanatory power of IQ, then? Is it a myth we've all bought into? Is it suggestion? The IQ test means a lot in the midrange in western cultures, but becomes completely worthless at the extremes. It's not so much that there is no scientific basis behind psychometrics as it is just the beginnings of a science. It's really hard to understand the brain, I'm hopeful that we or our AI overlords will get there eventually. And Dani: I have no doubt there is a genetic basis for intelligence, we just haven't figured it out yet. Clearly it is a whole lot more complicated than a single genetic mutation. This one gene has an influence on signaling pathways in the brain which has an indirect influence on intelligence. http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html Also see the disproportionate number of Chess Grandmasters and Science Nobel Prize winners among Eastern European Jews. Summary: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html?_r=1&#... Paper: http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocs...
Tichy 19y ago
Interesting, how is the "abstractness" measured? Isn't arithmetic rather abstract?

by _h4xr 19y ago

DaniFong 19y ago

Well, we weren't talking about EE professors. But, if we were, we're talking about the top 1% of quantitative ability, in which case there's barely any statistical validity in what is written there at all. Here's a good piece of data. The Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins has been testing youth (~12 years old) across the country since 1972. One of the first things that they noticed was that of the students scoring above 700 on the math SAT, boys outnumbered girls 13 to 1. Okay, wow. They have, of course, run the tests every year since then, and now it's down to a 3:1 ratio. This indicates a very, very strong cultural variable. The fact that this isn't even mentioned, again, betrays bias.

_h4xr 19y ago
I hadn't heard about that. I imagine it may be cultural, but again, note that the SAT's ability to measure top scorers has been dampened. As far as I know, standard deviation is more significant than absolute difference in the men/women IQ debate. Men swamp women at the high ends because there are more male geniuses and male morons.
- DaniFong 19y ago
  The thing is that intelligence isn't some kind of nice, statistically normed quantity. There's more to most variables than a mean and a standard deviation -- so I don't know why people seem to always think that you can restrict a discussion of intelligence to such concepts. One thing that is actually correct is that there's more variation in gene expression between men and women. On of the reasons for this is because, chromosomally, women have two X chromosomes, which pair up, and then randomly one or another turns off. These means that the gene expression is mixed between both parents. On the other hand, the Y chromosome is largely only effective at turning off gene expression. You can see how there's less redundancy here. But intelligence isn't a gene. Researchers have, since the time of Dalton, tried to find a simple, biological basis for genius. You know, memory capacity, reaction times, brain size, brain structure convolution, etc. They haven't found anything -- literally everything has turned out to be a false start, even brain size, which, has been shown, within families does not even predict g. In the mid ranges, there are greater standard deviations, yes. But every single normed test is normed on a sample on the order of 1000. They're designed for regular people. The designer of the Weschler has adamantly opposed the use of IQ tests for anything other than clinical settings, for this reason. It's just no good at drawing conclusions on the extremes of ability. A better guide might be actual performance. The IOI this year had more girls than ever before -- 11. That's nearly 300% more than last year, where they had 4, and one medal. They are: Emina Bukva (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Constanza Contreras (Chile) Anna Currel (Spain) Romina Huenchunao (Chile) Vaiva Imbrasaite (Lithuania) Taksapaun Kittiakrastien (Thailand) [Silver] Sepideh Mahabadi (Iran) [Gold!] Radwa Metwali (Egypt) Katie O'Mahony (Ireland) Phitchaya Phothilimthana (Thailand) [Silver] Ye Wang (USA) [Silver] Sepideh Mahabadi had one of the best performances of anyone. If you're familiar with IOI scoring, only the top 1/12 are to get golds, and 2/12 to get silvers, thus 1 gold and 3 silvers out of 11 implies that they did at least as good as the boys, and in fact somewhat better. Were the 'standard deviation' explanation correct they should have, instead, had 0.4 girls earning maybe 0.01 medals. It just doesn't work. Psychometrics are a non-science.
  - _h4xr 19y ago
    "But intelligence isn't a gene. Researchers have, since the time of Dalton, tried to find a simple, biological basis for genius. You know, memory capacity, reaction times, brain size, brain structure convolution, etc. They haven't found anything -- literally everything has turned out to be a false start, even brain size, which, has been shown, within families does not even predict g." I hadn't heard that about brain size. The correlation I read about was 40%, over a number of studies. It would be interesting to know if this had been updated, since I know individual cases belie it. But that's a small sample size (like your IOI numbers -- 11 people in one year is extraordinary, unless it's an outlier). But even if those numbers don't predict g, you're, uh, left explaining how g varies when what it's made up of doesn't vary. You're implying a correlation between any two intellectual activities (e.g. counting and calculus, or reading comprehension and analogies) of zero. Unless your sample size has five idiot savants for every Gauss, I just don't see how that's possible. "Psychometrics are a non-science." How do you account for the explanatory power of IQ, then? Is it a myth we've all bought into? Is it suggestion?
    - rms 19y ago
      >>"Psychometrics are a non-science." >How do you account for the explanatory power of IQ, then? Is it a myth we've all bought into? Is it suggestion? The IQ test means a lot in the midrange in western cultures, but becomes completely worthless at the extremes. It's not so much that there is no scientific basis behind psychometrics as it is just the beginnings of a science. It's really hard to understand the brain, I'm hopeful that we or our AI overlords will get there eventually. And Dani: I have no doubt there is a genetic basis for intelligence, we just haven't figured it out yet. Clearly it is a whole lot more complicated than a single genetic mutation. This one gene has an influence on signaling pathways in the brain which has an indirect influence on intelligence. http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html Also see the disproportionate number of Chess Grandmasters and Science Nobel Prize winners among Eastern European Jews. Summary: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03gene.html?_r=1&#... Paper: http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocs...

Tichy 19y ago

Interesting, how is the "abstractness" measured? Isn't arithmetic rather abstract?