Have 3
1/2 Billion or 18.1% More Brain Cells than women!
Men
have more brain cells than women, study finds
Copyright (C) 1997 Nando.net
Copyright (C) 1997 Agence France-Presse
COPENHAGEN (July 28,
1997 10:04 a.m. EDT) - Men have 16 percent more brain cells than women, but
the extra gray matter does not make them any smarter, Danish researchers
report.
Neurologists Bente
Pakkenberg of Kommunehospitalet and Hans Joergen Gundersen of Aarhus
University analyzed the brains of 94 Danes who died between the ages of 20
and 90.
Their final tally,
reported in the Journal of Comparative Neurology, was that men have an
average of 22.8 billion brain cells,
compared to 19.3 billion for women.
"We were
surprised by the difference," Pakkenberg told AFP. "We did not
think it was so big, even though men's brains weigh more." That
disparity is 150 grams, she said.
The research team
used a technique that analyzed the brain layer by layer and gave a more
accurate cell count, she said.
But Pakkenberg
insisted the difference in cell number does not show up in tests measuring
male and female intelligence.
"In these tests
it is possible that men are better at some things than women, but in general
they are not more intelligent," she said.
Copyright (C) 1997
Nando.net
The major outlier is
black men, which can be explained by any number of factors, and removing them
increases r-squared to 0.67 for GRE Verbal, 0.69 for GRE Analytical, 0.71 for
IAEP math, 0.84 for TIMSS Math, 0.91 for TIMSS Science, 0.96 for GRE
Quantitative, and 0.98 for annual earnings. Following are the graphs with this one
outlier removed:
|
522,000 men and 522,000 women take
the SAT each year. Men with 3 1/2 billion more brain cells each, who score an
average of 53 points higher. It is scientifically impossible to prove
that this is because of "discrimination" and not because of their
collective 1.8 quadrillion more brain cells. Men collectively score
27.6 million more SAT points than females, which is 65.2 million brain cells
for each extra SAT points There is utterly no way for anyone to KNOW
or to prove that these two variables are independent of each other.
|
agree that the analyses and calculations necessary to take the SAT take place
in the brain is correct. To agree that the precise process by which this
occurs is not well understood is correct. To know that these extra 3 1/2
billion brain cells constitute 18.1% of the male brain's mass is correct.
But there is no
analytical process whatsoever by which it can be proven that there is
absolutely no causation for this precise correlation. There is no way to
know that not even one single one of these extra 1.8 quadrillion brain cells
contributed to even a 0.001% increase in the SAT score of at least one
male. How could exactly 3 1/2 billion brain cells--18.1% of the male brain--refuse
to participate in the SAT test (out of a sense of fairness to females?), while
the remaining 19.5 billion brain cells continue to "discriminate"
against females, by outperforming female brains by 18.5%?
If 18.1% of the
brains of these 522,000 male test takers were removed, would those males still
collectively score 27.6 million more SAT points than females? What is it
about this 81.9% of the male brain that it performs 18.5% better than a female
brain of equivalent size? Is it made of a superior material?
Who would bet
their life that not even 2 out of these 1.8 quadrillion brain cells might sneak
across the feminists' invisible line and cause a 0.001% increase in an
unsuspecting male's SAT Math score? Who is willing to bet trillions of
dollars of taxpayers' money that this is the case?
The statement
is an utterly absurd and cynical hypothesis from a bunch of PMS charged
feminists whose frustration about their inability to grasp abstract concepts
shines through in the international press. For each 1% increase in the
percent of feminists who "think": "I am good at math",
their TIMSS scores decrease two points.
Such absurd
assumptions and social engineering by feminists who haven't got a clue what
engineering and science are increased the cost of education in the US from 4.8%
of GDP in 1959 to 7.6% of GDP in 1993 (Table 31). They increased
education costs by $215 billion just last year and more than $7.3 trillion over the last 40 years. Yet SAT
scores plunged 98 points, 98% of those taking the GRE test who score in the
fiftieth percentile are males and only 2% females, the US is dead last in TIMSS
geometry & last in IAEP math, & the "gender gap" in test
scores didn't budge a point!
Educators have
turned a stupid idea into an utterly remarkable failure! US education
ranks as one of the best of the Twenty Nine Phenomenal Federal Flops.
http://www.iwf.org/news/000918.shtml
September 18, 2000
Differences Between Boys and Girls Are
Found in
Nature and the Brain not in Socialization
Renowned
Experts Tell National Press Club Audience
WASHINGTON, DC
(September 18, 2000) – Leading experts on research into brain differences
between boys and girls, told a National Press Club luncheon crowd on Friday the
15th that biology—not social construction—explains sex differences.
This has significant implications for both education and the workplace.
Speaking at an event
sponsored by the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), “The XY Files:
The Truth is Out There About the Differences Between Boys and Girls,” the
panel of experts noted that both society and boys are being harmed by fashionable,
but misguided, feminist notions. Said Lionel Tiger, Charles Darwin Professor of
Anthropology at Rutgers University and author of The Decline of Males:
“The androgynous commitment to the notion that the sexes are all the same
is essentially causing chronic private trauma in countless lives because there
is no articulation between the social structure and the real needs of and
feelings of people.”
Challenging the gender
experts who see male/female differences as created by socialization, Doreen
Kimura, Professor of Psychology at Simon Fraser University and author of Sex
and Cognition, presented science. “Some of the sex differences in
intellectual or cognitive patterns are biologically influenced early in life
and a major factor is the different hormonal milieu experienced by males and
females before or shortly after birth,” she reported.
Patricia Hausman, a
behavioral scientist specializing in the nature and origins of human sex
differences, agreed. “Many argue that changes in the social environment
could eliminate sex differences in interests,” she said. “To me,
this perspective mistakenly assumes that the ‘social environment’
is something that Big People force on Little People. I think it is often the
other way around. The Little People send signals to the Big People about what
they do and do not like, and the Big People respond accordingly. Parents who
buy more dolls for a daughter are probably not forcing them on her. More
likely, they are reacting to observations that she did not find a toy truck particularly
captivating, but lavished attention on her first doll.”
The refusal of the
education system to accept what science says about boys and girls is having
devastating effects on children, especially boys, the panelists warned.
“The problem with [popular feminist] dogma is that it gives enormous
latitude to educators who want to tamper with children’s gender
identities,” said Christina Hoff Sommers, W.H. Brady Fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute and author of The War Against Boys.
“This dogma has inspired activist-educators to take on the challenge of
resocializing little boys to be more like little girls.”
Tiger concluded by
echoing Sommers. “We’re now trying to solve the problem of young
males by saying that they’re essentially young females,” he said.
“What is happening though is that boys do less well in school and they
don’t go on to college as often. This will have implications for these
young men to be seen as acceptable or plausible candidates for marriage.”
Which leads to a
warning for all of those so-called gender experts: Don’t mess with Mother
Nature.
