Why is there crapshot in MIT admissions???

Colleges and Universities A-Z Massachusetts Institute of Technology
81

<p>First, there would be the measurement problem. Height, intelligence, all genetically driven can be measured. Arrogance and narrow-mindedness are in the eyes of the beholder. What one calls arrogance may be supreme self-confidence; narrow-mindedness may mean focus or passion. Of course both can be just what you called them, what we know commonly as arrogance and being bigoted. Probably mediated through environment as in parental modeling, belonging to an elite group, nobility, senior mullahs, or whatever.</p>

<p>But, I have been called arrogant. Never narrow-minded or slob. I think often I have deserved the arrogant epithet.</p>

82

<p>Ramaswami – I do not want to take on this topic of gender difference any further with you because it is a waste of time. I’d rather put my time to good use - mentoring fellow women. I’ll leave this topic with the comment that things like drive and aggressiveness are factors shaped by environment and culture. If all women condition themselves to mimic males and do it for years, the differences you perceive will cease to exist or may even get reversed. </p>

<p>I do have a quick clarification about the comment on Indian students made by my coworker. I brought that point out to say excellent grades and scores are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for ensuring complete success in the American education system. </p>

<p>Mollie - Thanks for answering my question about the stats.</p>

83

<p>innovator, drive and aggressiveness are related to dopamine and serotonin and there are gender differences based on neurophysiology. One may claim that this neurochemical difference is shaped by environment etc. My answer is simple: apply Occam's Razor to scientific reasoning.</p>

<p>In a debating culture, one would find it worthwhile to spend time with someone who holds a completely contrary view, especially if it is threatening to what one holds dear. But thanks for letting me know I am not worth your time.</p>

84

<p>Ramaswami:</p>

<p>Dude, you realise we (including the pieved off women) hit you so hard becuase we care?</p>

<p>I will say only this: So you have the understanding of how the protiens interact to form the being? You know the pathways with precision through which the genes produce the organs and body? You know the accumulated factors involved in the neurology of a human or any other being? And you have concluded, contrary to every rational human-not overstepping their knowledge base-that the human animal does not achieve beyond their chemical nature?</p>

<p>I submit to you this: read your texts much more and tell me where do tools come from and if you can what chromosomal configuration do you think most likely discovered basis for genetic and bio-engineering (I'll give you a clue: agriculture. Think hunter-gatherer society) in the first place.</p>

<p>Most importantly, don't forget that there is a person who is a match for you. Probably many, yet it would seem you will not notice because your definition of great and genius intelligence is too very narrow....</p>

85

<p>Eluhan, if I were stupid to argue only the reductionist way that we are the sum of chemical interactions then I would truly be a lost cause.</p>

<p>America in its mission of social engineering has already concluded the opposite, that biological differences do not matter. I am merely pointing out the contrary, that there is an opposite to this reasoning, just as the reasoning of the females is a counter to mine.</p>

<p>Heraclitus, strife is good....No, they did not hit me hard, in fact, I hit them hard. I did not automatically genuflect to the women's agenda.</p>

86

<p>Only in the society in which the bedrock belief is that biological differences do not matter can the true nature of the differences and how individuals possessing them can surpass them come to light. This happens through friction. I do not at sight accept a woman or an Indian or my identical twin to have my capacities or ignorances. Nor do I accept that any other individual has any different capacities.
I am however, aware of my own limitations and the ability for others to extend beyond them. No matter how much solitude or reclusiveness I may feel benefitted from.
My point is no one understands the biological entity well enough to ascribe the phenotypes of intellectual capacity to genes or the protiens they produce.
Further I will say it again, you must be aware of how the differences in intellect in other individuals can extend your own.</p>

87

<p>Eluhan, don't complicate it, some people are tall, some are short and the latter will never be great basketball players. Some have fast twitch fibers and some slow twitch and the latter will never be great sprinters.</p>

<p>There are innate differences in aptitude and ability: music comes to mind. Plenty of studies on discrimination differences in tonal rhythm etc.</p>

<p>OK, have it your way. Everyone can achieve everything ,we are only limited by our imagination. Next we will be telling people they can fly , grow wings....</p>

88

<p>Because this is easiest to address...

[quote]
Some have fast twitch fibers and some slow twitch and the latter will never be great sprinters.

[/quote]

This is a misleading oversimplification, not least because only about 45% of the variation in fiber composition between people is due to genetics. It's also misleading because, while elite sprint athletes have a lower frequency of the ACTN3 R577X mutation (and therefore have predominantly slow-twitch fibers) than controls, 50% of them have at least one mutant allele.</p>

<p>In other topics, it might be prudent for you to examine your a priori assumptions that g exists, that it's strongly or exclusively heritable, and that it's measurable by any of the instruments we have today. There may be innate differences between people in terms of intelligence, but that doesn't mean you have to buy into any of those three ideas. Some people want to buy into shaky science because it validates their worldviews, and that's fine. If you are as open to the evidence as you claim to be, you shouldn't want to do that.</p>

89

<p>"OK, have it your way. Everyone can achieve everything ,we are only limited by our imagination. Next we will be telling people they can fly , grow wings...."
I think the truth is somewhere between the absolutes of: a. you can do anything you put your mind to, and, b. there is a strict limit determined by genetics of what you can accomplish in life.
From my personal experience with math and science olympiads (USAMO, USACO, USABO, etc) and their subprograms, (if you take this to be a fair representation of success in all of life, which you may not), I've come to believe that success in life is determined both by effort and genetics. For a given level of success, some kids simply have to put in a lot more effort than others to reach that level. There is not absolute upper limit on success, but at some point on the achievement ladder, it becomes impractical to expect people with certain genetics to reach that level of success, due to the level of work involved.</p>

<p>Obviously I don't advocate dashing the dreams of elementary school students with my aforementioned views, but at the same time at some point it becomes important to be realistic with oneself. From my perspective, a majority of people will not be inhibited by genetics in reaching their dreams, as long as they are within reason.</p>

<p>But there are exceptions.
For example, I know personally through experience that I would be unlikely to become an award winning abstract mathematician. And I may do fine at other jobs. But to allow myself to continue with the belief that I could someday be an award winning abstract mathematician would amount to setting myself up for disappointment and failure.</p>

90

<p>It is unfortunate that the discussion of gender and genetic difference has grown into a taboo. But I don't believe the blame for this rests wholly with what you consider the defensive groupthink mob that is the majority population. Because, in this academic circle in which we and the likes of us travel, there is nothing that is valued and revered greater than raw sheer intelligence and insight. To strip someone of their intellectual dignity is a most searing form of insult and punishment, and deep down we're all aware of the impact one false step in this direction may have on millions of lives. Though I have no doubt that some of the cries for science is in genuine ignorance or wholehearted curiosity, unfortunately, most, are not. It is disingenuous to invoke science to advance personal agendas, in this case, to confirm something that you already believe, and hope, to be true- the superiority of one race, or gender, or nationality, over another. Feynman once said that it is a failure of a scientist who desires something other than the absolute truth from an experiment. That's why this investigation is dangerous. It's easy to go from inconclusive results to obvious right and wrong if one is open to fooling himself in order to get what he wants. Dishonest intentions are not hard to spot, yet somehow, the perpetrator of this is always ignorant of his scent, he walks into a room, wreaking something awful, and screams with indignity that he's always treated this way and since there's nothing wrong with him there must be something wrong with everyone else.</p>

<p>Mahmoud Ahmajinedad's call for further investigation into the actual occurrence of the Holocaust was received with much disgust in the international circuit. Is it because the world is narrow-minded and in denial? Fearful of what might be revealed? Or is it because the man who doesn't stop to investigate the possibility of homosexuals in his country probably has less than pure motives for this newest fanatic adoration of science and knowledge? The same man: how about his calls for research into nuclear power? "We want to enrich uranium for science." We can all agree that scientific curiosity is probably not what drives this man.</p>

<p>No matter, this using science and the pursuit of knowledge as a crux for our less than noble intentions is a far from a first. But it is only a thin veil. And we've all heard it. No, scientists should not be fearful of knowledge, but scientists also should have a sense of social responsibility and scientific integrity. If we are to invoke science to answer our most sensitive social and racial questions, we should be sure that those conducting the experiments have placed no bets on the outcome.</p>

91

<p>Ramaswami, keep spouting the psychological programming and forgetting the numbers of people who have performed despite barriers such as height or perhaps performed better because of what is percieved to be physical limitation.</p>

<p>Have you done any but but cursery reading on genetics? You do realise the absolute minute difference between any human's genotype and any other's? You do realise that the range of possible phenotype within a single imediate family severely complicate any idea of 'genetic capacity' being inherent within lineage.</p>

<p>My guess is, your only passion is self-affirmation and certainly nothing to do with biology or genetics. This is a matter of simple mendelian principles. Yet you seem to cling to what is already in the infancy of the field the outdated hope that genetics can be self-affirming. Genetics are intricately diverse and yet impossibly stable. So where, scientifically is the data to support this stupid notion of the "gay' gene or the 'smart' gene or the 'I can do this better and there's nothing you can do about' gene?</p>

92

<p>ramaswami, yes, my school is a small sample size. It's actually a very small sample size because it is a very small school. Statistically, it is not the best example to make a sweeping statement from- but that was not my point. I was not extrapolating the data to say that females always score as well or better than males. You were the one who made a sweeping statement, implying that all females are less intelligent. When you make this kind of a statement, disproving it requires only a single counterexample. I gave that counterexample, and I would guess it is by know means an isolated one. You could find many examples of a girl having the highest score in a graduating class if you looked into it. You were trying to prove that all females are less intelligent. I was trying to prove that all females are not less intelligent, which logically means that I just have to provide one example.</p>

<p>By the way, I do not know all their test scores, just the highest one (which was, by the way, very close to mine). After SAT scores are released, in our school everyone goes round asking everyone else what they scored and a list of the top three or four is collectively compiled in short order and quickly becomes common knowledge. This is probably due to the small size of the school. I can understand that you found my claim to know all of them a stretch if you thought I was from a class of, say, 1000 students. </p>

<p>English monarchs- maybe not the largest sample size but a significant example because England has had one of the largest impacts on the world of any nation to date. Why are we speaking English right now? Also it is not as if England is the only nation to have great female rulers; look at Catherine the Great of Russia, Isabella of Spain, Maria Theresa of Austria, Margaret of Denmark. There are also a huge number of women that had an impact indirectly; they could not rule but managed to be influential nonetheless, i.e. Elenor of Acquitaine and Catherine deMedici. Does it not strike you that despite the fact that so few women were ever able to come to power, many of the ones who did were remarkably successful? </p>

<p>I'm going to assume your answer to that question is no, so I will now write down some numbers:
3.5 million, 4 million, 20 million, 20 million, 72 million
What do these numbers represent? The numbers of people killed in the Napoleonic wars, in purges in Russia, the <em>official</em> number killed in the Great Leap Forward, deaths in World War I (not including deaths from the ensuing flu) and deaths in World War II. This is a massive number of people dead. Let's look at who started each of these conflicts/problems:
Napoleonic Wars = Napoleon
Purges = Joseph Stalin
Great Leap Forward = Mao
WWI = various European leaders
WWII = Adolph Hitler
There is a pattern in the gender of all of these people...
In fact I think you will find that almost every war (maybe even every war but I am hesitant to make an absolute statement because I am not 100% sure) and certainly all the most deadly wars were started by men. Almost all of the most brutal dictatorial regimes have historically been run by men. You claim men are naturally more intelligent and are better in particular at the maths and sciences (rational fields). Since when is it intelligent or rational to begin something that destroys millions of lives? </p>

<p>Yes, I know there are many examples of great male rulers, and that not all males that come to power start wars and genocides. My point is that we cannot say, thanks to Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Victoria, and so on that almost all or all great rulers were male. We can say that all or almost all of the worst wars and genocides in history have been started by males.</p>

93

<p>Just a side note: I would like to add, to your credit, ramaswami, that I am glad to see you are open about your views. It is my belief that it is better to have someone who is sexist and admits it openly than someone who is sexist but won't admit it for fear of offending the powers that be. I totally disagree with you but thanks at least for being honest.</p>

94

<p>mollibatmit, science is all about competing explanations and there are no competing explanations that eliminate g or the role of fast twitch fibres. At the moment these are the most parsimonious explanations for the phenomena.</p>

<p>bob99975, I agree with you that most achievement in life is a combination of genertics, effort and environment. I am bringing a corrective to the American zeitgeist that seems to belittle genetics.</p>

<p>pebbles, I hope I didn't imply that all females are less intelligent, etc. I am saying there are group differences between the genders, gender differences, vary by tests, age etc and whilst there may be good explanations, one of them may be genetic and let's not hesitate to raise the subject. Ahmedinijad is a poor example: the truth of a proposition does not depend on its provenance. Whatever his motives, whatever his agenda, what he says must be examined on its own merits. He drew fire because of the gay, feminist and Jewish lobbies in this country. </p>

<p>Toffee, men have caused more killing because they were in the position, trust me, if women were leaders, they too will do this kind of thing. My avocation is reading history and I don't want to overwhelm you with counter examples from Roman and Chinese empires, etc etc etc. Your examples of female English monarchs does not prove anything.</p>

<p>Let me summarize my points: if the differences between the sexes in intelligence were due to environment and restricted opportunity universities in American would gladly study the area and society would make changes. If by chance, let us go through a thought experiment, the differences were due to innate differences in ability due to genetics that information will be suppressed and the investigator pilloried.</p>

<p>The feminist/LBGT crowd has taken over academia.</p>

95

<p>"men have caused more killing because they were in the position, trust me, if women were leaders, they too will do this kind of thing"</p>

<p>I'm glad you said this because you tacitly affirm my previous point: women have had less opportunities in positions of leadership than men. I actually do agree with you on this, because it falls right into the consistent line that women have had less opportunity to be influential due to societal regulations. But it seems inconsistent to me that you acknowledge that women have done less wrong because women have had less opportunity and yet refuse to accept that the exact same line of reasoning with regard to women's relative lack of achievements. </p>

<p>At the moment I admit it is hard to definitively disprove your argument because you are arguing from areas that we don't yet fully understand. We don't yet fully understand the human genome or how influential genes are in comparison with environment. We cannot yet judge if affording equal opportunity to women and men will balance out the numbers of each gender that are influential, because, if you consider the amount of time that equal opportunity has been allowed from the perspective of all of history, that time appears miniscule in comparison to the time before it. </p>

<p>In the meantime, I think the best thing to do is give the benefit of the doubt. Your arguments sound a bit too much like aspects of the "European superiority" argument that was made a few centuries ago for my comfort. Many Europeans concluded that because Africans and Native Americans had not developed the level of technology that they had and were thus militarily inferior, they must be in fact racially ("genetically") inferior. Turns out the difference had nothing at all to do with innate intelligence; genetically the difference is just the amount of melanin in the skin. </p>

<p>At the end of the day every human being is of equal value and worth regardless of race or gender; those who deny this fact (from European explorers in the 16th century to Hitler in the 20th) have been proven wrong many times. Making comments like yours implies a lack of respect for human dignity, even if you don't actually mean to come across this way. You are right in asserting that someone who argued that one gender or race is innately inferior to the other(s) would get in serious trouble in the States; Americans hold to the value that every life is significant and every person is of equal value. You may disagree with those values; fair enough. But I doubt you can prove that they are negative ideals for a society to hold to.</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
mollibatmit, science is all about competing explanations and there are no competing explanations that eliminate g or the role of fast twitch fibres. At the moment these are the most parsimonious explanations for the phenomena.

[/quote]

I just gave you the evidence against the idea of muscle fiber composition determinism -- I can give you the references if you'd like. Some are freely available to the public in Pubmed Central.</p>

<p>As for g, the concept was made up out of whole cloth in order to find some number that tracked with what was conceived as a general intelligence factor. The outcomes of each test were weighted so that the ultimate result would be a sensible IQ score -- in other words, the data were cooked and manipulated until they yielded the right result. It's hardly a model of unbiased science, either when it was devised or in the apologetics which represent it now. Saying that there needs to be a competing explanation for g is like saying there needs to be a competing explanation for the idea of the ether -- my competing explanation is that g doesn't exist, end of story.</p>

<p>Armchair genetic determinism doesn't really help your case.</p>

97

<p>


</p>

<p>Um, you might want to look into that a little more. Catherine the Great was a bit of a fire cracker. A smart one but no stranger to the military power struggles of nations.</p>

<p>In fact if by Isabella of Spain, you were referring to Queen Isabella II (1843-1868) Then the morrocans would whole heartedly disagree about females not starting wars.</p>

<p>Maria Theresa established the Theresian Military Academy in 1752 and doubled the size the Austrian military. Through a very complex series of events she tried to start a second conflict with Prussia but was pre-empted.</p>

<p>Not to nitpick, but it is not men who kill people it is leaders who kill people,
err, maybe that's soldeirs follow.. No, No, Nations lust for.. wait, I'll figure it out in a second.</p>

98

<p>toffee327, of course women have not had anything remotely close to equal opportunity and if they get it for the next 2000 years why they may produce a Shakespeare. Of course, all human beings have equal worth, value, and dignity but are not equal necessarily in capacity and ability. All I am saying is this: just as we must be open to the possibility that given time and nurture and opportunity the next millenium would produce great women artists and scientists etc we must also be open to the possibility that it will not because of innate differences. The study of innate differences should not be taboo, that's all.</p>

99

<p>molliebatt, I am a measurement psychologist and you are dead wrong on g. The muscle fibre data is too complex; as a devout long distance runner I can give you references to fill volumes. The data on sex differences in mood disorders is overwhelming. But let's not get reductionist. Let's be skeptical in all directions and not just in one direction.</p>

100

<p>Eluhan, you said what I was too embarrassed to say because it was so obvious. It is the act of leading a nation that creates the concatenation of circumstances that lead to war not gender. Indira Gandhi broke up Bangla Desh, Bandaranaike started the long Sri Lankan Tamil war back to Boedicia.</p>