Women genetically less intelligent than Men?, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 11:31 PM by Ghost147
reply to post by space cadet


wait.... tv lied to me!


yes, obviously the bleech blond retards that tend to enhabit pop culture do not reflect apon all women in existance. but neither to your intelligent friends either.

which now reverts back to the question. which has practically been solved within this topic already. however, i believe you thought i was making a statement. which i wasnt.


reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 11:35 PM by Ghost147
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


lol, yes it is still sarcasm.



reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 11:37 PM by themamayada
Having studied the brain and how we learn (masters in education) I always laugh when I read about "intelligence" because I don't think anyone truly can define it nor adequately measure it (IQ tests are culturally flawed). The person I believe that has come close to defining intelligence is a person named "Howard Gardner." BTW, anyone who has school-age children, should know that every teacher has been trained to at least acknowledge his theories. His basic premise is that there are multiple intelligences - for example - mathematics is a type of intelligence... so is music... so is spacial reasoning... and interpersonal skills, etc. So Beethoven, who was a social misfit, was a musical intellect. Yet someone like Cleopatra could be considered to be an interpersonal intellect, as evident by her empire and social graces. The multiple intelligence theory explains how geniuses are really good at what they do, but they suck at everything else. Anywho, to answer your question, I do believe many men are genetically more "intelligent" in some areas than women (e.g. logical mathematical intelligence) due to different physical brain configurations -- yet women are more intelligent than men in intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations) due to more efficient connections across the corpus collosum (I know, blah blah, boring stuff). BTW, I'm a woman.

reply to post by Ghost147




[edit on 4-10-2008 by themamayada]


reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 11:39 PM by skeptic1
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I read his 7 posts and he calls women dumb and applauds the Iranian president.

I stand by my claim of it not being sarcasm, or if it is, then that is all he is here to post.

[edit on 10/4/2008 by skeptic1]


reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 11:41 PM by Ghost147
reply to post by themamayada


we've generally figured that out in this topic. but can you please tell me a definite answer to intelligence being genetically transfered to offspring?


reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 11:43 PM by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by skeptic1


I understand and agree with you.


AboveyourGod if all you're doing is sarcastic baiting with all of your posts then that's what we call trolling and is against the T & C. As much as I like people making fun of religion, it's still trolling if you don't contribute real thought at least some of the time


reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 11:46 PM by chrhenn32
reply to post by skeptic1


Just like what you were made for. It is a hard task to take care of little ones and only you (female) have the capacity to do the best job and tools that you have inherited. It take much much brains to raise and care for your little ones as it takes much brains for the father to do his part. Isn't that why we were given the tools from each sex to use?



reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 11:51 PM by skeptic1
reply to post by Ghost147


I couldn't find anything directly on point about genetic transfer of intelligence to offspring, but I did find something regarding manual genetic transfer of traits like intelligence.

A bit off-topic, but......Source



For example, in humans, for whom more complex traits such as intelligence or behavior are concerned, the limitations are more pronounced. The genome provides only a blueprint for formation of the brain. The complex and subtle details of assembly and intellectual development involve more than direct genetic control and are subject to inestimable stochastic and environmental influences. Despite the technical limitations, it is possible that eventually enhancements using techniques initially intended to restore deficiencies could be redirected to improve memory and problem-solving, reduce the need for sleep, increase musical capacity, attain desirable personality traits, protect against cardiovascular disease or cancer, or increase longevity.


Like the earlier study I cited earlier, it seems genetics is just the starting point and other influences are needed for "true intelligence" to mature.


reply posted on 4-10-2008 @ 11:54 PM by skeptic1
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Exactly.

It isn't just a one sided coin.



[edit on 10/4/2008 by skeptic1]


reply posted on 5-10-2008 @ 12:02 AM by Enigma Publius
Originally posted by Buck Division
Originally posted by themamayada
Having studied the brain and how we learn (masters in education) I always laugh when I read about "intelligence" because I don't think anyone truly can define it nor adequately measure it (IQ tests are culturally flawed).


Exactly right. As far as I am concerned, the above quote ends my participation in this thread. The above answer is obviously correct . There doesn't seem to be much point in discussing this further unless we figure out what "intelligence" actually is.

Well done.

psychic billy already told us what intelligence was. it is an ability to understand and problem solve ACROSS THE BOARD of all the subject (math, survival, feelings, etc.) matter we have discussed, intelligence is a collective grasp of all these things. that would seem self evident after a little consideration...IMO of course. BTW do u still consider it sexist to question these things? you never told me if it would be racist to wonder if a group of people removed from most predators would lose a little natural grace and reflexes while honing in on other skills, or if a group around more predators would develop more natural athleticism and better reflexes. because to me that is similar to what is being questioned in the OP. i don't think it was sexist, i think You made it sexist, while others were trying to avoid that. But before you take it the wrong way, i do understand how it could be misleading and construed as being sexist instead of questioning. or is it the questioning that is wrong? on a site about denying ignorance no less.


reply posted on 5-10-2008 @ 12:05 AM by skeptic1
reply to post by chrhenn32


I agree that society is messed up......for a lot of reasons, not just due to a slackening in traditional family values.

Just because women are built to give birth does not mean that is all they are able to do. It does not make them good mothers. It does not make them good people.

There are women who don't want children, who can't have children. Looking at and interpreting your words (and correct me if I read you wrong), the only reason women are here is to have kids and nurture them and their husbands. What should happen with the ones that can't or don't want to? Women have more to contribute to society than giving birth and raising kids and caring for a man. We are intelligent creatures that add to this world in other ways.

While I will be the first to admit that things fall through the cracks when women have kids and a demanding career, it doesn't mean that she is a bad person.


reply posted on 5-10-2008 @ 12:11 AM by Enigma Publius
reply to post by chrhenn32
that is completely ridiculous you know that right? YES, i will allow that at one time, before grocery stores and such, women needed to be the ones who stayed with the children while men hunted and gathered. (but mind you that even this, was not true EVERYWHERE, there were cultures where roles were reversed, and still are today in some tribes) but can u give me any logical reason as to why this is necessary now that a woman needn't be a fierce warrior/hunter to feed her children, because she can hunt through a Kroger isle? it is a self-evident truth that women can be the provider while the man nurtures at home. i am a single dad, and my son has not suffered from it, he is not depraved. is that what u are saying? if we still lived on the land, then MAYBE your views would make sense, but creatures adapt, and that is what we are doing, changing, adapting, to a new enviroment. it's guys like you that make guys like me look like big dumb, emotionless, cavemen. i venture to guess that the connective tissue making women more emotional was a symptom of them being the caregivers to the children, and i further suspect that mens tissues will evolve to make us more emotional now that we do not need to be ruthless killers/hunters anymore.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^