Women genetically less intelligent than Men?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610

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.


Let's be even more specific and accurate. Fatherless children sometimes grow up to become criminals, and do so with a very SLIGHT propensity beyond that of children with fathers.

It is a very slight indication, and may be due to some sort of cause and effect relationship that is unrelated to the actual fact they have no fathers -- such as the fact they may be living in households with less incomes.

I loved your earlier statistical graph, Sonia. Do you have any statistics to actually back up your assertion above? I'm just relaying on a discussion point I've heard before. It makes sense to me, but it may be inaccurate.




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
What is intelligence? The ability to adapt to new situations? The ability to articulate thoughts, and comprehend the emotions of others? The ability to score 1500 on the SATs? The ability to follow a given societies interpretation of success? The ability to spell 'intelegance' correctly?

I read the thesaurus like its pornography. This helps give the illusion I am one sharp dude. But what really makes me smart? My ability to be original. Intelligence is the art of thinking for yourself, imho. In that light, men, women, and child qualify.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


good find. but i already knew that upbringing dramatically effects the intelligence of the person. I think i missed the genetics carrying over type part though. it bassically stated that everyone starts the same right? which would meen that genetically it wouldnt matter at all if your iq is 200 or 70. right? (getting tired/listening to music makes me think less. lol)



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Here is more differences:

news.softpedia.com...

When it comes to women - the corpus callosum, the major white matter tract, connecting the two brain hemispheres, allowing their intercommunication - is much wider. That's why women have their brain functions more finely distributed, while men have a more "asymmetrical" brain, with more specialized areas and, for example, a lesion on the left hemisphere, which can induce speech loss, is more devastating for men. If the stroke is only on one side of the brain, a woman can rehabilitate, while the man may have more trouble with it, because the woman may be able to perform tasks using the other side of her brain. This also mean that men are more prone to senile dementia and the age-related decline is much steeper than in women.

But this also explains why women have better concrete thinking while men have a better abstract one (and are better at chess and composing music) and why women prefer to repeat loudly what they are learning while men must learn in silence. The female brain is 11 % lighter than the male brain, still IQ coefficients of the women are similar to those of the men. That's because men have less gray matter (that processes information) and more white matter (that transmits information). This explains why the female brain learns easier and men have more motor ability.

Women also express their emotions better, because their emotional thinking centers are close to the speech centers, so they can verbalize their emotions better. Men have a simpler limbic system, and their emotions are bound to action.

Researches revealed that gay men have a larger posterior corpus callosum than heterosexual men. This means that homosexuals have more "womenized" brains (as found also by tests exploring their behavioral skills), fact that could be explained by hormonal ratios and balances in the womb. This imbalance could have a genetic reason, but not necessarily.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
I have a problem with femi-nazis as well.


I don't think you can dismiss feminists as "femi-nazis" -- I don't see any women building gas chambers and crematoriums. (Are they?)

What I see is a whole of society that has been subjugated and enslaved for a long time.

Until 1920 -- women weren't even allowed to vote in the USA. In France (which we usually think of as a progressive society) women didn't "earn" the right to vote until the mid 1940's.

And, of course, we still see threads like this.

I am amazed, as a guy, that women are not more upset by this thread, and see it for what it really is.

Edit: The title of this thread might be more obvious if it was "Women are Stoopid" (must included misspelled word, in the title, as before.) Then I think it would be attacked with more fervor.


[edit on 4-10-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Right. Genetics is the starting point, and the starting point is basically the same for everyone. And, genetics is not limiting when it comes to intelligence.

It is the environment the individual is exposed to, the circumstance, the upbringing, the opportunities that really determine the IQ and the growing of intelligence through life.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

What is intelligence? The ability to adapt to new situations? The ability to articulate thoughts, and comprehend the emotions of others? The ability to score 1500 on the SATs? The ability to follow a given societies interpretation of success? The ability to spell 'intelegance' correctly?

I read the thesaurus like its pornography. This helps give the illusion I am one sharp dude. But what really makes me smart? My ability to be original. Intelligence is the art of thinking for yourself, imho. In that light, men, women, and child qualify.

good one!
a very wise homeless man told me that intelligence is not already knowing something, but knowing resources u can use to find things out that u don't already know.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraftonce 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.


I think with women its often a matter of "just not caring" and our total lack of interest naturally makes us less proficient due to lack of experience in those areas. You managed to get your wife INTERESTED in chess, she found it amusing so she actually focused on it and then her skills improved dramatically.

Men often find things of a mechanical nature to be fascinating. They will take on hobbies such as auto repair, or building computers from scratch just because it entertains them. Many women on the otherhand can spend 3 hours analyzing relationships on the phone, they love it.

As a natural consequence many women are going to be a lot more knowledgeable and perceptive when relationships are discussed, and many men are going to be a lot more knowledgeable regarding the possible reasons why a car won't start.

If either gender took an INTEREST in the other topic both could become reasonably proficient, but they simply don't have the same interests or drives.


[edit on 5-10-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 


I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, and from the OPs behavior through this thread, he doesn't seem to be promoting a sexist point of view; he seems to be asking a general question. And, women can be rational.....to a point.


And, as far as feminism goes, I have no problem with feminism. But, I have a problem with extreme feminism (hence the term femi-nazi). Whereas I can open my own doors, order my own meals from a menu, and pay my own way, I will not slap down a man who does if for me just because I CAN do it by MYSELF. I don't take it to the extreme....I find it very disrespectful.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 

the OP is not sexist. think about it. it's a legit question as to how womwn would evolve geneticly from thousands of years of intellectual oppression. how is that sexist to wonder how they would evolve according to the fact that they have been given less opprotunities than men for being an intellect? explain.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 



Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more

Have you raised any children ? Have you been involved in child-care, or education generally ?

If you have, I find it flabbergasting that you could make such a comment



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more

Have you raised any children ? Have you been involved in child-care, or education generally ?

If you have, I find it flabbergasting that you could make such a comment


What is it you disagree with? The study itself or my quoting the study? Or did you even read the study?

And as for your questions....Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Sorry that flabbergasts you, but until I actually know what bothers you so, I can't really address it.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enigma Publius
good one!
a very wise homeless man told me that intelligence is not already knowing something, but knowing resources u can use to find things out that u don't already know.


ok this is off topic. how did you and a random homeless person get into a descusion that lead to that? lol



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 


Despite obvious differences in tasks for thousands of years, the differences in actual use of intelligence are not obvious. Despite men having larger brains, and slightly higher on the spatial aspects of college entrance exams and IQ the consensus is far from in, which means women are doing a lot of catch up:


www.aboutintelligence.co.uk...

IQ tests show that the average female IQ is equal to the average male IQ. However, at the extremes of the spectrum, there is a widening gap between the sexes. In other words, there are more men who score at the top and the bottom end of the intelligence scale. For example, there are twice as many men with IQ scores of 125 and five times as many men with IQ scores of 155, which is associated with “genius”. Interestingly, however, evidence also shows that at the same IQ level, women are able to achieve more than men, possibly because they are able to multi-task and adapt to periods of sustained hard work. Recent studies also show that in modern society, women are rapidly overtaking men both in terms of educational attainment and occupational achievement.)...


Depends what you mean by smarter. It is undeniable that men have more brain tissue than women and that more males score higher IQ scores than females. But this may have little implication in the real world of education or work – in fact, female students tend to get better grades than their male counterparts in schools and for most people in the vast majority of jobs, a difference in IQ scores doesn’t translate to very much on the actual job. So for the time being, it seems that the jury is still out and the battle of the sexes continues!



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enigma Publius
reply to post by Buck Division
 

the OP is not sexist. think about it. it's a legit question as to how womwn would evolve geneticly from thousands of years of intellectual oppression. how is that sexist to wonder how they would evolve according to the fact that they have been given less opprotunities than men for being an intellect? explain.


Disagree emphatically. The OP is sexist. Definitely. He is propagating a myth through his question. By your reasoning, he would not be racist if we changed "Women" to an ethnic group -- something that some people claim is not racist, but clearly is.

en.wikipedia.org...

I will give the OP the benefit of the doubt. He sounds like someone who has been brought up a certain way, with certain beliefs. I live in the deep south. I sometimes hear racial slurs made by people who are not otherwise racist, but just speaking the way they were taught. But I think the thread author realized the topic was offensive -- he said he was worried about that several times.

#

Regarding natural selection: Intelligence is something like "good health". You cannot have too much of it, and I don't think slavery will diminish it. (Slavery, along with other misfortunes, might actually enhance intelligence. I don't know.)

If that wasn't obvious to me, I might not be arguing so passionately.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 


We could be wrong and falling into a trap, and if we are, then our bad. But the OP has acted respectfully through the thread, not like a sexist pig (others have done that).

There are many studies that have focused on men being genetically more intelligent than women (many sourced in this thread), and in my mind, I took it to mean that the OP had seen one and was asking a question. None were linked in his post, but I took it to be an actual question, not an agenda.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


good find mystiq.. again.. lol

Yes buck. i am a sexist/racist f***. I live to screw over others' beliefs along with pushing them into the dirt simply because they arent the same as i am.

I am aware that the topic can suggest the impression of sexism, which is why i was worried in creating it. However, as stated multiple times aswell, it is a perfectly reasonable question because of the 1000s of years that women have been pushed under the step that a man would stand apon.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buck Division
I loved your earlier statistical graph, Sonia. Do you have any statistics to actually back up your assertion above? I'm just relaying on a discussion point I've heard before. It makes sense to me, but it may be inaccurate.


I am not in the mood to spend 20 minutes googling for more sources, I am tired. You want more sources, you do the googling.

I have heard it from more than one source though, I used that source because I wanted to post a graph and that was the first one i found. I like the use of graphs during these types of discussions.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost147
 


Learn a little more, on a broader scope, of the role of women historically, and you'll answer your own question. A lot of the "oppression" of women was nothing of the sort, but rather women just embracing gender roles, just as the men o the time did.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join