Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 07:27:15 12/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1998 at 06:03:27, Oliver Y. wrote: >On December 12, 1998 at 12:26:49, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi Oliver: >>I do not understand your demand of academic credentials and/or publications. Was >>I stating a formal thesis about this issue? And more important: Do I need to >>show some formal acedemic acreditation first to make some statements and/or >>developing a reasoning? I thought that a reasonning was valid or invalid by >>itself, without any weight given to the quality of the guy that do it. To do >>this last thing, to talk about who the guy is that is saying something is, as >>you surely remember, a fallacy of logic called "authority fallacy". Perhaps a >>very natural one between academic people. They tends to develope some arrogance, >>to believe that his titles give them some a priori superiority in the matter of >>his craft. Well, thats' no so. A degree only means that there are some chances >>that the owner of it will have a sound judgement about some field of knowledge, >>nothing more. It does not means the owner of no tittles in that special area >>automatically lose his right to reason, think and state his observations about >>the matter. >>Any case, sir, I have a title in sociology in the University of Chile, books >>published in poetry, literature, journalistic essays, I write several political >>sections in magazines and newspapers and I run several TV programs related with >>the same suff. I do not know if these last things means something or not to add >>to my professional trainning as sociologist, but I presume that at least is >>enough to be in condition to deserve an answer about this or any matter. And >>just in case you demand to know also my I.Q in order to continue our discussion >>or not, it is 143. Not the great thing, but enough I presume to win or keep your >>attention. So I hope. >>Fernando > >My Friend, >We only risk boring the other members of this club by continuing this >discussion. Do not worry about that; nobody is compelled to read our thread. >Frankly, I am surprised that you still do not understand my rebuttal re >correlation being insufficient to imply causation. I share your surprise as much I have never implied any causation link. To talk of unfitteness is not a causal explanation, just a way to describe an observation. > >What do you point to as evidence that women are not fitted (sic) for such mental >operations? The evidence of facts that begun this thread. Somebody asked "why there are not women here?" and I say "there are not also too many in other fields where concentrated intellectual effort is needed". And only after that I recalled a fact I pointed time ago about unequal behaviour of male and female in the G curve. > >The only item you mention is their scarcity, it follows that you are reasoning >that such scarcity in certain fields are due to mental differences. > >Let me know if you are saying this, and we can take this discussion one step at >a time. If I do not respond to you, please understand that it is due to >boredom. Perhaps, if other people do not care to respond, this thread deserves >to die. > >Do you realize that by stating your IQ, you are simply discouraging many people >from enjoying this club more? > I do not think so. There are here in CCC so many people with such high level of perfomance in computing sciences, maths, etc that I am sure to be in the last or at best middle section of the curve in this pool. >I was intent on learning your formal qualifications in sociology and I thank you >for your feedback. Frankly, I am skeptical about both your IQ and your exact >title, this is my problem, not yours. I may verify your 'title' in sociology, Well, if you are skeptical about what the other guy in the line say, this discussion or any other cannot continue and so also is my problem. You will understand that I am not going now to fall in the madness to collect data to satisfy you in both respects. I even feel uncomfortable -to be honest- about what I already said about me. Now going to that extreme of giving you "proofs " of my academical credentials would be too much. I do not remember I had asked you nothing of the sort t. I >am not familiar with what your title is, care to share that with us? > >If you are educated, please do not be falsely modest. An IQ of 143 is uncommon. >So any sarcasm does not improve the atmosphere of this club. Frankly, if it is >that high, I can only attribute your inability to understand the relationship >0between correlation and causation to language difficulties. Even this reason is >not plausible. >+ No sarcasm intended. 143 IQ is not uncommon, but not the great thing. Anyway, if there is some inability in me about this discussion, there is also one from you about what I was really saying. Let me -to finish this thread if you want- stablish my point briefly and one by one: a) women does not appear in equal number with male population in a vast array of intelectual fields and neither get the perfomance male does in them. You can see that in chess, scientific research, ingeniering, computing sciences, biology, etc. facts things. If I am wrong in this, please let me know b) another fact: women does not distribute as men in G curve. You get less idiots women, but also less high IQ women. c) as much hard intelectual efforts in all the areas aforemetioned are asociated with high IQ levels, we are compelled to believe there is an asociation between both things. Less women with high IQ than men, less women in that fields than men. Maybe there are another reasons also, but this seems to be one at least worthy of research d) this G curve could be the result of different causes. Probably sociological, cultural ones; women are not raised trying to optimize his mental equipment and to get maximun perfomance along hard and sustained efforts as the G test demands to begin with. They are raised to think of that things, of thinking narroly in an issue as male things, bore things, etc. e) another reason could be the algorythm the women in average use to put in motion his brain. Also a cultural matter, probably. Piaget in France has made research about the ways you can use your mind and the great differences in behaviour that surge from that, including level of perfomance reached. f) another hypothesis lye in organic differences in hormonal functioning, etc of female.Sorry I cannot recall the name of the research I have seen years ago about this. The esential point of the study was: women has more problems that men to sustain long intelectual efforts. That does not mean less intelligence. You know that succes in any field is asociated in a degree to your degree of perception of things but aldso in a very great deal to the sustained effort you make to reasearch on the ground of that perception. "High minds" tend to do what Anatole France said philophers do: they fill the holes between his sharp ideas with the plaster of his dialectic. In sciebnces, you can replace dialectic by research. Probably because cultural reasons -or hormonal also, who knows- an intelligent woman stay satisfied with just understanding why certain things are as they are and the same happens 99,99% of men, except by the surplus 0,01% that goes beyond that and writes a 1000 pages book about that understanding. Maybe when we tallk of the women common sense we are thinking in that capacity to just grasp the esential of a thing in his inmediata presence and not losing more time in academic elucubrations.. Hope this seems adequately INTERESTING and INFORMATIVE. If it is, great. If not, that's pity. >Let's discuss what it was that you were saying about the original topic. >I would hate to see our interaction resemble some of the other less worthy >threads in this club. > >I do not need to discuss my IQ in order to defend my point, neither did you... > >Hoping to read an INTERESTING and INFORMATIVE post, otherwise, please...someone >make us stop!
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.