Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:11:41 GMT, robert casey wrote:

Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test
is that it isn't something most people already know. And it
isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching
a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning".

That makes it a real PITA to people who are good at book
learnin' and not so hot at motor skills.

Those are the same people who get As in Chemistry but Ds in Chem
Lab.....

Then we have the Tau Beta Pi MEs drilling holes . .


--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

w3rv

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

N2EY:

I have noticed one thing, people who "DON'T have what it takes" always
"try to make it something else."

Either you have it or you don't, and industry will find out, one way or
another...

.... one more thing, people who don't have what it takes are always more
than willing to fall into an argument of just what it takes--the rest
which have what it takes usually have completed the job by then...

John

wrote in message
ups.com...


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

wrote:
Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:11:41 GMT, robert casey wrote:

Actually, I wrote the following paragraph:

Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test
is that it isn't something most people already know. And it
isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching
a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning".

That makes it a real PITA to people who are good at book
learnin' and not so hot at motor skills.

Those are the same people who get As in Chemistry but Ds in Chem
Lab.....

Yup.

Then we have the Tau Beta Pi MEs drilling holes . .

My frat was I Phelta Thi....

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Dee:


[snip]

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]


So what you really needed was exposure - publicity - examples - demos.

Were you attracted to amateur radio because it was like the internet,
or because it was something very different?

Yes I needed to know what it was all about before developing an interest in
radio for it's own sake. The Novice/Tech class I took along with my husband
at the time filled that role.

Once I had some basic knowledge about ham radio, I was attracted by the fact
that it was NOT like the internet. What attracted me was that I could talk
around the world with NO INFRASTRUCTURE. That communications was totally
dependent on me and my skills and my knowledge of propagation once I had the
basic radio and antenna. Here I, just an average citizen, could put a radio
signal around the world and even beyond if I wanted to pursue it.

If it had been like the internet, I'd probably have lost interest.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

Down load Mirc (it is free) if you have a windows machine (if apple
there are other programs)and learn to IRC... you will find you have been
missing a lot..

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Dee:


[snip]

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]


So what you really needed was exposure - publicity - examples -
demos.

Were you attracted to amateur radio because it was like the internet,
or because it was something very different?

Yes I needed to know what it was all about before developing an
interest in radio for it's own sake. The Novice/Tech class I took
along with my husband at the time filled that role.

Once I had some basic knowledge about ham radio, I was attracted by
the fact that it was NOT like the internet. What attracted me was
that I could talk around the world with NO INFRASTRUCTURE. That
communications was totally dependent on me and my skills and my
knowledge of propagation once I had the basic radio and antenna. Here
I, just an average citizen, could put a radio signal around the world
and even beyond if I wanted to pursue it.

If it had been like the internet, I'd probably have lost interest.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Im convinced that events in the future will prove us right. Today we
have a "bloat the numbers at any cost" game which is doomed to backfire
eventually. The big question is how badly it will backfire and how much
damage will have been be done before it happens. The history of this
country over last couple decades is chock full of eamples of backing
away from failed giveaways. It's only a matter of time until ham radio
gets it's turn.


The "bloat the numbers at any cost" will backfire for the simple reason that
too many with no real interest will get in and then drop out. Then we will
see once again a decline in numbers that will panic people just as the
relatively small drop off from the peak is panicing people now.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

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.

2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women.



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.


I work out in the trenches of the automotive industry and stated that I did
NOT see very many female engineers but that I see more female hams than
female engineers.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

. . . The ham was Gene Reynolds W3EAN
who went out of his way to answer my unending stream of questions that
night. I probably drove him nuts but I think he enjoyed it. There was
no turning back after that night, I was gonna become a ham.

I enjoyed the story, Brian.

I've enjoyed the whole trip Michael.

Me too!

But I gotta break in here. What you have
described is the real reason that people become hams. You were bitten by
the bug, and it sounds like no one was going to stop you from becoming one.

Yessir that's about right certainly in my case.

I think that's true in most cases for hams who stick around.

I too was hooked early in life, although it took a long time to finally
get my ticket. I'm just P****d that I didn't get it years earlier.

Sorry about the previous rant but once in awhile somebody around here
bumps my babble button and there I go again . . You bumped the bloomin'
button again Coslo. Rant Mode = ON

I didn't exactly leap toward the FCC office to take the test either,
far from it. One problem being that I had a number of other interests
too like photography, Boy Scouts, model railroading and GIRLS. They all
absobred my time and what little money I could scrounge via paper
routes and such.

I think that a key time to get kids interested is in middle school and
even elementary school.

While my folks cheerfully funded Scouting they did not fund any of my
other hot buttons. Probably because they knew I'd drive them broke if
they did. They did encourage my pursuit of ham radio though, I guess
they thought it had educatinal value and it kept me off the streets and
outta trouble. The latter didn't work very well though.

My folks didn't fund anything in the way of "optional interests" - if
we kids were interested, we could figure out how to fund the activity,
and/or do it
on the cheap. Which some of us proceeded to turn into an art form.

I never had an Elmer, I had no idea how to connect with a ham club when
I was 10-12 so I scrounged books and magazines about ham radio and
tuned the bands with my junk radios. When I finally got to high school
I found a bunch of hams and and "the rest is history". Took me about
five years to go from my encounter with W3EAN to passing the Novice
test and getting on the air with it.

Similar story at my end, except my Elmers were books. I was 90% of the
way to
a Novice when I finally got up the gumption to approach a local ham,
who I located by his antennas.

Now there's a bit of publicity that is being lost in ham radio today.
Time
was, everybody knew where the hams in the neighborhood lived, because
you
couldn't mistake the antennas for anything else.

Which was in a much different regime than we have today. The Novice
license was a stick and carrot ticket with the emphasis on the stick.
We had 365 days from the date the license was issued to upgrade to a
13WPM General or get booted out of ham radio.

Or you could get a Technician ticket - but that had no HF and the
written
was the same as General.

Of the dozens of local
Novices I knew I don't recall of any who failed to upgrade or bitched
about the code tests.

Me neither. In my time the Novice was 2 years but the same one-shot
no renewal no second chance ticket.

Biggest cause of dropouts in those days was lack of gear.

I think I'm very typical of the kids who got into the hobby back then
and there were great heaps of us. The adults who took up ham radio back
then were a different story, they had the money and they had control of
their lives which us kids did not have. Net result today is that us
kids from back then are obviously the grouchy old farts of today and
almost universally have disdain to one degree or another for the
current state of affairs in the giveaway requirements for licensing.

The newcomers didn't make the rules, so I see no point in being ticked
off at *them*.

It's not that we're mentally frozen in time at all, that's 100% BS.

Yep.

It's because we've been there and done it all and we know what works
and what does not given the fact that except for the current licensing
nonsense ham radio hasn't changed nearly as much as many would try to
have us believe. Fuhgeddit, we see right thru it.

Heck, take a look at the "Rotten Radio" stories by T.O.M. With a few
changes for the techological differences the same stories apply today.

Im convinced that events in the future will prove us right. Today we
have a "bloat the numbers at any cost" game which is doomed to backfire
eventually. The big question is how badly it will backfire and how much
damage will have been be done before it happens. The history of this
country over last couple decades is chock full of eamples of backing
away from failed giveaways. It's only a matter of time until ham radio
gets it's turn.

We're seeing it already. The restructuring of 2000 reduced both the
code
*and written* test requirements. Net result was a short-term peak in
numbers followed by a drop to below where we were in 2000 or even 1997.

Maybe FCC sees that - they could have dropped Element 1 back in 2003,
or any
time since, but they haven't seen fit to do so.

Whew: Got that one out of my system too. Thanks Mike.

The idea of "recruiting" people into the ARS is likely never going to
work - at least as far as snagging people that are thinking about a
hobby, but don't know what to pick up.

I agree right down the line. You can't "recruit" anybody into a hobby
unless some kernel of interest already exists in the mind of the
"target" and even then it's a dicey proposition in most cases. It's
like trying to herd cats, doesn't work. The best we can do is toss out
PR to raise the awareness of ham radio and let the chips fall where
they might. The League is in the right direction in this respect.

Yup. It has always been that way, because it's a specialized
attraction.

If you wanna be a Ham - you *know* it.

Only if you know what ham radio is. That's the problem in a nutshell.

Yupper but how one gets there varies hugely to the point where all
670,000 of us have probably taken 300,000 different routes. Compare the
way Dee got into the hobby vs. my route. How different can they get?!

Bingo.

A local oldster was inquiring as to when his license expired, because
he couldn't find his F.C.C. Wallpaper. We help him figure it out. We
need to keep the geezers on the air. I love talking to them. I hope
someone is looking out for me when I'm 91!

They're all treasures we have a responsibilty to protect. Often from
themselves. Heh.

Yep.

Is 'CNP online or should I use regular mail?

73 de Jim, N2EY
w3rv

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.


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.


2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women.



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.

I work with 5 or so regularly.

I think you are probably correct regarding their increased presence in
academia, compared to industry.

My thoughts on why that is so are based on two ideas. First is that the
academic world is sensitive to gender issues, due to groups that bust on
them if they are not. This leads to the second reason. That is that
until there are a lot more women graduating in the engineering fields,
the academic world will scap them up pretty quickly.

Some have noted that women tend to think differently than men, and may
not want to go into the engineering fields as a result of that
difference. (note that this is as a trend- not as the circumstances
regarding any one woman) I am not sure if the differences are
instinctual, or culture based. Time will tell. And it will probably be
quite a long time.


Especially one who bristles at being called a
"female" engineer. She says "Just call me an engineer, if you don't mind!"




Oh crap . . been there, done that . . my middle daughter was an
over-the-edge NOW street warrior in her college days back when the
battle over abortions rights was in full bloom. I can't tell you how
much I enjoyed watching her in action on the six PM news. TWICE.

Of course she had "problems" with this male chauvinist pig. Finally got
down to me suggesting that instead of differentiating by the man/woman
thing we differtiate by using "X-Chromosone people" and "Y-Chromosone
people" instead. Only got me about ten seconds of peace before she
recovered and got all over me again.

Yoiks!

In fairness to the particular engineer, she is not particularly
obnoxious. Mostly just wants to get her work done.

- Mike KB3EIA -