John Smith wrote:
N2EY:
Apparently you don't understand IQ scores...
I understand them quite well, thank you. Including what the tests try
to measure, and what they cannot measure.
IQ is measured by you
*your*
ability to extrapolate off
*extrapolate from*
common knowledge and
use the products of such to solve new solutions which the "test'ee"
*testee*
is unfamiliar with... it is the ability of the mind to adapt to new
situations, new conditions, new ideas and come up with new solutions...
It is also pattern recognition...
That's right. And within the confines of the testing areas and methods,
the results are fairly accurate. But IQ is not the entire picture.
My point is that intelligence goes far beyond what is measured by IQ
scores. Intelligence is a vector with many variables, not a scalar.
It is NOT a "religious beliefs"
*belief*
in existing knowledge, it is NOT
upholding traditions and methods for historical reasons...
It is also not changing things merely for the sake of change. It is
not a blind acceptance of "newer is better" or "ending is better
than mending". It is not a wholesale rejection of past experience
and wisdom simply because of age.
One thing it is NOT is wrote
*rote*
learning...
Yes, it is. The ability to learn and recall facts is part of
intelligence.
Not the whole thing, obviously, but an important part.
Then there's the role of skills, which are often undervalued but which
are a vital part of intelligence as well.
a chimpanzee can do that...
Some insects can do pattern recognition.
--
I sense a certain level of IQ chauvinism in your reply. Looks like
you consider only certain kinds of mental processes to be worthwhile,
and the others don't count for much with you.
That's a very shortsighted view of things, John.
--
I find it interesting that you do not reply to direct questions,
and that you insist on top-posting in a newsgroup where
everyone else inserts their comments into the post they are
responding to.
Is there a reason for those behaviors?
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... oh, I love that argument!!! Let me see if I have it
correctly,
either:
1) Women are too stupid for the technical fields.
That claim is incorrect.
But it reveals something about its writer.
Some people still believe the idea that intelligence can be
meaningfully measured/expressed as a single numeric quantity.
As if IQ scores told all.
The fact of the matter is that there are a number of different
types of intelligence - at least seven different, distinct
kinds have been identified. A person can be a genius in one
intelligence area and barely functional in another.
The phrase "are too stupid for the technical fields" reveals
that its author still believes the single-quantity concept.
Uh-Huh. You trump all of 'em in that game.
How you managed to twist Mike's words to come up with this
interpretation is
amazing. He neither said nor implied anything of the sort.
Exactly.
2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring
women.
Spelling doesn't seem to be a strong suit, though..
He said nothing about barring women from technical fields. Again
how you
managed to come up with this inverted interpretation is one of
the mysteries
of the world. Women choose not to go into technical fields for
their own
reasons. That includes hobby activities like ham radio.
He's another Burke Dee, a male ditz/troll, he isn't worth the effort,
ignore the goofball.
Thank you. I work with a number of female engineers, and they seem
to
have no problem working with me. My opinion on the issue is based
on
conversations with them.
I smell an oddity here. Dee is an engineer who apparently works in
academia. You also work in academia and know some number of woman
engineers who are also in academia. I've been out here in the
commercial side for decades and per previous have had very few
encounters with woman engineers. Is it possible that the woman
engineers I don't see out here are operating in academia instead??
Would not surprise me a bit if that's the case.
Here's what I've observed:
1) Most technical fields have been predominatly male for a whole bunch
of reasons. That's changing but it takes a long time, because you
don't
become a senior engineer overnight.
2) "Technical field" covers a lot of ground. Medical technology - is
that
technical or medical?
3) The factors involving career choice are many and varied. Just one
example:
Back in the
1970s, when I was in high school, a lot of girls I knew who would have
excelled in the technical fields were essentially dequalified by the
schools they went to. The boys' high schools offered lots of math and
science courses at all levels, while the girls' high schools did not,
focusing more on languages, social studies, and related fields. The
division was subtle but effective - very few girls from those schools
went into technical fields in college, while lots of boys did.
Especially one who bristles at being called a
"female" engineer. She says "Just call me an engineer, if you don't
mind!"
Works for me.
73 de Jim, N2EY