From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:39:30 +1000, Aqua   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > David Friedman wrote:   
      
   >> In article ,   
   >>  Aqua  wrote:   
      
   >>> David Friedman wrote:   
      
   >>>> In article <6ph506-k82.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,   
   >>>>  Aqua  wrote:   
      
   >>>>>> You said you couldn't think of a way in which, with   
   >>>>>> those conditions met, we could end up with   
   >>>>>> researchers observing more female chimps than males   
   >>>>>> doing their thing with ...  . I have just described   
   >>>>>> a way in which they could.   
      
   >>>>> The gap I perceive between your world view and my   
   >>>>> world view just got a lot wider.  I'm either   
   >>>>> misunderstanding your point, or I can't even imagine   
   >>>>> how to teach this stuff to you.   
      
   >>>> You were unable to see any solution to a puzzle. I gave   
   >>>> one. Your conclusion is that it must show the   
   >>>> deficiencies in my education.   
      
   >>> You mean you really seriously claim that if a researcher   
   >>> observed 10/10 female chimps doing some task, and only   
   >>> 5/10 male chimps, it is reasonable to conclude the male   
   >>> chimps are significantly more skilled at that task than   
   >>> the females?   
      
   >> You have it backwards.   
      
   >> If you look up the thread, you claimed that female chimps   
   >> were observed to be more skilled at certain tasks then   
   >> male, and wanted to know how that could be consistent   
   >> with my assumptions--equal mean, wider distribution for   
   >> males. Your claim was that after scribbling a bit, you   
   >> could not find any way it could happen--I offered a way.   
      
   >> Here is the quote from our post:   
      
   >>>> Okay, so, let's give you your scenario in which we can   
   >>>> come up with a linear measure of chimps' ability with   
   >>>> tools, learning, innovation etc (call it TLIQ), and in   
   >>>> which, while female and male chimps have the identical   
   >>>> average TLIQ, the male chimps have a wider   
   >>>> distribution, both above and below the average.   
      
   >>>> Under what possible scenarios are researchers going to   
   >>>> observe more female chimps actually doing their thing   
   >>>> with tools, learning and innovation?   
      
   >> Note the final question, which is the opposite of what   
   >> you seem in this post to think you asked.   
      
   > Huh?   
      
   > I think you and I must have a very different definition of   
   > "possible". Either that, or you've never heard of   
   > "falsifiable hypotheses".   
      
   You're thinking of it as a real scientific problem; David is   
   thinking of it as an abstract problem in mathematics.   
      
   David seems to be assuming the the TLIQ scale has already   
   been established, as have the distribusions of male TLIQs   
   and female TLIQs, and that it has further been determined   
   that a certain *specific* tool-using behavior requires a   
   TLIQ of at least 70.  No doubt he imagines that there's some   
   other tool-using behavior manifested only by chimps with   
   TLIQs of at least 130, say; in his sample it will be   
   exhibited by half of the males and none of the females.   
   He's not concerned with where the numbers came from --   
   they're givens -- and he's focussing on a specific   
   relatively low-end behavior in the TL suite.   
      
   Brian   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)