It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women genetically less intelligent than Men?

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


didnt we have a source somehwere on this thread stating that we generally all start out with the same chance. hasnt it been proven that things like playing music and showing images to a baby can dramatically effect their IQs?

or am i wrong?

can you link me up to your information?




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Well it depends how you mean.

Geniuses tend to be male and achieve more in their fields. However this could be put down to the drive of men that most women just don't have. Then there are maternity issues, women usually end up, around the age of 30, dropping out of graduate courses.

I don't think the average man is smarter than the average woman and we deffinately get female geniuses. However i think male geniuses tend to go further, push harder and achieve more. This doesn't mean they're smarter, just that their hormones are more geared towards achievement.


OR, it could be that they have as much or more drive than men, don't tend to drop out of anything, tend to go as far if not further, push harder and achieve more just to see all their efforts absconded by credit-stealing men!

This tends to happen not because we don't have the drive, but women tend to find satisfaction in the accomplishment itself - versus the credit for the accomplishment. Basically, we demure ourselves into historical invisibility.

A few links to bring home the point:

tls.timesonline.co.uk...

www.women-scientists-in-history.com...

www.britishcouncil.org...

www.agnesscott.edu...

And if you'd like the signal case for how a woman's contribution to a monumental scientific accomplishment can be hidden by the credit being given only to the males who worked on the effort...check out Rosalind Franklin

www.accessexcellence.org...

her male counterpart, Maurice Wilkins, was third recipient along with Watson and Crick to the Nobel prize for figuring out the double helix structure of DNA - unfortunately Wilkins did less in the effort than his PEER Rosalind Franklin - who was actually the one who discovered the A and B forms of DNA.

Oh well...she knew what she did.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost147
didnt we have a source somehwere on this thread stating that we generally all start out with the same chance. hasnt it been proven that things like playing music and showing images to a baby can dramatically effect their IQs?
or am i wrong?


First of all, what source says that we all start off with the same chance? I missed that post.

Secondly I can work on finding sources that state that iq is not significantly effected by environment, however one must realize that in today’s culture that is NOT a popular opinion, therefore there will NOT be a lot of studies available that show that conclusion because the majority of grants and government programs are devoted to the belief that we can all be the same if only environmental factors were removed.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost147
By not thinking freely, i really ment encoraged not to think freely. obviously, yes, they could/did. but they definetly werent wanted to.


I follow that... In fact, I'd go further. Many men believed women weren't really mentally capable of much in the way of learning and/or thinking, and so they either actively discouraged them from taking formal education or placed major barriers in their path. History shows us that attitude long existed and in some places it still does. We know that the "Taliban" regime that formerly held sway in Afghanistan made teaching women and girls to read and write a crime punishable by beatings, imprisonment or even death.

I am not sure if their prohibitions were simply based upon the "women don't have the brains for learning" attitude; somehow I doubt it. It seems that such repression is often based upon fear, distrust, misunderstanding and (on the part of the oppressors) a non-admitted sense of their own inadequacies. Repression usually boils down to that: fear that others might turn out to be "better" if they are given half the chance. So the Taliban basically gave them none. It's similar to the "Cultural Revolution" in China, when the intellectuals were either killed or "re-educated" by being forced to work in the fields, or Pol Pot's regime, where most teachers and intellectuals were murdered. Narrow-mindedness and repression is based upon fear.

From what I've read, a lot of women and girls in Afghanistan now go to school and apparently are soaking up the knowledge as fast as their male counterparts -- and perhaps with even more enthusiasm because they never had the chance till the past few years. They must have yearned for that chance to be able to read and write like their fathers and brothers did; they must have wondered at how and why they were treated so atrociously.

After all, they had a long time to think about it...



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Well, we human beings are still programed to life in a tribal society. Our brains are in fact running on stone age software. Men have a high developed single threaded brain, used to place a high degree of focus on specific things like hunting or defense.
Women on the other hand have a multi threaded brain, being able to focus on several things at a time was the only way to survive and protect their offspring while the men were away hunting. That's also the reason Women have a much better peripheral vision, so they could be aware of everything around them and spot threats earlier.

That's why all the great artists and geniuses are men, they have the ability to put all their focus on the task at hand, but it all comes at a cost...



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


ill take a look for that source. I did believe in what you said at first untill i read that source i speak of... give me a second



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1

Originally posted by LogicalSolution

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


Sperm bank.

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

Back on topic....

Source

This was kind of interesting....environment seems to be more important than genetics when discussing intelligence.




Your brain, your nervous system, your entire body is constructed according to instructions received from the genes that you have inherited from your parents. It would seem reasonable that superior genes would provide a child with superior intelligence capacity. And in fact, researchers have discovered that parents with high IQ’s tend to have children with high IQ’s, while parents with low IQ’s tend to have children with low IQ’s.

Does that prove that intelligence is inherited, which implies that a person is a slave to his genes? The founders of the IQ industry certainly thought that this was the case. However, consider the fact that, unless a child does not learn to speak at all, the children of English parents speak English, the children of Spanish parents speak Spanish, and the children of French parents speak French. Surely the ability to speak a certain language is not inherited, but is dependent on the language that the child hears on a daily basis! In the same way, IQ and intelligence might be dependent on the child’s environment, and specifically the quality and quantity of education that he receives. Perhaps being raised in an intellectual home with intelligent parents tends to increase a child’s IQ.

Research on the role of the environment in children's intellectual development has demonstrated that a stimulating environment can dramatically increase IQ, whereas a deprived environment can lead to a decrease in IQ. A few such research studies are listed below. They confirm that IQ is all but a fixed quantity.




here was the post



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


Woman`s logic talking

You can not say anything about the biblical truth.
Hiding your ignorance and hate you attack me! You try to make a joke of me?What kinda person are you? You are the one who has problems. You should really start in BTS.

Stop talking nonsense: All that you said was/is wrong. You mus be an atheist and you HATE God because you want to be more. Right?

This is my last post because people who have not spiritual view of life can not say anything positive about the male-female relations.

Grow up! God bless you!



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The best way to judge whether environment outweighs genetic influence is to study identical twins raised separately in adoptive homes. Most all studies show that MATURE twins have remarkably similar iq’s despite being raised in different environmental situations. The same holds true for siblings. Genetic traits reign supreme where iq is concerned in relatively normal environments (as stated before, malnutrition, lead poisoning, or extreme poverty/child abuse can have effects)

Most all studies that show environment can make a huge difference in adopted children are basing their evidence on immature individuals, the differences disappear as the individuals reach maturity.

BTW…just so you know I singled out your post and responded to it because you were awake, and at this hour not many are. : )


For IQ, adoption studies show that, after adolescence, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6.

Recent twin and adoption studies suggest that while the effect of the family environment is substantial in early childhood, it becomes quite small by late adolescence. These findings suggest that differences in the life styles of families, whatever their importance may be for many aspects of children's lives, make little long-term difference for the skills measured by intelligence tests.

en.wikipedia.org...



In the case of the inheritance of IQ or a certain degree of giftedness, the relatives of probands with a high IQ exhibit a comparably high IQ with a much higher probability than the general population. Bouchard and McGue (1981) have reviewed such correlations reported in 111 original studies in the United States.[5] The mean correlation of IQ scores between monozygotic twins was 0.86, between siblings, 0.47, between half-siblings, 0.31, and between cousins, 0.15. From such data the heritability of IQ has been estimated at anywhere between 0.40 and 0.80 in the United States. The reason for this wide margin appears to be that the heritability of IQ rises through childhood and adolescence, peaking at 0.68 and 0.78 in adults, leaving the overwhelming majority of IQ differences between individuals to be explained genetically.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...


In a longitudinal genetic study we explored which factors underlie stability in verbal and nonverbal abilities, and the extent to which the association between these abilities becomes stronger as children grow older. Measures of verbal and nonverbal IQ were collected in Dutch twin pairs at age 5, 7, 10, 12 and 18 years. The stability of both verbal and nonverbal abilities was high, with correlations over time varying from .47 for the 13-year time interval up to .80 for shorter time intervals. Structural equation modeling showed increasing heritability with age, from 48% (verbal) and 64% (nonverbal) at age 5 to 84% and 74% at age 18. Genetic influences seemed to be the driving force behind stability. Stability in nonverbal ability was entirely explained by genes. Continuity in verbal abilities was explained by genetic and shared environmental effects. The overlap between verbal and nonverbal abilities was fully accounted for by genes influencing both abilities. The genetic correlation between verbal and nonverbal IQ increased from .62 in early childhood to .73 in young adulthood.
www.sciencedirect.com... 1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7fe06e9ab475317c4c95dce2f8c01468



General intelligence or IQ is strongly affected by genetic factors. The IQs of the adult MZA twins assessed with various instruments in four independent studies correlate about 0.70, indicating that about 70% of the observed variation in IQ in this population can be attributed to genetic variation.
www.lrainc.com...



[edit on 5-10-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Generally, men have better spatial intelligence, better intuitions about geometry. Women are better at language, diplomacy, political understanding. So it's like comparing apples and oranges, really.

That's why men don't like to ask for directions. The man's intuition is telling him if he just drives around a bit longer his spatial intelligence will do the trick, and he'll get his bearings. Whereas the woman picks up on his confusion and knows he's lost, and her intuition tells her they can get their bearings a lot faster if they just TALK to somebody.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


good find sonya, thanks for the info!



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:53 AM
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.

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]


Hi Sonja


I am one of three, the youngest is 18, the middle one 21 and me 24. We never really had a defining father figure even though there were varrying providing partners in my mother's and our life.

My youngest brother is ADHD diagnosed and live with my mother. He ahs extreme anger and agression moods where he threatens my mother and mistreats people. Specialists who have talked to him say his thoughts reflect that of a mistreater( is that the correct word? :S) He also has a different father than me and my other brother; his father mistreated us while he was still a baby. Really a terrible man who doesnt reserve any respect

My other brother is a very social (he works at a customer service department aswell) yet very emotional-closed person who had some trouble with his girlfriends over the years; he would never share anything about it but you vould see he was troubled by it, being so silent at the diningtable. He has a very busy life even though he has some time to call my up and ask me how I am. He left the house because of my younger brother

And me, I am a very open, rather emotional one who early on in life became depressed ( I was 14). I dont know why exactly but I guess the loss of one of my grandparents played a role plus the fact I didnt fit in the group too well. I have been diagnosed with genderdysphoria ( between androgyny and transgenderism , somewhere in between
) and some signs of a light depression. Things are going better with me these days where I try to educate myself and do volunteery work with gardening and children. I really like the word "color", its my motivation to keep going and where I draw inspiration from.

Soo..how did the lack of a father figure affect us? Why are we so different from each other?


Ontopic:
If only we could mix the sexes into one androgynous fruitmix it would be a better world; people (like here aswell) only believe in black and white...even though there are many "manly" men and "feminine" women there are also a few who slide more to a different side.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost147
good find sonya, thanks for the info!


Try again. You asked for sources and I spent 20 minutes finding/cutting/
pasting sources. I expect more of a reward here.

I expect to hear "Yes, you are absolutely right in every way and now I see that" or some other inciteful commentary on the information I posted for your reading pleasure. : )

[edit on 5-10-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercuryae I have been diagnosed with genderdysphoria ( between androgyny and transgenderism , somewhere in between ) and some signs of a light depression.

Soo..how did the lack of a father figure affect us? Why are we so different from each other?


Genetics play a huge role. Also as I started reading your post I wondered "is this person female or gay?" then I got read down to the genderdysphoria part. : )



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by Mercuryae I have been diagnosed with genderdysphoria ( between androgyny and transgenderism , somewhere in between ) and some signs of a light depression.

Soo..how did the lack of a father figure affect us? Why are we so different from each other?


Genetics play a huge role. Also as I started reading your post I wondered "is this person female or gay?" then I got read down to the genderdysphoria part. : )


Hey!


How come you though that..my nickname ?


And yes, it just cant be only the way you are raised/whether you miss a father figure or not...else me and my brothers would have been somewhat the same ..so there is genetics and certain "sensitiviness" involved aswell


It can get a tad annoying on the phone however when people call you Miss....because my voice is quite high pitched ^^

Its hard to live in a world of black and white, while you feel a little grey

Interesting thread this, however


EDIT: While I have a very good gay friend I like women myself


[edit on 5-10-2008 by Mercuryae]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Who ever made the original comment was prolly' a male in the first place & a Moron to boot.

Women process information differently than men.

They process information on an emotional level, whereas men do not.

This is why it is so easy to use NLP to seduce women "if you know the right methods to use", but it also meant that women think in very spiritual terms & often make more insightful judgements on a subject.

In a way, this actually makes them more intelligent than men "Genetically".



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Hi!

Direct answer: yes! they are! look at the history! why is this thread?
moreover, god created a man, not a woman. woMAN is an artificial creation of space aliens. that`s it!



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 


... obviously your the moron for thinking that the whole point of this topic is stating that men are better than women. which i completely dissagrea, as ive stated multiple times in my original post.

This topic is a question, not a statement. I am merely asking that because of the thousands upon thousands of years of neglect towards women, would that technically meen that they are possibly genetically less intelligent because of the fact that they were, and still are in many cases, not given the same rights as men.

so far the only sexist people ive seen during this entire descusion has been the few people, such as yourself, stating that this descusion itself is sexist. is "it was probably a man who wrote this" not a sexist comment?




dukeoftheusa, you are an idiot if you actually believe that. however, seeing how you just signed up today, my guess is that you are the same person as "Abovethegod" or whatever that name was.


Sonya, sorry for the short reply, lol, ill give a more reasonable responce later today, im a little off this morning.

[edit on 5/10/08 by Ghost147]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


That's because most all studies on genetics role in intelligence versus environmental situations have been done on identical twins and adopted children. There haven't been that many that have focused on anything other than those two types of people.

How can it really be determined if the test subject are that small, specific group?

Both points are interesting, but until more studies are done to balance out the findings of the twin/adoptee studies.....



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
That's because most all studies on genetics role in intelligence versus environmental situations have been done on identical twins and adopted children. There haven't been that many that have focused on anything other than those two types of people.


Oh yes there have been many other studies done. In fact in the U.S. considerable time/effort/money has been invested in schools and other social programs for the sole purpose of trying to raise i.q. and academic performance of certain historically low performing segments of U.S. society.

To date the results have been dismal at best. Some groups consistently lag way behind despite heroic efforts.



new topics




 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join