Is U.S. education truly getting worse?

[Jeff Corey]

...Yes. And males actually have fewer of the cones necessary to see color at all. We simply did not evolve the need for it, as women did...

Not the case. Most males and females are trichromats with three photopigments in the retina.Some males are dichromats and some females are tetrachromats with four photopigments and can discriminate colors at the red end if the visible spectrum better. So your generalization " males actually have fewer cones..'" is false.
I'd offer a link, but you apparently prefer to remain uninformed.

 

[volatile]

By the way, even if any of your "facts" were true (which they aren't), how exactly does that relate to "forcing boys to behave like girls" as you originally claimed the "radical feminist agenda" was doing?

What would variations in colour vision, pain sensitivity and susceptibility to head colds between children actually have to do with the nature of how to educate kids? None of those things have any bearing on behaviour (or the symptoms diagnosed as ADD) at all.

You made a cognitive and behavioural claim, but didn't present any evidence of biologically "hard-wired" behavioural differences!

 

[digithead]

Before this derails further into a "how boys and girls differ" thread, I was wondering if Tokenconservative is going to give us the author, title, and publisher of the super textbook published in 1924. Or did he lose the keys to his storage unit?

If I had a textbook that great, I'd always have it handy because I'd want to show it off to people to show them how much better education was back in the 1920s than it is today...

 

[Prometheus]

I'd be quite interested in getting the details of that old textbook too, but to really get this thread back on track, I'm wondering if anyone has any detailed thoughts about how to actually measure the quality of an educational system. If we really want to answer the question in the OP's title, don't we first have to know what it really means?

So, imagine there's a new "Education Czar" who's been tasked to overhaul our education system, and it's your job to decide whether he/she is successful and keeps the position. What will you measure, and why? What do you consider to be the quantifiable indicators of education quality? Just test scores? Which tests? Or if the necessary tests aren't available yet, and need to be constructed, what should they look like?

 

[Tokenconservative]

I'm not a woman.

Ouch.

Sucks to be you, then since you apparently don't know there are differnces...or have the feminist wymyn in your life beaten all the manhood out of you?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Not the case. Most males and females are trichromats with three photopigments in the retina.Some males are dichromats and some females are tetrachromats with four photopigments and can discriminate colors at the red end if the visible spectrum better. So your generalization " males actually have fewer cones..'" is false.
I'd offer a link, but you apparently prefer to remain uninformed.

Whatever.

Look, the larger point, whether I recall what it is I read about this 4-5 years ago, is that males evolved a tendency toward recognizing fewer differences in color.

That's why when your wife (husband in your case, Jeff?) asks you whether you like the maroon or rose (or whatever, dude...maybe YOU Pay attention to this stuff...sorry, I don't...) you see no difference and that tends (today) to infuriate wymyn because they cannot understand how you can BE such a pig!

I don't imagine this happens in your life, Jeff.

I imagine your wymyn just point and say "you like this."

You just nod.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Before this derails further into a "how boys and girls differ" thread, I was wondering if Tokenconservative is going to give us the author, title, and publisher of the super textbook published in 1924. Or did he lose the keys to his storage unit?

If I had a textbook that great, I'd always have it handy because I'd want to show it off to people to show them how much better education was back in the 1920s than it is today...

Actually, I looked for it in the storage room the other day, but the light was burned out. Maybe after I replace the bulb (reg'lar incandescent...I like to see...just the kinda hairpin I is!) maybe I'll find it next time I am in there if I remember.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

I'd be quite interested in getting the details of that old textbook too, but to really get this thread back on track, I'm wondering if anyone has any detailed thoughts about how to actually measure the quality of an educational system. If we really want to answer the question in the OP's title, don't we first have to know what it really means?

So, imagine there's a new "Education Czar" who's been tasked to overhaul our education system, and it's your job to decide whether he/she is successful and keeps the position. What will you measure, and why? What do you consider to be the quantifiable indicators of education quality? Just test scores? Which tests? Or if the necessary tests aren't available yet, and need to be constructed, what should they look like?

Of course when you say "our" you mean "education professionals," right?

Tokie

 

[volatile]

Ouch.

Sucks to be you, then since you apparently don't know there are differnces...or have the feminist wymyn in your life beaten all the manhood out of you?

Tokie

*giggle* So men and women are always distinguishable, except when they're not? You are some kind of genius, I swear.

Come on, Tokie. What are the biologically-determined behavioural and cognitive differences between males and females? You still haven't suggested any.

 

[Tokenconservative]

*giggle* So men and women are always distinguishable, except when they're not? You are some kind of genius, I swear.

Come on, Tokie. What are the biologically-determined behavioural and cognitive differences between males and females? You still haven't suggested any.

I think I presented a catalog of them.

Just because your personal ignorance and strident, shrill, dogmatic ideology does not permit this to be true, does not mean it isn't.

I believe that's the same thing the Church told Galileo: Signor Galileo...just becaus-a that's a what-a your reseach-a has proved, does not-a mean-a it's what we gonna accept as the truth!"

It's the same as your approach to AGW: if you can suppress the truth, then then truth must not be true!

That works very well for IDers, and Creationists...and for PC lefties.

Tokie

 

[volatile]

I think I presented a catalog of them.

No, you didn't. You said: "single mothers who could not understand that no, it's not just a difference in plumbing, boys and girls are wired differently, female teachers and admins. happy to drug boys if it would get them to act more like girls".

And yet when asked to explain how this behavioural wiring differs, you listed differences in:

- Colour blindness
- Pain reaction
- Sensitivity to head colds
- Multi-tasking
- Map-reading ability
- Driving ability
- Asking for directions
- Motor skills

Only one of those is behavioural (that is, a difference in how people "act") - asking for directions - but even if that is true, how does that represent a fundamental, inalienable and important distinction between boys and girls?

The others, if true, have no bearing whatsoever on the inalienable differences between boys and girls. You maintain that it's problematic that the education system treats boys and girls equally, and these are the important differences you presented to make your case.

Pray tell, how do you think the US education system should change to take account of differing reactions to head colds between the genders, or even why it's a problem that they don't? If you don't want to approach that one, how about actually tell us what the biologically-determined differences in how boys and girls "act" are ?

 

[Tokenconservative]

No, you didn't. You said: "single mothers who could not understand that no, it's not just a difference in plumbing, boys and girls are wired differently, female teachers and admins. happy to drug boys if it would get them to act more like girls".

And yet when asked to explain how this behavioural wiring differs, you listed differences in:

- Colour blindness
- Pain reaction
- Sensitivity to head colds
- Multi-tasking
- Map-reading ability
- Driving ability
- Asking for directions
- Motor skills

Only one of those is behavioural (that is, a difference in how people "act") - asking for directions - but even if that is true, how does that represent a fundamental, inalienable and important distinction between boys and girls?

The others, if true, have no bearing whatsoever on the inalienable differences between boys and girls. You maintain that it's problematic that the education system treats boys and girls equally, and these are the important differences you presented to make your case.

Pray tell, how do you think the US education system should change to take account of differing reactions to head colds between the genders, or even why it's a problem that they don't? If you don't want to approach that one, how about actually tell us what the biologically-determined differences in how boys and girls "act" are ?

LOL!

I love this stuff!

Yep, because you have conflated the issue, Tokie must be...a LIIIIIAAARRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

God I love libs!

Okay, I'm game
Color blindness (physiologic difference): it's believed by some (rational thinkers) that women, evolved to stay at home in the cave, while men, evolved to go out an kill things, had a greater need to distinguish between colors: when this tuber is this shade of green, it makes you sick. When it's a darker/lighter shade it's good eatin'!
Pain(physio differenc): Men evolved to kill large things. If in the course of that event, a man got a few broken fingers, he could not sit down on a nearby rock and have good cry. He had to ignore it and continue with the task at hand.
Head colds: Apparently, from my reading, they have no idea what this is about.
Multi-tasking (only partly physio, related to peripheral vision; women have more of it): Men were hunters of large, dangerous animals and needed to focus very intently on that single task. Women stayed in the cave dealing with children, the fire, sewing, tanning hide...a multitude of tasks each of which would need a measure of attention at all times.
Map Reading (probably cultural, but still evolved behavior): Women were in the cave. This was a useless trait for them. Men were roaming the countryside with no global positioning equipment (predictable shriek: these cavemen din't have MAPS!!! Tokie's a fool!!! He thinks cavemen had maps!!! Sight) and had to know (evolve) how to get back home (this is not a simple a YOU probably believe it to be); related: the guy who could do this best, got to be chief and got to mate more. Guys who got lost tended to get eaten by big things.
Driving: (physio) Men were hunting large, very fast animals that were very dangerous and devloped (lots of science to back this up, but I have simple way of demonstrating this if you are man enough) quicker reaction times as a result; the man who was slow, got gored, trampled, ripped to shreds...it was a very effective evolutionary approach.
Directions: goes back to the map thing: the man who had to ask for directions was not a good leader. Therefore he did not get to BE leader or pass on his genes (this is a behavioral condition).
Motor skills: (physio) It doesn't take much in the fine motor skills dept to dodge a charging bison. Women were at home, tanning, sewing taking things out of babies mouths, etc., etc...

Why do you find these things so objectionable? Lions operate this way (in prides): the alpha male is in charge of protecting the pride from other lions and from other predators such as hyennas and leopards and in charge of leading the pride to better hunting grounds, water etc. The females have their job, much ballyhood among feminists like you. Each has its own job in the society.

Yet you find it abhorrant to believe that humans have evolved differences.

Why?

By the way, if you don't believe in evolution, and that's what this is about, just say so, and there the conversation will end.

I respect faith so long as you don't try and back it up with science.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

*giggle* So men and women are always distinguishable, except when they're not? You are some kind of genius, I swear.

Come on, Tokie. What are the biologically-determined behavioural and cognitive differences between males and females? You still haven't suggested any.

Followed by a catalog of them and a demand that I 'splain them....I think you may need to call your shrink today and ask about modifying your meds.

Tokie

 

[volatile]

*sigh*

Which ones of those are behavioural, or affect how men and women act?

What's that phrase? Not even wrong? I dispute that the scientific evidence even supports the differences you cite, but even if it did, how in the hell is that related to your point that "boys and girls are hard-wired to act differently", and that "radical feminists are drugging boys to act like girls"? I assume that you don't mean that this hypothetical cabal of psychotropic-wielding Boudicas are giving boys beta-carotene to improve their eyesight, so what the hell are you talking about?

What is the biological difference between how boys and girls act? What are the biologically-determined behavioural differences between males and females which support your claim that "boys and girls act differently" due to their biology!

 

[volatile]

Followed by a catalog of them and a demand that I 'splain them....I think you may need to call your shrink today and ask about modifying your meds.

Tokie

Colour recognition, pain sensitivity and the ability to read maps are not behavioural differences. They have no bearing on how people act.

You said boys and girls act differently due to their biology. How?

 

[Tokenconservative]

Colour recognition, pain sensitivity and the ability to read maps are not behavioural differences. They have no bearing on how people act.

You said boys and girls act differently due to their biology. How?

Are you really this parochial in your "thinking"?

Of course all of these are going to impact actions.
Pain: men ignore pain a lot more than women do; we are programed by evolution to do so(this is regardless of all uproariously funny commentary to the opposite--anyone who has worked in any capacity where they've observed men and women in pain knows this)
Color recognition: this has virtually no value today and so I cannot give you any real-world, modern examples of why this would alter actions not already covered in my previous post.
Map reading (and the associated navigation abilities): women tend to avoid getting into unfamiliar surroundings due to an instinctual fear of being "lost." This does not (generally...you are probably a girly-man who needs mommy to hold your hand on the way to the 'loo) usually bother men.

Boys are more agressive, naturally. Girls more compliant. That's what the whole Ritalin thing is about.

Please tell me that you are not so blinded by feminist ideology that you really cannot see a difference in the way boy/girls and men/women act?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

*sigh*

Which ones of those are behavioural, or affect how men and women act?

What's that phrase? Not even wrong? I dispute that the scientific evidence even supports the differences you cite, but even if it did, how in the hell is that related to your point that "boys and girls are hard-wired to act differently", and that "radical feminists are drugging boys to act like girls"? I assume that you don't mean that this hypothetical cabal of psychotropic-wielding Boudicas are giving boys beta-carotene to improve their eyesight, so what the hell are you talking about?

What is the biological difference between how boys and girls act? What are the biologically-determined behavioural differences between males and females which support your claim that "boys and girls act differently" due to their biology!

1. Asked and answered.

2. You can parse this however you like, the reality is that Creation (if you prefer) or evolution has "hardwired" (parse it how you will, whatever makes you feel superior) boys and girls to behave differently. Studies (nope, sorry..no link--LIIINNKKKKK!!) show this from the crib on up. You can niggle here and niggle there about whether this or that is "acting," but only the utterly obtuse or those driven by ideology would run around shrieking "I don' get it!!!" now.

Which are you?

3. The ADD/ADHD "epidemic" was wholly created for females who could not deal with/understand male (young male) behavior. To the rescue: big Pharma and shrinks helping to develop a pill to "cure" boyness. Ritalin and a host of similar drugs. Whether you like it or not--or will admit it--the ADD/ADHD "epidemic" was a lie. Boys were being identified as having this because well, they acted so much like boys, and not enough like (sigh...generally) more compliant, more sudious, more thoughtful, and less active girls.

Say, why do you suppose this "epedimic" has subsided? Well, because all but the most shrill, strident feminst--or the most stupid-- "mothers" saw what these drugs did to their sons and stopped requiring their sons to act more like girls, and stop allowing the schools to force them to.

Epidemic cured! But no headlines, for some reason?

4. Asked and answered.

Tokie

 

[volatile]

Boys are more agressive, naturally. Girls more compliant. That's what the whole Ritalin thing is about.

Thanks for finally admitting this, finally.

That's not true.

For example, see On the Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Aggression, Todd Tieger, Child Development, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 943-963

The prevalence of aggression as a predominantly male behavior pattern has often been noted. The nature and perceived extent of sex differences in aggression have recently revived interest in speculation that such differences are attributable to factors inherent in the biological basis of sex differentiation. This paper will critically examine the empirical and theoretical basis for Maccoby and Jacklin's contention that males are biologically predisposed toward aggressive behavior. The literature to be examined includes: (1) cross-cultural studies of children's behavior, (2) the behavior of nonhuman primates, (3) sex hormones and aggression, and (4) early learning influences in child development. Contrary to Maccoby and Jacklin's assertions, these first 3 research traditions are found to indicate no biological predisposition toward aggression in human males. Furthermore, the pattern of existing evidence suggests that the gender-dimorphic nature of aggression is reliably observable in children's spontaneous behavior only after the age of 5 years. This finding presents great difficulty for the biological theory as proposed by Maccoby and Jacklin. Suggestions are presented for an interactional theory of the etiology of observed sex differences in adult aggression.

or

Developmental Psychobiology of Aggression by David M. Stoff, Elizabeth J. Susman, p. 141 Preview

Even early-onset agression has poor-parenting correlates [...] suggesting a complex interplay of biological and environmental processes from the start

It is not plausible, correct, lucid or sensible to say that boys and girls are "hard-wired to act differently". As usual, TC, it is much more complex than that.

 

[Tokenconservative]

Thanks for finally admitting this, finally.

That's not true.

For example, see On the Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Aggression, Todd Tieger, Child Development, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 943-963



or

Developmental Psychobiology of Aggression by David M. Stoff, Elizabeth J. Susman, p. 141 Preview



It is not plausible, correct, lucid or sensible to say that boys and girls are "hard-wired to act differently". As usual, TC, it is much more complex than that.

God save me from ideologically-drive pedants.

My God...you only need to stand on a playground for 15 minutes to see that little boys (sigh...generally) play more agressively than little girls. Hand a boy a baby doll and he turns it into a gun or starts seeing how high he can throw it. Hand it to a girl and she starts cooing and nurturng it, whether her parents are "good" or "bad."

Jesus.

And we wonder why our culture is a screwed up as it is.

Tokie

 

[Prometheus]

Of course when you say "our" you mean "education professionals," right?

Tokie

Of course when you say "right?" you mean "any notion not in accordance with the extreme right of the political spectrum can't possibly have any truth to it," right?

I believe I've actually been treating your arguments with more respect than most others here, despite your apparent inability (or unwillingness) to engage in a level of discourse worthy of any respect at all. Still, it is slightly amusing that you so readily home right in on the single least important word in my entire post, and ignore entirely the substance.