0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Once upon a time in Britain, who one's parents were greatly determined your school scores and, thus, your station in life.
Caveat Lector: Never discuss an issue of science which concerns something that has wide coverage in the Daily Mail with a certain type of Englishman.Here is a story on today's Daily Mail online front page, "A flooded office, plummeting temperatures and documents mysteriously moving: Terrified workers fear that ghost of an old lady is haunting them after 'face' appears at the window".What should you do if you accidentally encounter a Daily Mail reader in conversation? In the old days people once used a topical mixture of sulfur and petroleum jelly for relief. Nowadays one might use a Lindane shampoo. One can also get good prevention by using outer clothing impregnated with Pyrethins.
Informed skepticism is the essence of the scientific method. How very, very British to hear these people assuring me of the absolute truth of this "smug white man's bedtime story" as if it had been handed down by the archangel Gabriel - not some "genetic psychologist"
It is NOT the case that everywhere else is similar to class-ridden British life. America is - and always has been - a refuge for people who couldn't stomach the sort of society that generates (and celebrates) insufferable British boors like Jeremy Clarkson.
The Pilgrim Fathers saw little chance of England becoming a country in which they wished to live. They viewed it as un-Godly and moving from a bad to worse state...... ....."The place they thought of was one of those vast and unpeopled countries of America, which are fruitful and fit for living. There are only savages and brutish men, just like wild beasts."
It should be noted that regressing out the mean effects of sex from GCSE scores has no bearing on these analyses, which are concerned with the aetiology of variance within the sexes and covariance between the sexes, rather than the phenotypic mean difference between the sexes
Mean sex differences can be seen for English, with girls scoring about one-third of a standard deviation higher than boys, and for mathematics, with boys scoring about one-tenth of a standard deviation higher than girls. No significant mean sex differences were found for science.
NOBODY in America would have touched this "scientific" study with a 10 foot pole because of its obvious racist and sexist nature. The fact that you people prefer to pretend that those faults don't exist, damns your case irretrievably. America, you see, struggles against racism and sexism and doesn't enshrine them as scientific truth....even in Texas. So, yes, America isn't Britain.....Sir.It is difficult to admit it, but you may, in fact, be correct. Intelligence may actually be largely inherited We shall have to see if Prince William has inherited the keen intelligence and, perhaps, integrity of Prince Charles.I shall continue to believe that this is not so - at least until I see a study that includes separated twins and DOESN'T presume that women are of different intelligence. Tell me again why it was "scientific" to treat women separately. As a benighted colonial the subtleties of "Genetic Psychology" elude my grasp.And also I will wait until there is a "scientific" article that doesn't rate a screamer on the front page of the Daily Mail.
This Plomin bird is hooked up with Michael Gove
NOBODY in America would have touched this "scientific" study with a 10 foot pole because of its obvious racist and sexist nature.
Now then, a real scientific paper includes a mention of prior research. Plomin's paper fails to do that.
I am reading, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.
It is a sad day for you and ... science.
As to the claims of the infallibility of this research...
I have been asked to avoid "ad hominem " comments. Then I will speak ad populem.You don't have to be Scottish -American to see the game being played here. In America it is called "tracking" by the Trump gang. Whatever you want to call it, the aim is to deny equal educational opportunity to working class people --not science. Make no mistake. See this naked scientist program for what it is. God save America and Scotland from this "science" How long until this is deleted for ostensibly not speaking La-di-dah English?
2. As you perfectly well know, all my supporting evidence has been deleted by the moderator as "tangential". I believe that is an example of what passes for "civility" among your sort. In American baseball we call that "corking the bat".3. Finally, since bored_chemist has chosen to remain in his tent, will YOU answer the question, "Why does this research presuppose the inferiority of women's GCSE scores if they are not, in fact, (how to make this civil enough for your delicate sensitivities? Hmmmmm) .... sadly fallen prey to the victorian misconceptions as to the true nature of the feminine mind?"
I don't see why in this instance it's an either /or question. That identical twins results were more similar than fraternal twins doesn't seem to rule out that environmental factors could also significantly restrict or enhance their progress.
In my opinion, women's different GCSE scores than those of men cannot depend on their DNA...
The gentleman states that since the majority of medical students in the UK are female this is evidence against gender discrimination because of their GCSE scores.
Here is evidence ( in the BMJ) that female doctors in the UK earn 29% less than male doctors. [1.]Now then, is that a natural effect because they have inherited it in their DNA being, after all, ...girls?
The behavioral geneticists differentiated them in this study because they assumed so. Is that not so?
In reviewing my last posts, the biased interference of the moderator has shown me what a rigged game is being run here. I refuse to participate further in this charade of an open, honest debate.
As to the claim that these people don't presuppose that women don't match men in their GCSE scores...." Quantitative sex differences refer to differences for ACE parameter estimates for male and female twin pairs. Qualitative sex differences indicate that different genes or different environmental factors influence males and females, which is suggested when the correlation for dizygotic opposite-sex (DZO) twins is less than the correlations for same-sex DZ pairs, based on the assumption that genetic or environmental influences that are specific to one sex will reduce within-pair similarity for the DZO group" [1.]
Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Female physicians in the U.S. continue to earn less than their male counterparts, with the pay gap widening during the past two decades to more than $50,000 annually in 2010, researchers said.Women doctors had a median annual income of $165,278 from 2006 to 2010, compared with yearly earnings of $221,297 for male physicians, according to the report published today in JAMA Internal Medicine. While the annual pay for women doctors has increased since the median of $134,995 in 1990, it’s only now beginning to approach the $168,795 annually earned by men 20 years ago, the researchers found.
Sorry Pecos_Bill, you are banned from using this forum!Ad hominem, ad nauseum
I recall Pecos_Bill saying that while people still struggle against sexism in America, they do not cook up phony pseudo science to claim it is due to genetic difference there. He made that point clearly shortly before he was eliminated by the forum's puppet master because it nauseated him (the puppet-master) to hear it.Quote Sorry Pecos_Bill, you are banned from using this forum!Ad hominem, ad nauseum After Pecos_Bill's "disapperance" we heard - at great length - these two gentlemen hammering on and on -now with no voice to refute them -- in classic "Big Lie" thuggish tactics. Give em the old razzle-dazzle! [1.]Oh dear, have I upset your delicate Sassanach sensitivities by saying this? Will I, too, not survive the night? The suspense is terrible. I hope it lasts.[1.] ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
In "The Mismeasure of Man" by Harvard Professor, Stephen Jay Gould we read of the shameful history of biological determinism (another term for the "genetic psychology" of this paper) from obvious fallacy like "Craniometry" right down to the ... Burt Affair.[deleted text here]In my opinion, this [paper] is a warmed over re-hash of the Burt Affair, and The Naked Scientists should not have publicized it.
The history behind this "research" is telling in its nature but it was deleted.
The moderator has chosen to delete my citations of scientific deceptions in Britain -- including the field of "behavioral genetics" as tangential.