NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20427422-5001031,00.html

Why do I feel like I should of just waited for Ny Nordland to post this? This actually makes sense... there seems to have been far more important men throughout history, I've always thought that was due to depression but maybe... (Ducks anti-masochist barrage)

huh... maybe it's because most IQ tests are full of puzzles and when you think about it, boys are given legos and girls are given dolls.....

huh... maybe it's because most IQ tests are full of puzzles and when you think about it, boys are given legos and girls are given dolls.....

Viewpoint! I was so sure I was going to be flamed for this. Yah I suppose I could see that fouling the results.

Four points is an insignifigant difference. Past studies have shown that men are more likely to have genius level IQs and also more likely to have retarded IQ levels.

On the whole, doesn't mean squat.

That's because, and this is just what I was told in elementary school gifted class, so please correct me if I'm wrong, there are more girls in the average range and more boys at the extremes. I guess it averages out to boys having a few more IQ points on average than girls.

It definitely doesn't mean that males are superior to females, just slightly more intelligent on average. It's really not a significant difference, anyway.

I don't know. I seem to recall someone on the radio saying that if test scores were laid out on a graph for men and for women the male graph would show higher concentrations at the low and high end while the female graph would show more around the middle. So guys tend to be either really smart or really dumb while women tend to cluster around average.

Viewpoint! I was so sure I was going to be flamed for this. Yah I suppose I could see that fouling the results.

We could flame you, if you like. Is it cold where you are? :cool:

there seems to have been far more important men throughout history,

Obviously having nothing to do with the dominance of men and the oppression of women that history has generally been associated with?

of course, iq tests don't measure intelligence anyway...

We could flame you, if you like. Is it cold where you are? :cool:

No flames... Please...

of course, iq tests don't measure intelligence anyway...

Exactly. They measure one's ability to take an IQ test.

And before someone comes along and posts a poorly spelled tirade about how I only say this because I scored bad on the IQ test, I scored a 220. One of my only talents is taking tests.

Obviously having nothing to do with the dominance of men and the oppression of women that history has generally been associated with?

Of course not, it was the feeble feminine brain holding them back.

criticised for suggesting intelligence is influenced by race

I think that eliminates his validity immediately, he's ignoring countless social conditions and values within societies which could influence performance and using *only* performance on exams without putting it into context with effecting factors (e.g. poverty, peer pressure)

I would say the same is true of his views on women... it was only a few generations ago we came out of a totally patriarchal system in which intelligent women were viewed negatively. All those centuries... or even millennia... of suppression don't simply evaporate.

This "glass ceiling" exists because the business world is inherently masculine hence the feminine female has a disadvantage instantly. It places restrictions hence we can't use our full potential. This is best illustrated with "assertiveness training"... essentially the process via which a woman learns to communicate like a man, suggesting our methods are somehow inferior. Why not the other way to encourage men's ability to conjure co-operation?

Evolutionarily speaking we are designed to use a myriad of intellectual abilities men are weaker in, the reverse is also true.

*sigh* If I continue I'll simply end up ranting but suffice it to say that I will go with year on year performance in the UK where females consistently beat males in all domains on exams... even the sciences, shock horror. One study vs. years of observation? Easy choice isn’t it?

He claims the "glass ceiling" phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity.

This right here inclines me not to listen to a word this guy says. His own research suggested that the difference in average IQ scores is 3.63 points. Does anyone honestly believe for a second that, in a job interview, they could tell the difference between someone with an IQ of 142 and someone with an IQ of 146? Puh-lease. :rolleyes:

One study vs. years of observation? Easy choice isn’t it?

One link is alot easier to post.:p

Obviously having nothing to do with the dominance of men and the oppression of women that history has generally been associated with?

Absolutely. Dominance has had nothing to do with it at all. That was one of Man's first problems to solve. "How to take the control of History away from Woman?" If anybody here has bothered to read the alphabet of Manliness, it explains that "E" is for Enlightenment, and that Man's first successful venture was Adam putting the blame on Eve, and thus Woman, for the fall of Humanity from grace. Also, that Adam, as the first man, was the discoveror of fire. I could go on, but to summarize: When Adam ate from the fruit of Knowledge, he gained the capacity to think about problems and how to find solutions. When Eve ate from the fruit, she gained the ability to experience self-pity and emotional distress. Hence, the stage was set. Man would discover things, women would regret things.

*Note, the above is a Satire. Please take it as such. Satirically, if anybody doesn't know what a satire is, then you're a woman, so ask a man.

I think that eliminates his validity immediately, he's ignoring countless social conditions and values within societies which could influence performance and using *only* performance on exams without putting it into context with effecting factors (e.g. poverty, peer pressure)

I would say the same is true of his views on women... it was only a few generations ago we came out of a totally patriarchal system in which intelligent women were viewed negatively. All those centuries... or even millennia... of suppression don't simply evaporate.

This "glass ceiling" exists because the business world is inherently masculine hence the feminine female has a disadvantage instantly. It places restrictions hence we can't use our full potential. This is best illustrated with "assertiveness training"... essentially the process via which a woman learns to communicate like a man, suggesting our methods are somehow inferior. Why not the other way to encourage men's ability to conjure co-operation?

Evolutionarily speaking we are designed to use a myriad of intellectual abilities men are weaker in, the reverse is also true.

*sigh* If I continue I'll simply end up ranting but suffice it to say that I will go with year on year performance in the UK where females consistently beat males in all domains on exams... even the sciences, shock horror. One study vs. years of observation? Easy choice isn’t it?

Question: If a woman has a child, should she be paid if she isn't doing work?

Well what the fuck did you expect? We spent all those centuries isolating the educated female it is surprising that the difference is only four points.

*Note, the above is a Satire. Please take it as such. Satirically, if anybody doesn't know what a satire is, then you're a woman, so ask a man.

I understand, I simply lack a sense of humour when "satire" serves to make a serious subject less important than it actually is... it's an easy excuse not to contemplate a major issue in the structure of society which can be greatly altered on the individual level by treating people differently... by acting as an example.

One link is alot easier to post.:p

Teehee, I'm a stickler for being lazy myself but I've read many books and reports on the subject ranging from the functions of conversation to evolutionary science.

I'm just afraid that not having the energy to read more than a single source will ensure many people continue believing in some sort of innate superiority.:(

Question: If a woman has a child, should she be paid if she isn't doing work?

You're asking the wrong person dear. :) I'm a firm believer in the "Get To Work" ideals, it is only via changing the attitude of husbands so they stay at home that the power balance in the commercial world can be corrected. I'm going to be taking the career route and while there should be choice I do believe that (for at the least the next few generations) the majority of women should seek employment to gain more control of resources and power. :)

Although, considering that a stay at home parent does essentially provide the "tax payer of the future", I would advocate breaks in order to encourage *people* (not just women) to care for children.

Four points is an insignifigant difference. Past studies have shown that men are more likely to have genius level IQs and also more likely to have retarded IQ levels.

On the whole, doesn't mean squat.

A four point difference must be statistically significant for it to be reported as it is in the news story, however a 4 point average difference may not be large enough in magnitude for one to truly care about

GCz

A four point difference must be statistically significant for it to be reported as it is in the news story, however a 4 point average difference may not be large enough in magnitude for one to truly care about


Wait... You actually expect the news to only report on significant things?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20427422-5001031,00.html

Why do I feel like I should of just waited for Ny Nordland to post this? This actually makes sense... there seems to have been far more important men throughout history, I've always thought that was due to depression but maybe... (Ducks anti-masochist barrage)

Mentioning me in the OP again? Dude, why are you obsessed with me?

Wait... You actually expect the news to only report on significant things?

And the "opinion" section of the news, at that...

Mentioning me in the OP again? Dude, why are you obsessed with me?

Are you a chick?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20427422-5001031,00.html

Why do I feel like I should of just waited for Ny Nordland to post this? This actually makes sense... there seems to have been far more important men throughout history, I've always thought that was due to depression but maybe... (Ducks anti-masochist barrage)


shhh! don't tell the extreme "progressives" that not everyone is created equal and starts life with a blank slate. IQs? nonsense! Men and Women being better or gifted at different things? Blasphemy! Different races having biological differences, advantages and disadvantages? Racist!

oh and for the record, I do not feel that men are generally "smarter" than women. Intelligence can be measured in many different ways.

Are you a chick?

Yes, epic boobs, long legs...oh and of course I'm blond

Yes, epic boobs, long legs...oh and of course I'm blond

There yeah go, the perv wants to bang ya.

Are you a chick?

Forgive me if you can but I found this mildly funny after all I've said about how the attitudes of society (specifically men) to women haven't changed much. :D

Cheep cheep, tweet tweet.:p

Yes, epic boobs, long legs...oh and of course I'm blond


Hey, it's the internet. why not?

Mentioning me in the OP again? Dude, why are you obsessed with me?

I thought we all were....

lol, just taking Daemonocracy's advice ;). I wonder what the demographic for us NSer's is nowdays, the last poll was for NS2 right? And that was way back in 2003 lol.

tweet tweet to you too :D

I understand, I simply lack a sense of humour when "satire" serves to make a serious subject less important than it actually is... it's an easy excuse not to contemplate a major issue in the structure of society which can be greatly altered on the individual level by treating people differently... by acting as an example.


Satire worked for Johnny Swift and the Great Potato Famine in Ireland. In reality, that was supposed to show just how extreme, and yet how accurate, such dominance could be. My quote represented an exaggeration by modern standards that was, for a great while, the norm. (Can nobody here accept that humanity has universal flaws?)

You're asking the wrong person dear. I'm a firm believer in the "Get To Work" ideals, it is only via changing the attitude of husbands so they stay at home that the power balance in the commercial world can be corrected.

Although, considering that a stay at home parent does essentially provide the "tax payer of the future", I would advocate breaks in order to encourage *people* (not just women) to care for children.

My question was more in the line of "If a person is unable to work do to willful action (i.e. choosing to have a child), should they be paid if they do not do any valuable work for their employer?" I'm not asking about parenting, I'm asking if it is fair for an employer to pay a person while they do not provide labor in return due to consciencious actions for a period of time.

Put another way, imagine this scenario: an employer has two applicants waiting to fill a single postion. They have the same test scores, work experience, education, and references. Physically, they are both healthy, and possess a presentable appearance. One is a married woman. The other is a married man, who obviously can not get pregnant. Given the fact that both will become parent within a year (No, their not each other's spouse), who, from the position of the employer, would serve as a better investment: a man that does not possess a biological need to leave his position, or a woman that will need to leave that position?

That is my point. All things being equal, men have less of a physical need to leave their jobs to become a parent of a child. A woman, however, does have a need to leave to give birth, unless she happens to be She-Hulk. One side will lose the "Life ain't fair" battle here. Either the employer, by hiring a person with a greater risk of necessary leave, or the woman, by not getting hired since the employer seeks to maintain a staff with as little turnover as possible.

Whose rights come first? The woman's right to blind hiring practices, or the employer's right to make sound business decisions? Somebody is going to have their rights at the expense of the other. Who gets to retain their rights?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20427422-5001031,00.html

Why do I feel like I should of just waited for Ny Nordland to post this? This actually makes sense... there seems to have been far more important men throughout history, I've always thought that was due to depression but maybe... (Ducks anti-masochist barrage)


ok i do not want to offended anyone or say that men are better or worse than women but:
it is very simple. the reason of men showing up as more 'intelligent' is because[nearly all] women are almost compeletly controled by their emotions.(its not so bad. don't be offended but its true!:)

My question was more in the line of "If a person is unable to work do to willful action (i.e. choosing to have a child), should they be paid if they do not do any valuable work for their employer?" I'm not asking about parenting, I'm asking if it is fair for an employer to pay a person while they do not provide labor in return due to consciencious actions for a period of time.

Put another way, imagine this scenario: an employer has two applicants waiting to fill a single postion. They have the same test scores, work experience, education, and references. Physically, they are both healthy, and possess a presentable appearance. One is a married woman. The other is a married man, who obviously can not get pregnant. Given the fact that both will become parent within a year (No, their not each other's spouse), who, from the position of the employer, would serve as a better investment: a man that does not possess a biological need to leave his position, or a woman that will need to leave that position?

That is my point. All things being equal, men have less of a physical need to leave their jobs to become a parent of a child. A woman, however, does have a need to leave to give birth, unless she happens to be She-Hulk.

Actually, I don't think this is as true as you believe it is. As far as physical recovery from childbirth goes, most women are back on their feet within a few days, tops. The purpose of maternity leave is to allow the mother time to bond with her child - something which one would think fathers would like to do, too.

One side will lose the "Life ain't fair" battle here. Either the employer, by hiring a person with a greater risk of necessary leave, or the woman, by not getting hired since the employer seeks to maintain a staff with as little turnover as possible.

Whose rights come first? The woman's right to blind hiring practices, or the employer's right to make sound business decisions? Somebody is going to have their rights at the expense of the other. Who gets to retain their rights?

Ooh! I have an idea! What if we decided that both parents should have time to bond with their newborn? I know it's crazy, but it just might work!

ok i do not want to offended anyone or say that men are better or worse than women but:
it is very simple. the reason of men showing up as more 'intelligent' is because[nearly all] women are almost compeletly controled by their emotions.(its not so bad. don't be offended but its true!:)

At the moment, the emotions that are "controlling" this woman are a combination of amusement and pity at your silly little theory. ;)

I’ve often debated this and I think my previous post does answer this if you read it… I view it as either parenting *or* employment, not this idea of having the “best of both worlds”.

Small businesses are crippled by maternity leave in its present form; if 1 person in a work force of (for example) 5 leaves this reduces production by one fifth! However multinationals can easily afford “welfare capitalist” practices due the employee being the tiniest drop in the water while overall morale by taking the “social responsibility” perspective increases production. The present state of affairs is clearly very contrasting which needs to be rectified.

Unfortunately, it is a necessity for reproduction to take place due to the need for population growth so I would advocate a system in which the prospective mother warns her employer after confirmation of pregnancy that she will require maternity leave.

This gives time for the employer to find a person to fill the post on a temporary contract (as you would with an employee with long term problems), who they would pay less due to their non-permanent status and lack of experience in the specific workplace. Then the employer sets a specific, binding date which is agreed with the mother for when they will come back so the contract can terminate without a position being left vacant.

This should provide a seamless transition thus negating the value of having a male who “can’t get pregnant” due to the lower pay given to the temporary worker.

But if you are to ask this question we must instantly start questioning whether we should allow sick pay? Whether a person should be cut off instantly when they are ill because they aren’t providing labour, the lack of avoidance in the illness case doesn’t count does it? Only profit counts… What about paternity leave? Doesn't only profit count there too?

(I apologise if this isn't the answer you desire, I'm quite tired and writing a speech so my mind is entirely filled with "open border" issues.:( )

(Can nobody here accept that humanity has universal flaws?)

Can you not accept that a great many people don't want to accept "universal flaws" but want to find methods of compensating for them rather than being stagnant? :)

The problem with that "false realism" is that it assumes the majority of the race is somehow deluded while you see with perfect clarity. :rolleyes:

ok i do not want to offended anyone or say that men are better or worse than women but:
it is very simple. the reason of men showing up as more 'intelligent' is because[nearly all] women are almost compeletly controled by their emotions.(its not so bad. don't be offended but its true!

You're over estimating the role estrogen has in our bodies and you're relying on stereotypes... I could get away with saying "most men are emotionless brutes who have no heart which means most can be immoral easily" but it isn't true is it? That's a stereotype as much as saying men are ruled by their penis is. :rolleyes:

At the moment, the emotions that are "controlling" this woman are a combination of amusement and pity at your silly little theory. ;)

Stop BSing.

People cannot experience more than one emotion at once.

Stop BSing.

People cannot experience more than one emotion at once.

Pssh. Me and my small, hysteria-addled brain can multitask. :p

What an idiotic claim. Men are not "smarter" than women. They often have a better grasp of concepts like math and visual patterning, but that does not a smarter person make. Women have their own strengths, like langauges and emotional health. I've recently come to the conclusion that, like BMI, all IQ tests are borderline bullcrap, so the fact that men do better on them means absolutely nothing.

You're over estimating the role estrogen has in our bodies and you're relying on stereotypes... I could get away with saying "most men are emotionless brutes who have no heart which means most can be immoral easily" but it isn't true is it? That's a stereotype as much as saying men are ruled by their penis is. :rolleyes:

you overestimate people.

ok if you get one person and see how they act you could not fit them into any sterotype. but ad tow or three of the people like them toghter and they fit every sterotype in the book.
its all realitive.
it gose for intelligence as well.
a person is smart; i'm smart, your'e smart the hobo in the dumpster behind papa john's is smart, but people are moronic panicing helpless insects and you and i both know it.
so men probably are controled by the penis. me i'm not. my and my bud JJ were not. but me and my basketball team, yeah it controls us.

think about it.

As a biologist I can tell you that (I know that sounds pretentious its just so complete idiots don't try to dispute scientific fact with something they found on "teh Interweb"), its been well known that men have higher IQ's then women, however we also have lower IQ's as well, the difference is that women cluster more about their mid point then men (this is due to the fact that women are better put together then we are (hence the lesser chance of genetic conditions, longer life span, etc etc), so while the average is pretty much the same (4 IQ points is practicaly a stat anomaly (possibly caused by the fact that whoever wrote the test wrote it from a more "male" perspective (probably)))

basicly there are more genius men then women but also far more morons....

One of the things i'm looking into is that one of the reasons men act like men (stereotypically) is caused by low level conditions, such as dyspraxia (this would explain why women are supposed to be more verbal and also able to multi task easier (and also the male logic thing that I know some people hate but it is a sterotype) which are indicators against dyspraxia (logic is for))

just for the record if this is spelt wrongly or the grammer is odd please remember i'm Welsh and dyspraxic (double wammy)

At the moment, the emotions that are "controlling" this woman are a combination of amusement and pity at your silly little theory. ;)

I'd partly agree, although women are more sensitive why would it effect inteligence? It's also unfair to stero-type, it may be that in our schooling system its more suited to men over women, who knows? The reasons could be various, but i think that before you make conclusions you should remember, as the article states, statistics can be made to show nearly anything. Maybe the IQ test is slanted towards men more?

Who knows, now to Uncyclopedia for their take, its only only misinformation im going to listen to!!!

think about it.

Forgive my personal prejudice (stereotype even!:D ) but my mind tends to shut off when a post concludes "think about it" because in all the cases I've seen it the person has made no sense yet via the conclusion is suggesting that if you "think" then you're automatically going to come around to their view point. As if they're ultimately, undeniably correct and I'm wrong.

However, the real sign of intelligence is admitting you know nothing at all (which I don't do because I'm not intelligent).:p

Anyhoo, it could be my feeble female mind but I didn't understand your point... the only thing I got was an attempted justification for personal arrogance (which I'm sure you didn't intend). I'm afraid the rest was lost, sorry. :(

One of the things i'm looking into is that one of the reasons men act like men (stereotypically) is caused by low level conditions, such as dyspraxia (this would explain why women are supposed to be more verbal and also able to multi task easier (and also the male logic thing that I know some people hate but it is a sterotype) which are indicators against dyspraxia (logic is for))

I'm afraid I'm not a biologist but I was under the impression the reason for such differences wasn't male "conditions" but rather hormonal influences on the developing mind and the fact females have a greater number of dendritic connections allowing greater utilisation of the different mental functions at one time resulting in talents such as better linguistic skills? (multi-tasking)

I don't necessarily agree, but I could see a pattern.

Back when ancient civilizations and religions were still on top - the women were at the head. Then clever men outsmarted women by inventing Judaism and then Christianity after that. Men took over by being clever :)

Four points is an insignifigant difference. Past studies have shown that men are more likely to have genius level IQs and also more likely to have retarded IQ levels.

On the whole, doesn't mean squat.

Agreed. Even if the difference is real and were to hold up if we were somehow able to control for social biases, 4 points (3.6 I think was the actual average difference) is nothing. There's statistical significance, and then there's practical significance. This is one of those "nothing" studies we get in psychology sometimes.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20427422-5001031,00.html

Why do I feel like I should of just waited for Ny Nordland to post this? This actually makes sense... there seems to have been far more important men throughout history, I've always thought that was due to depression but maybe... (Ducks anti-masochist barrage)

British-born researcher John Philippe Rushton, who was once criticised for suggesting intelligence is influenced by race, says the finding could explain why so few women make it to the top in the workplace. He claims the "glass ceiling" phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity.

This is just dumb. The people who rise to the top are rarely the most intelligent people in the office. They're the people who make contacts. Just take a look at how Bush became president.

The IQ thing probably has more to do with how the tests are weighted. When they were first designed women did way better on them than men, and the man designing them said to himself, "well if men are getting lower scores than women, something must be wrong with the test." So he made the parts that men did better on a bigger part of the test.

Or look at it from the other side, when people talk about the "stronger" sex and then say "women are stronger because," and then list qualities like resistance to chronic pain or being better swimmers. Unless we have a clear definition of what "intellignece" or "strength" means, it's useless to try to say who has more.

Back when ancient civilizations and religions were still on top - the women were at the head. Then clever men outsmarted women by inventing Judaism and then Christianity after that. Men took over by being clever. :)

I think it was brutality rather than intelligence but I suppose that's subject to opinion.

All you need to know is we're taking control back but we'll instigate equality rather than superiority.;) We'll control 60% of all wealth in my country (UK) within several years so the market will shift to us which requires more women employed in order to reach the target audience. :)

(This was a wee joke by the way, I know I've been rather serious for most of this :p)

This is just dumb. The people who rise to the top are rarely the most intelligent people in the office. They're the people who make contacts. Just take a look at how Bush became president.

Yep. The smart people are generally the ones who are several places below the top, where the real power is.

I don't necessarily agree, but I could see a pattern.

Back when ancient civilizations and religions were still on top - the women were at the head. Then clever men outsmarted women by inventing Judaism and then Christianity after that. Men took over by being clever :)

It's not a matter of being clever. Otherwise, how would women have gotten in charge in the first place. It's about shifting values. Societies where men produce all the food, like the Eskimos, give women virtually no rights. Back when Eskimos had no exposure to the modern world (and I don't know how much it has been wiped out) Eskimo courtship consisted of grabbing a woman by the belt. If she resisted the man was entitled to cut her pants off with a knife and rape her on the spot.

Societies where men and women both produce food (in modern terms, money) they have roughly equal rights, if distinct responsibilities. In hunter-gatherer societies men hunt for meat and women forage for plants. In transition populations men hunt and women farm. Once all the hunting ground has been turned into farms the men push women out of the farms, becoming the sole food producers. Then they take all the rights. Then they claim that women aren't fit for the job that they've been doing for thousands of years. Does that sound intelligent? No, it sounds like the work of a big dumb brute who wants to feel important.

Also, Judaism used to have female Gods and important positive female role-models. They were written out because they were politically threatening. They were written out at about the same time that the Hebrew pastorialists (animal raisers) started to replace the Baalite farmers. Because men became the sole food producers, they had to take women out of the religous and political picture. But it was a modification to Judaism fairly late in its pre-christian history.

There's also some of that in Christian history, which is what the few true bits of the "Da Vinci Code" were talking about.

British-born researcher John Philippe Rushton, who was once criticised for suggesting intelligence is influenced by race, says the finding could explain why so few women make it to the top in the workplace. He claims the "glass ceiling" phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity.

Honestly, to suggest that such a pervasive bias against women could be explained by 4 lousy IQ points (which is the finding of only one study that used aptitude tests ~ possibly similar to the SAT? ~ which is to say even this study is questionable) is positively ridiculous. It's also pretty apparent that Dr. Rushton is fond of doing "provactive" research. I'll wait for these findings to be replicated by other psychologists before I give it a second thought.

I'm afraid I'm not a biologist but I was under the impression the reason for such differences wasn't male "conditions" but rather hormonal influences on the developing mind and the fact females have a greater number of dendritic connections allowing greater utilisation of the different mental functions at one time resulting in talents such as better linguistic skills? (multi-tasking)

Hormonal influences, yes. Dendrite connections, that is entirely individualized.

Give a kid a basic lego set or doll house, and you promote synaptic connections. Give two kids a single lego set or doll house twice as large, and each child alone develops more dendrite connections than the solo child. Simple fact is that boys are given a football and booted outdoors, or given complex lego sets and called nerds. All girls are expected to play nicely with doll houses. This fact and this fact alone, at least from experience, explains the greater number of morons that can put an object anywhere on a court/field/diamond/rink/ring that they want, and the greater number of geniuses that understand what Einstein was talking about. It also accounts for why there a a greater amount of "normal" people of intelligence that also have the ability to not alienate other normal people.

I guess this comes from the process of mate selection. Females see extremes as being optimums, whereas males don't. The best ball players, or best doctors, or best journalists, or best you-name-it are, if male (generally the case) desirable mates. They have recognition of peers, hence a tendency to bring home the bacon (despite a "we want work" attitude, everybody is lazy at heart. There are very few exceptions (the mentally dernaged, like me)). On the other hand, males would like a mate capable of performing the basic functions of motherhood, able to to a couple of things but not a master chef, since kids can, when they need it, be sent off to professionals to learn masterships of skills.

Multiple dendrite connections, however, are used for both specialization and multi-tasking. So that particualr point is really all bout how much time one spent playing with Legos, inventing new football plays, or playing with their dolls.

Personally, I believe there exist a gifted few, those that can master multiple things, and be the best communicators around. These are the people taught to deny everything, admit nothing, make counter accusations, and if necessary, bite down on their last molars.

Hormonal influences, yes. Dendrite connections, that is entirely individualized.

Give a kid a basic lego set or doll house, and you promote synaptic connections. Give two kids a single lego set or doll house twice as large, and each child alone develops more dendrite connections than the solo child. Simple fact is that boys are given a football and booted outdoors, or given complex lego sets and called nerds. All girls are expected to play nicely with doll houses. This fact and this fact alone, at least from experience, explains the greater number of morons that can put an object anywhere on a court/field/diamond/rink/ring that they want, and the greater number of geniuses that understand what Einstein was talking about. It also accounts for why there a a greater amount of "normal" people of intelligence that also have the ability to not alienate other normal people.

I guess this comes from the process of mate selection. Females see extremes as being optimums, whereas males don't. The best ball players, or best doctors, or best journalists, or best you-name-it are, if male (generally the case) desirable mates. They have recognition of peers, hence a tendency to bring home the bacon (despite a "we want work" attitude, everybody is lazy at heart. There are very few exceptions (the mentally dernaged, like me)). On the other hand, males would like a mate capable of performing the basic functions of motherhood, able to to a couple of things but not a master chef, since kids can, when they need it, be sent off to professionals to learn masterships of skills.

Multiple dendrite connections, however, are used for both specialization and multi-tasking. So that particualr point is really all bout how much time one spent playing with Legos, inventing new football plays, or playing with their dolls.

Personally, I believe there exist a gifted few, those that can master multiple things, and be the best communicators around. These are the people taught to deny everything, admit nothing, make counter accusations, and if necessary, bite down on their last molars.


BAM! nailed it! :sniper:

BAM! nailed it! :sniper:


I don't know about that myself, since he seems to be tying early play experience with later neurological growth. That ignores the fact that 1) play experience is a lot more hard-wired than most of the mid-feminists were willing to admit (give a boy a doll, and you're more than likely to see him use it for karate practice or make a gun out of it, while if you give a girl a G.I. Joe, she's far more likely than the boy to treat him to R&R over at the tea set), and 2) neurological growth itself is hard-wired to an immense degree. You can't use Mozart to build smarter babies. You can't engineer baby girls to have autism at the same rate as baby boys. Put simply, neurology seems both a lot more complex and a lot more resistant to efforts to tamper with than most reductionists in the 70's seemed to want to give it credit for.

Well, on average men have larger brains than women. So maybe that's the reason.





slightly off-topic, but I wonder what the reaction would have been had the study found the converse. The same as now?

I don't know about that myself, since he seems to be tying early play experience with later neurological growth. That ignores the fact that 1) play experience is a lot more hard-wired than most of the mid-feminists were willing to admit (give a boy a doll, and you're more than likely to see him use it for karate practice or make a gun out of it, while if you give a girl a G.I. Joe, she's far more likely than the boy to treat him to R&R over at the tea set), and 2) neurological growth itself is hard-wired to an immense degree. You can't use Mozart to build smarter babies. You can't engineer baby girls to have autism at the same rate as baby boys. Put simply, neurology seems both a lot more complex and a lot more resistant to efforts to tamper with than most reductionists in the 70's seemed to want to give it credit for.

No, my point was that stimulate a kid, and that kid gets smarter. They did it with rats, and rat brains are very similar to human brains (Chimps were too rare to cut open and examine their nerve cells). True, antural talents play a role, but stimulate a child's neurological development, and regardless of sex, that child will develop more dendrite connections. How a kid will play is not my point; that a kid gets to play is my point. True, you can't force autism, but you can at least encourage cognitive development.

I never said you could engineer a person's brain, but there is a correlation to stimulus and dendrite connections. Otherwise, one would easily be able to argue that my thinking processes are set from conception, hence, any Lego activities I may have partaken in had nothing to do with my current brain structure. Pardon me if I dismiss that offhand.

There yeah go, the perv wants to bang ya.

For fuck's sake, which girl would introduce herself as having epic boobs and long legs, unless she is really drunk or drugged? Maybe I should have included a smiley but I thought it was really obvious that I'm a guy!

For fuck's sake, which girl would introduce herself as having epic boobs and long legs, unless she is really drunk or drugged? Maybe I should have included a smiley but I thought it was really obvious that I'm a guy!

Ah, so all the times in the past that you claimed you were a woman you were lying?

Ah, so all the times in the past that you claimed you were a woman you were lying?

All the times in the past? Did you forget to take your medication today?

For fuck's sake, which girl would introduce herself as having epic boobs and long legs, unless she is really drunk or drugged? Maybe I should have included a smiley but I thought it was really obvious that I'm a guy!

Everyone realised you were joking. Take a chill pill.

For fuck's sake, which girl would introduce herself as having epic boobs and long legs, unless she is really drunk or drugged? Maybe I should have included a smiley but I thought it was really obvious that I'm a guy!


Yes, but a guy with epic boobs and long legs?

Yes, but a guy with epic boobs and long legs?

Everyone realised you were joking. Take a chill pill.

You were saying?

You were saying?

They're joking too.

You were saying?


lol, you yourself can't take a joke apparently.

Give a kid a basic lego set or doll house, and you promote synaptic connections. Give two kids a single lego set or doll house twice as large, and each child alone develops more dendrite connections than the solo child. Simple fact is that boys are given a football and booted outdoors, or given complex lego sets and called nerds. All girls are expected to play nicely with doll houses. This fact and this fact alone, at least from experience, explains the greater number of morons that can put an object anywhere on a court/field/diamond/rink/ring that they want, and the greater number of geniuses that understand what Einstein was talking about. It also accounts for why there a a greater amount of "normal" people of intelligence that also have the ability to not alienate other normal people.


I didn't like playing with dolls as a little girl, instead I played with cool stuff like mechano and I collected toy tractors and cars. You're right in saying that this affects how you think later in life. I'm just like one of the guys, I'm studying a science subject at university, and I enjoy roleplaying and martial arts (stuff in which I find few other girls doing). Next time my mother complains at me for refusing to ever even think about having children, I'll tell her it's all her fault for not buying me more dolls when I was little. :p

Seriously though, I see a big difference in the way boys and girls are raised. It's that more than anything why men and women think differently. I don't think girls should be put in pretty dresses and given dolls to play with, they shouldn't be treated any different from boys. I suppose I'm a little biased though, I just can't imagine those women that just sit around reading gossip mags and talking about clothes to have more fun than I do in my vale tudo lessons or playing pool at the pub. Oh well, it takes all kinds I suppose.

Yes...so thats why girls outperform boys at all levels of education (at least where i come from). And thats before we even get onto emotional intelligence. What a big pile of poopy this is...males more intelligent than females...what next? Madness. *shakes head in amazement*. Yet more evidence that IQ tests are utter bunk

I didn't like playing with dolls as a little girl, instead I played with cool stuff like mechano and I collected toy tractors and cars. You're right in saying that this affects how you think later in life. I'm just like one of the guys, I'm studying a science subject at university, and I enjoy roleplaying and martial arts (stuff in which I find few other girls doing). Next time my mother complains at me for refusing to ever even think about having children, I'll tell her it's all her fault for not buying me more dolls when I was little. :p

Seriously though, I see a big difference in the way boys and girls are raised. It's that more than anything why men and women think differently. I don't think girls should be put in pretty dresses and given dolls to play with, they shouldn't be treated any different from boys. I suppose I'm a little biased though, I just can't imagine those women that just sit around reading gossip mags and talking about clothes to have more fun than I do in my vale tudo lessons or playing pool at the pub. Oh well, it takes all kinds I suppose.

That makes sense. I grew up with dolls and legos, but mostly with video games, and the dolls I had were the American Girl dolls, which aren't nearly the same as Barbie dolls. I had maybe one Barbie doll the whole time, and I believe I neglected it.

And I distinctly remember asking for a robot for Christmas when I was two or three. I ended up getting a R2-D2 toy that could beep.:)

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20427422-5001031,00.html

Why do I feel like I should of just waited for Ny Nordland to post this? This actually makes sense... there seems to have been far more important men throughout history, I've always thought that was due to depression but maybe... (Ducks anti-masochist barrage)because women weren't allowed to take part...in Universitys here women are in the majority so maybe women are smarter?

they guy is a racist and a sexist, everything he says is a flamblyoant lie to try and bring about some sick superior white race male mentality and he should be sexually abused until he dies.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20427422-5001031,00.html

Why do I feel like I should of just waited for Ny Nordland to post this? This actually makes sense... there seems to have been far more important men throughout history, I've always thought that was due to depression but maybe... (Ducks anti-masochist barrage)

Nope, no seal of Approval here, sorry. This does not reflect the beliefs of the Wanderjarian Government.

I once watched this program that was either on Discovery or the Science Channel. Apparently, the differences are more biological than people want to admit. This might be because we evolved in a certain way that gave men and women different brain structures and stuff. No matter what people might tell you, you can't evolve drastically, yet naturally in a matter of a few millenia.

It's mostly hormonal, which might explain why boys are more likely to be aggressive while girls are more likely to be nurturing. I mean, cows weren't always domesticated. For millennia, it was up to the mothers to take care of the babies because they were the ones who could feed them. Everyone else, you know, men, older kids, and women who haven't been humped in a while, if at all, did just about everything else.

Don't blame me for this idea. Blame Darwin and his "it takes a while to for things to evolve. How long depends on how much, kinda. Yeah, it's to safeguard against desert creatures adapting to cold and wet places when they need to survive in the desert and such." idea.

Why would evolution make women both cleverer (evidence= exam results) and more emotionally intelligent? So men are here for what? To lift things and have fights?;)

Why would evolution make women both cleverer (evidence= exam results) and more emotionally intelligent? So men are here for what? To lift things and have fights?;)


Apparently, you didn't take the time to listen to any scientific debates or reasoning behind this, and take things off bat value. It is true the women on average have a higher average score in exam results, however the tip of it is almost exclusively male. This means quite simply, that women have a more average intelligence, while with men it is a flip of a coin, either they are dumbed down, or extraordinarily gifted.
So quite simply men are here for for the dumb physical work, and also to be the elite philosphical and mathematical class, while women are there in the middle, smarter then most men on average, but not as smart on average as the tip of the male iceberg.

oF corse mans is smater otherwize i wouldnt be so smart,

man fTW!!1111one

Apparently, you didn't take the time to listen to any scientific debates or reasoning behind this, and take things off bat value. It is true the women on average have a higher average score in exam results, however the tip of it is almost exclusively male. This means quite simply, that women have a more average intelligence, while with men it is a flip of a coin, either they are dumbed down, or extraordinarily gifted.
So quite simply men are here for for the dumb physical work, and also to be the elite philosphical and mathematical class, while women are there in the middle, smarter then most men on average, but not as smart on average as the tip of the male iceberg.

And the tip of the male iceberg tend to (stereotyping of course) be lacking in social and emotional intelligence, so taking a holistic view of things they're not anything special :p

Give a kid a basic lego set or doll house, and you promote synaptic connections. Give two kids a single lego set or doll house twice as large, and each child alone develops more dendrite connections than the solo child. Simple fact is that boys are given a football and booted outdoors, or given complex lego sets and called nerds. All girls are expected to play nicely with doll houses. This fact and this fact alone, at least from experience, explains the greater number of morons that can put an object anywhere on a court/field/diamond/rink/ring that they want, and the greater number of geniuses that understand what Einstein was talking about. It also accounts for why there a a greater amount of "normal" people of intelligence that also have the ability to not alienate other normal people.

I shall have to read more reports on the levels of dendrite connections relating to activity. Apparently I’ve only ever read one-side of the theory (strangely supported by Winston). Would you care to provide me with the sources you use in order to allow me to see this correlation between upbringing and neurology? I was only aware that linguistic development can be affected by interaction not actual amount of dendrites on a major level… I look forward to reading them.:)

However, I have to say that I very much doubt this theory at the moment (probably because I haven’t seen any data) as I was raised with Barbie and role-played constantly yet I defer to sciences (specifically chemistry) and politics (engaging in countless debating societies in reality… where I must say I’m better at imparting ideas).

Under your theory wouldn’t I be classified as a rather contradictory and inexplicable anomaly? Or did you just happen to run into one of the rare few people it isn’t applicable for?


So quite simply men are here for for the dumb physical work, and also to be the elite philosphical and mathematical class, while women are there in the middle, smarter then most men on average, but not as smart on average as the tip of the male iceberg.

That suggests evolution is somehow aware of intellectual hierarchy and the concept of mathematics... which it most certainly can't be because maths doesn't ensure survival, it's something we invented.... almost a "luxury" isn't it?

It's undeniable that extremes do exist more prevalently among men but I don't think it's for that reason as nature is about survival, not the furtherment of philosophy (and arguably the only reason that the majority of pre-20th century philosophers were male is related to the patriarchal society we've so frequently mentioned... many of them promoted suppression of women to make it worse!).

That makes sense.

It may make sense but surely "sense" isn't good enough. Anybody can make another person see something as "sense" with enough time and effort.

I'd personally like from an experimental psychologist, evolutionary scientist, and neurologists on this subject who can provide data.:)

I'd just like us all too unanimously admit that men aren't smarter than women (the reverse also being true) and that this is all ridiculous, we're just individuals... but the fact the very idea is meeting with resistance illustrates how patriarchal things still are. :(

Females see extremes as being optimums, whereas males don't

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me how I view the world. I'd never select a male who is alpha like some animal because I have the ability of rational thought. Some women might but it's by far from all! :)

Please don't make generalisations to "all" based upon your own personal views, I'll admit that I may be wrong and freely use "some" or "many" to illustrate my views aren't being applied to all. Let them decide for themselves how they view things. Scientific data which definitively says how we view things is quite different however.

That suggests evolution is somehow aware of intellectual hierarchy and the concept of mathematics... which it most certainly can't be because maths doesn't ensure survival, it's something we invented.... almost a "luxury".

Indeed. Being able to grasp higher mathematics is lovely, but I'm not overly impressed by it, and in my opinion there are much more useful things to spend my intellect on, like learning how to think critically, analyse reality with as little distortion as possible, studying human psychological and social dynamics as well as the interactions of matter and forces in our world on both micro and macro levels.

It's undeniable that extremes do exist more prevalently among men but I don't think it's for that reason as nature is about survival, not the furtherment of philosophy (and arguably the only reason that the majority of pre-20th century philosophers were male is related to the patriarchal society we've so frequently mentioned... many of them promoted suppression of women to make it worse!).

Agreed.

I'd just like us all too unanimously admit that men aren't smarter than women (the reverse also being true) and that this is all ridiculous, we're just individuals... but the fact the very idea is meeting with resistance illustrates how patriarchal things still are. :(

There's certainly still a large patriarchal element to our society that has damaging effects on women, but trends that negatively impact males have also been developing, ironically as a result of that same patriarchal system.

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me how I view the world. I'd never select a male who is alpha like some animal because I have the ability of rational thought. Some women might but it's by far from all! :)

Why not? As long as by an alpha male you mean a large, physically strong, mentally strong, and emotionally strong man with a good sense of humor and work ethic.

Why not? As long as by an alpha male you mean a large, physically strong, mentally strong, and emotionally strong man with a good sense of humor and work ethic.

Well, partly because some of us females don't actual find all of those characteristics attractive. As a fairly trivial example, I actually tend to prefer short and slender guys over "large" ones, myself. :)

There's certainly still a large patriarchal element to our society that has damaging effects on women, but trends that negatively impact males have also been developing, ironically as a result of that same patriarchal system.

Unfortunately men are suppressed too, I do sympathise men for the downside to their role in society... the ubiquitous ideas of "masculinity" given to young males suggests that to be male is to become a component of a homogeneous sex where individuality is inexcusable, and emotion unthinkable.

Of course, the fact that genuine change and acceptance of the individual over their social group means that it’s “not politically correct” to be proud of being male… I find it far easier being proud of being a woman (not believing we’re superior, just appreciating the group I’m with) while men seem to have some sort of “gender guilt” inbuilt by society so that they can’t do that.

Should this thread have present the opposite information and on a gender balanced forum (this is clearly majority male so not a good example) then I believe it would have been easier for quite a few other women to support the findings without retribution of any highly measurable kind. It’s sadly more acceptable for women to be sexist which doesn’t help the situation for people who wish to remove the animosity between the two genders so we can value individuality instead.:(

Well, partly because some of us females don't actual find all of those characteristics attractive. As a fairly trivial example, I actually tend to prefer short and slender guys over "large" ones, myself.

I tend to prefer men who'll provide good intellectual competition but have no guarantee of winning or losing should we compete. I don't understand why but I've always had paranoia of subjugation so I can only assume letting my guard down requires the knowledge I’ll be able to resist… or perhaps I just find friction attractive. :p

However, that’s only my personal observation and attempt at ordering something very complex. In actuality I tend to just like “nice” (I don't have very defined desires) men who are very compassionate, understanding, and see beyond barriers… the kind who can see into your soul then know you perfectly without any regard to any prejudice or stereotypical role in the world. Nobody else matters to them and you can feel it, the contentment from reciprocation. *drifts off down memory lane*

When I’m attracted to other women I have erratic preferences, they’re hard to define and vary greatly from one individual to the next so perhaps I have an inherent security with trusting other women.