Originally posted by Dock6
Intelligence is inherent, not 'learned'.

That is the popular notion, but I don't think it has been proven in the general case. We know that certain types of retardation are inherited. But there is no definitive biological explanation as to why some people are smarter than others. (There are only general indications, with plenty of exceptions to the rule.)

Might it be that the popular notion that intelligence is inherited is -- well -- completely wrong?

And how about this: Is it possible that all people (except for those few with brain disorders) are actually 100% the same intelligence? Maybe all people have the exact same conscious mind, potentials, and cognitive abilities.

Do you have to be born an athlete? Or can anyone with normal physical ability become super-normal?

Originally posted by justamomma
Men and women both excel in their particular natural role.. but if no one has noticed, because women are so damned set on proving they are equal in EVERY way to the men, there have been serious consequences... trust me, I know.

The argument of "who is the more intelligent" is not even an issue with me. I am damn good at being a woman and I can appreciate a man that is a good provider and protector.

Totally agree, and I have a problem with femi-nazis as well. A man is a wonderful thing, and I have one of the best examples sitting across from me now. Do I need him to support me or provide for me or run things for me? No. I can do that myself. Do I appreciate him and what he can do and what we can do together, oh hell yes, and my life is richer because of him.

My whole point was that now, women have the opportunities to show their intelligence whereas a few generations ago, they didn't. We have the opportunities to go to school and learn and put what we have learned into action. We have the opportunity and the circumstance now to show our intelligence. A chance to show that centuries of servitude and neglect didn't mess up our genes or subject us to de-evolution.

I was going to post a well thought out reply but my wife told me I couldn't.

Originally posted by LogicalSolutionFatherless children frequently grow up to become criminals, and other behavorial problems. Lack of discipline, no fatherly figure, whatever the cause or reason, it's a true statistic.

Lets be a bit more specific, MALE children with no father figure or other strong male role model often end up overly aggressive and with behavioral problems.

They think that is because without a male role model young males tend to emulate the more extreme forms of male behavior in terms of aggression and machismo.

Conversely if they had grown up with male role-models that were balanced and handled anger and conflict in a reasonable way they would model themselves after those individuals because those individuals would define how "men" act.

I do think it is very important for females raising children without the child's father to make sure that male offspring have close long term relationships with responsible, sane minded men.



[edit on 4-10-2008 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by skeptic1


You made the point that women need men to pass on the women's DNA. I just pointed out that the actual man isn't needed for the situation you presented.

Well obviously he is needed, where is the sperm going to come from, the grocery store?

-LS

Originally posted by Ghost147
This is a question from the ignorant (aka me). Because of the past hundreds upon hundreds of years of neglect and abuse of women, forcing them into a state in which not to think freely, and a position in which they were (and sometimes still are) unable to attend schooling. Would this genetically make women less intelligent than men?

It seems that what you are asking in broader sense is this: If you force a group of people into a circumstance that does not permit academic education and do this generation after generation, will this group of people become genetically altered into a state of lesser intellect?

My answer is an emphatic no.

1. Education ='s Intellect?
Formal education does not affect learning capacity and/or the intelligence quotient of an individual.
When females were held back from formal education they still had the ability to learn, but rather than learning world affairs, physics, literature, etc they became quite knowledgeable within the parameters in which they were confined.

2. Genetic De-evolution?
I simply do not subscribe to a theory of de-evolution where learning capacity is concerned.

It may be that you can take fish that can see, put them in a pool in a dark cave, and over thousands or millions of years this group of fish begin to produce blind offspring because there was no need for sight.

However, that does not interpret into something like learning ability, because - again, lacking formal education does not equal a lack of learning ability or capacity.


[edit on 10-4-2008 by intelgurl]

I think that the issue of genetics is impossibly buried within the context of nurture. We only measure IQ after the individual has had some nuture. So isolating the genetic component of intelligence is practically impossible. Especially since intelligence is a complex of traits.

I will say this. Most men are educated to think in terms of taxonomic trees. Diagnostics means looking at symptoms, and isolating one twig on a larger branch on the trunk of things that might be wrong. This is true for IT as well as it is for medicine.

My wife holds multiple graduate degrees, and is highly sought after academically and professionally. I believe it is because she has the rare female quality of being able to memorize taxonomic trees for medical diagnostics. Her emotional maturity and empathic skill, couple with diagnostic skill, makes her almost unique in her field.

Not necessarily because of genetics. But because our society views this kind of thinking as "male" thinking. But there's no way to know whether this is in fact the case. And since IQ tests mostly measure one's ability to perform taxonomic style discriminations, they guarantee that the finest gradations will be exhibited in males, in whom so much effort is invested to get them to learn this particular congitive style.

The fact that women show less variation on IQ tests implies that the tests are measuring innate female skill (which doesn't vary much), where as men who have invested in this skill, or who are graded socially according to this ability, show more obvious excellence / deficiency.

speaking as a male who has worked alongside women on massive research projects, one of the more frustrating tasks was helping some women (who were involved because of their other skill sets) get up to speed with the taxonomy. But I didn't think that it was because they were unintelligent--just new to that skill.

once I taught my wife to play chess, her elo began improving dramatically. But as I noted before she has a talent (rare for women in european culture) of grasping taxonomic / mathematical thinking.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

Originally posted by skeptic1My whole point was that now, women have the opportunities to show their intelligence whereas a few generations ago, they didn't.

You are correct. I AM very grateful that I am allowed to learn and not have to worry about being scolded or beaten for it. That certainly is not healthy, but I feel women have gone so far in the opposite direction that it is close to becoming mandatory to prove that we can have both the career(s) and the family. If I had a choice, I would be content to be the happy homemaker and my life would be completely fulfilled in my natural role as caregiver... I'd still want to be free to learn, but I have no desire to "lead" where I don't HAVE to. Not given the choice, I have put my intelligence to good use for being both the bread winner and the caregiver.

Not a gloating moment intentionally, but I have proven that not only can I raise two brilliant and content children, but also provide more for them at the same time than the ex could just providing for us. Still, it has and will continue to take its toll on me personally... a willing sacrifice I make for the well being of my children (ha!! the latter being one of the great things about women )

[edit on 4-10-2008 by justamomma]

Originally posted by skeptic1


The actual person, the physical man, is not needed to be physically there in order for your situation to take place.

You must have skipped biology class. Male sperm doesn't just appear out of thin air. Where do you think the sperm banks get it from, do they grow it in the ground, or on trees?

-LS

uhg! your both right! lol, your arguing over the same point.

It's a great question and I applaud you for having the guts to ask it. It may not be true but we may never know unless we can discuss the topic freely. Balance is the key and the answer.
Humanity is balanced out. Men and Women each have better and worse qualities. Men do have the ability to make decisions not based on emotions better than women (imo). Women however are way more organized and I would say goal oriented. To me they are more vocal of what they are feeling and more likely to just go with their gut feeling.
There are flaws with each sex and strengths also. Whoever was our creator, plus how we have adapted in the wild and society has something to do with the balance we have attained.
Think Balance. Light is light and dark is dark. but light can also be dark and dark can also be light. (trying not to get to "out there" or preachy) By this I mean for ex: Womens Emotional tendencies sometimes hurt their decision making and actions but sometimes they are better for the situation and those qualities are what makes everything good and work.

once again Great post to the O.P. !!! I'm also glad to see everyone thus far replying in a non-offended civil manor.