Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate

reply to post by Edrick


I do notice that you carefully avoided the fact that the higher SAT scores do not translate into improved performance for males.

www.education.com...

Contrary to the test-maker's assertions, the gender gap does not merely reflect differences in academic preparation. ETS researchers Howard Wainer and Linda Steinberg found that on average, males score 33 points higher on the SAT-Math than females who earn the same grades in the same college math courses. The authors state that the "consistent under prediction of women's performance in college mathematics courses provides evidence that the SAT-M, used alone, is mismeasuring the profile of proficiencies that contribute to success in college."

Problematic that, when tests that presume to measure aptitude, and predict performance, dont.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
d.

It is a KNOWN fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever WIN an argument with a WOMAN!

The Y chromosome is simply evolving faster in an utterly futile attempt for men to FINALLY WIN THE FIRST ARGUMENT with a woman.

Good call. When in doubt introduce stereotypes.

Surely if he does not win the debate, it is only because of the gender of his opponent, not because he did a poor job of defending his position, and failed to use sound logic and facts.

Pity I wasted all that money on a degree in Philosophy, studying argumentation and logic. I should have realized simply having ovaries would have been sufficient.

Civilization encompasses more than math and science.

This whole "men are smarter than women" thing is really important to you. I don't think the evidence supports your notion that men are smarter, just that they tend to score higher on SAT tests and generally excel in math. Big whoop.

Males and females exercise different parts of the brain. Both are needed.

source

"The following are some of the characteristics of girls' brains:

* A girl's corpus callosum (the connecting bundle of tissues between hemispheres) is, on average, larger than a boy's—up to 25 percent larger by adolescence. This enables more “cross talk” between hemispheres in the female brain.
* Girls have, in general, stronger neural connectors in their temporal lobes than boys have. These connectors lead to more sensually detailed memory storage, better listening skills, and better discrimination among the various tones of voice. This leads, among other things, to greater use of detail in writing assignments.
* The hippocampus (another memory storage area in the brain) is larger in girls than in boys, increasing girls' learning advantage, especially in the language arts.
* Girls' prefrontal cortex is generally more active than boys' and develops at earlier ages. For this reason, girls tend to make fewer impulsive decisions than boys do. Further, girls have more serotonin in the bloodstream and the brain, which makes them biochemically less impulsive.
* Girls generally use more cortical areas of their brains for verbal and emotive functioning. Boys tend to use more cortical areas of the brain for spatial and mechanical functioning (Moir & Jessel, 1989; Rich, 2000)."


The Minds of Boy

* Because boys' brains have more cortical areas dedicated to spatial-mechanical functioning, males use, on average, half the brain space that females use for verbal-emotive functioning. The cortical trend toward spatial-mechanical functioning makes many boys want to move objects through space, like balls, model airplanes, or just their arms and legs. Most boys, although not all of them, will experience words and feelings differently than girls do (Blum, 1997; Moir & Jessel, 1989).
* Boys not only have less serotonin than girls have, but they also have less oxytocin, the primary human bonding chemical. This makes it more likely that they will be physically impulsive and less likely that they will neurally combat their natural impulsiveness to sit still and empathically chat with a friend (Moir & Jessel, 1989; Taylor, 2002).
* Boys lateralize brain activity. Their brains not only operate with less blood flow than girls' brains, but they are also structured to compartmentalize learning. Thus, girls tend to multitask better than boys do, with fewer attention span problems and greater ability to make quick transitions between lessons (Havers, 1995).
* The male brain is set to renew, recharge, and reorient itself by entering what neurologists call a rest state. The boy in the back of the classroom whose eyes are drifting toward sleep has entered a neural rest state. It is predominantly boys who drift off without completing assignments, who stop taking notes and fall asleep during a lecture, or who tap pencils or otherwise fidget in hopes of keeping themselves awake and learning. Females tend to recharge and reorient neural focus without rest states. Thus, a girl can be bored with a lesson, but she will nonetheless keep her eyes open, take notes, and perform relatively well. This is especially true when the teacher uses more words to teach a lesson instead of being spatial and diagrammatic. The more words a teacher uses, the more likely boys are to “zone out,” or go into rest state. The male brain is better suited for symbols, abstractions, diagrams, pictures, and objects moving through space than for the monotony of words (Gurian, 2001)."

The times they are a changing.

"Since 1981, when the U.S. Department of Education began keeping complete statistics, we have seen that boys lag behind girls in most categories. The 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress finds boys one and one-half years behind girls in reading/writing (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). Girls are now only negligibly behind boys in math and science, areas in which boys have historically outperformed girls (Conlin, 2003)."

Btw, the world's highest IQ goes to a woman, Marilyn vos Savant with a recorded IQ of 228.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by whitewave]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

we would be right back in your little mind game of, "there is no proof, so it must not have happened."

With all due respect, you were claiming something that was by definition, impossible to prove...

What kind of response did you honestly expect?

Secondly, Thomas Edison had stolen some inventions from Nikolai Tesla...

Inventions are stolen all the time by other, more ruthless peoples.

To claim that this is a slight against women, is a gender bias.

Theft slights pretty much indiscriminately.

The only possible way to show you the "proof" you demanded was to find someone who had first had credit stolen then restored. I did that. Accept it.

And I have proved that this is not something that effects women alone... Accept that.

Ok, that was easy, done. Now you factor out patriarchal attitudes and conditioning and recompute.

Ok, that was easy, Done... Now you factor out the Victimhood special status of women and recompute.

Do you think this is why Asian men have done the most over all to forward society? Or do you think there is another reason they invented the internal combustion engine, or electric lightbulbs, or any of the other things that makes our society great. Oh wait, they didnt invent those things. Hmmmm. Maybe there are more factors at play than simply IQ points. Nah, thats ridiculous.

You are denigrating the contributions of Asian peoples?

Really?

Here is a Great big list of Asian Inventions... Most of which are necessary for society.

asianhistory.about.com...

You aren't being Racist, are you?

You are certainly not making a good case for your own genius if you confuse the argument that all human beings in a society have to create the circumstances that allow the forwarding a society to a specific argument that Einsteins wife was responsible for his work. A general alone does not win a war. Or do you think they could?

You would do well to read our entire conversation (Mine and Gorman91's), as you are treading on dangerous ground.

Actually I dont. Seeing the big picture isnt easy for everyone, and it is especially hard when someone is intellectually dishonest.

I'm glad that you reconsidered.

I asked you to show me one, and you havent, therefore, by your own brand of logic, there could not have been. No evidence=non-existence, remember?

You must have missed the examples that I gave you.

Here is a GIANT LIST.

ezinearticles.com...

Bon Appétit

Citation needed. Other wise its all hot air.

Fair Enough...

Here is a GREAT site that lists influential female leaders and women of power throughout history.

www.guide2womenleaders.com...

So, women WERE affluent... but still... most all inventions are due to men... weird huh?

Yes, because Adam is so obviously historical fact.

You still aren't getting the point of that conversation, are you?
--------

Illusionsaregrander
Men by and large have gotten the glory. They are credited with the forwarding of our technology. But this overlooks the vast numbers of men and women that had to be relegated to "support operations" to afford this privileged class of mostly males the opportunity (leisure) to pursue philosophy, and all its offspring, math, engineering and science. None of what we have today would have happened without all of us, male/female, leisured/working class, and it is sort of arrogant to give all the credit to those who had both talent and opportunity to sit down and make the connections. The person who is most instrumental in creating the society we have today is the person, (or persons) whomever they were, male or female or both, who figured out how to domesticate plants. Agriculture is the one invention that made all the rest of this possible, and that person(s) is lost to us forever. I dont think we should take so narrow a view of progress that we give all the glory to those who are essentially lucky at birth. Lucky to be genetically gifted, and lucky to have been born in circumstances where that genetic luck could be exploited.

Your argument suffers from a logical fallacy known as "Moving the Goalpost", an argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Actually, that is not my argument. I have not moved any goalposts, and I challenge you to support that claim in quotes or retract it.

Fair Enough...

Giving credit to for modern inventions to ancient farmers... "Moving the Goalpost"

At fifteen, Maria herself obtained a higher education (forbidden to girls in Poland) from a clandestine, revolving academy for women taught in private homes.

See? She didn't need someone's permission to be educated... did she?

Tabitha Babbit was a Shaker, and they had a much higher regard for females and their abilities.

So.... then this universal oppression of women was... sporadic?

And dependent upon culture?

As opposed to an inherent disposition of men?

And why was that? Because no women before those first to graduate were smart enough to graduate? Or did they all just choose other things?

And she too is hardly an argument for the ease at which women were able to obtain equal education.

And the farmer, too poor to send his son to collage.... he has inherent rights that these women didn't have?

Or is it more likely that Education was not Universal?

According to folklore agoge was introduced by the semi-mythical Spartan law-giver Lycurgus but its origins are thought to be between the 7th and 6th century BC when the regime trained male citizens from the ages of seven to twenty-nine.

Fair enough... Marie Curie proves my point anyways.

Oh no, you neednt continue. You have made a point.

Biting sarcasm.... You are so angry...

Very few men, and very few women. Slightly less few men.

Significantly less few men.

There are fewer European geniuses than Asian geniuses, according to IQ tests, thus Asians are more responsible for the forwarding of society.

I told you, I am not debating you on this point.

Well you certainly dont reach the level of argumentative genius, but you are a catty little thing. Lol.

I suppose that you think that you DO reach the level of argumentative genius?

-Edrick

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Edrick]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I do notice that you carefully avoided the fact that the higher SAT scores do not translate into improved performance for males.

Are there any factors that contribute to Grades that are NOT reliant on mathematical abilities?

Do ALL high school students take SAT's? Or just the Brightest collage bound ones?

Would this throw off the average? By factoring in the Dumb children for Grades, but only the top men and women for SAT's?

Don't go patting yourself on the back... your degree in Philosophy, studying argumentation and logic, will not help you much if you misread statistics...

-Edrick

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Edrick]

I've noticed several trends toward intellectual dishonesty in your arguing and alleged "logic", Edrick. The following will serve as but one example:

Illusionsaregrander
"Ok, so I need to prove that women have historically not been given credit for their contributions to science simply because men have had the power to give credit as they see fit. Easy.
Lise Meitner."

Edrick
"So... riddle me this...
How did you find out about this, if her contributions were kept out of history?"

Did the rest of you catch that switch? "Women have historically (ie: previously or in the past) NOT BEEN GIVEN CREDIT." IAG didn't say it was KEPT OUT OF HISTORY.

I notice he has taken this tactic throughout his arguments.

We are so completely off topic now that the thread has just turned into another gender bashing fest.

reply to post by whitewave

I've noticed several trends toward intellectual dishonesty in your arguing and alleged "logic", Edrick. The following will serve as but one example:

Illusionsaregrander
"Ok, so I need to prove that women have historically not been given credit for their contributions to science simply because men have had the power to give credit as they see fit. Easy.
Lise Meitner."

Edrick
"So... riddle me this...
How did you find out about this, if her contributions were kept out of history?"

Did the rest of you catch that switch? "Women have historically (ie: previously or in the past) NOT BEEN GIVEN CREDIT." IAG didn't say it was KEPT OUT OF HISTORY.

Yes, I covered this in my last post... this sort of Theft happens to men and women.

Hence, is hardly sexist... just plain mean.

Therefore, does not prove that the absence of inventions by women is due to theft of men... which is in and of itself an intellectually dishonest position.

Edrick
Well, you seemed to imply the only reason that women are not attributed with inventions and such, is because men write the history, and have kept the contributions of women OUT of history.

I would like you to substantiate your claim.

When in fact, the truth is that there are FAR LESS women inventors than there are men inventors.

(Which is my point)

The postulate that women have been inventing just as much, but men have been stealing it is intellectually dishonest.

And... A Logical Fallacy.

-Edrick

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Edrick]

Originally posted by Edrick


Do ALL high school students take SAT's? Or just the Brightest collage bound ones?

Would this throw off the average? By factoring in the Dumb children for Grades, but only the top men and women for SAT's?

Well it is at least, a relatively logical argument for a change. It is one that is offered to explain the gender gap in math is that more women are going to college than men, and because of that, they theorize that since only the brightest males are taking the test, the wider sample of women is pulling the average female score down. It was rejected, however.

www.education.com...

Some test company officials have suggested that the gender gap is caused by the fact that more females take the tests than males. They argue that the larger pool of females includes more low- scoring students, which in turn reduces the average score for women.
In fact, research shows that controlling for these variables does not explain the gap. A study by L.M. Sharp, for example, finds no evidence that females' lower scores can be attributed to the larger number of women taking the exam, and concludes that the causes of the gap lie elsewhere than in the demographic makeup of the male and female testing populations.

And no to your idea about dumb high school kids. In college, in the same math courses, women who scored lower on the SAT in math are getting the same grades as males who scored higher. I am pretty sure I linked to that data, did you not read it?

www.education.com...

ETS researchers Howard Wainer and Linda Steinberg found that on average, males score 33 points higher on the SAT-Math than females who earn the same grades in the same college math courses.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Well it is at least, a relatively logical argument for a change. It is one that is offered to explain the gender gap in math is that more women are going to college than men, and because of that, they theorize that since only the brightest males are taking the test, the wider sample of women is pulling the average female score down. It was rejected, however.

So, you are saying that we are only sending our Brightest Male minds to college... but we are sending under average women to college?

Or are you saying that we still don't know why men preform better than women on math tests? despite a near parity in schoolwork?

And no to your idea about dumb high school kids. In college, in the same math courses, women who scored lower on the SAT in math are getting the same grades as males who scored higher. I am pretty sure I linked to that data, did you not read it?

That *IS* interesting... could you think of any reason that women would do better on schoolwork, than they are represented as doing on a test that makes it harder to cheat?

(You see my perspective on the matter, I presume)

OR are these math tests merely *BIASED* in some way against the poor little helpless girls?

OR is it more likely that people (And teachers) treat women better than men.

-Edrick

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Edrick]

Originally posted by Edrick

The postulate that women have been inventing just as much, but men have been stealing it is intellectually dishonest.

And... A Logical Fallacy.

-Edrick

Who postulated that women were inventing just as much as men?

The postulate was, that I had YOU define, to avoid this slippery changing of the position technique you enjoy was;

originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Ok, so I need to prove that women have historically not been given credit for their contributions to science simply because men have had the power to give credit as they see fit. Easy.

I seem to recall specifically saying that;

originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
But in fact, they have not made an equal contribution. Nor have they had anything nearly approaching equal access to education, or the right to work outside of the home. Lack of equal contribution could mean lack of ability, inherently, or it could be lack of opportunity. Which do you suppose it is?

It is easy to win an argument when you get to reconstruct the other persons argument and then tear it down. A little harder when you are held to the truth.

Originally posted by whitewave
Males and females exercise different parts of the brain. Both are needed.

source

"The following are some of the characteristics of girls' brains:

[edit on 17-1-2010 by whitewave]

Heh i must be a freakish mental fusion of male and female then, since I feel I have all the traits you quote there for females as well as the male ones... or it just means that while males have one style of mental wiring, with a good up bringing that pushs points of both the male and female way of thinking (id say I was more influenced by my mother than my farther so that might explain it some what) a male can 'learn' or develop a similar wiring, which is something I think should be actively encourage in schools, and vice verse...

And as to the boys lagging behind, this might get some people in here riled up but i blame it squarely on the 80's and its heavy engineered push to the 'girls can do anything' campaigns which i lived through as a kid in primary and intermediate school. Yes it was needed, but it was taken on board in such a way that boys where basically marginalized as the education systems in many countries went from one extreme to the next. And thinking about it now decades latter it seems that in many ways some people in society effectively thought it was an excellent way of destroying the 'oppressive' male 'yoke' on the western world... and they still try desperately to retain their death grip on the male.

We need to get the system back to a balance where both 'wirings' are encouraged and both sexs are trained in the 'wiring' of the other. It would benefit humanity as a whole in the long run.

Oh and IQ technically means very little in the real world its a number that gives you reason to gloat... nothing more, and rarely is a good indicator of performance when actually tested in real situations outside of an exam room. Innovation isnt something smart people have privy to only nor is it tied to IQ in any way... it just takes a sharp eye and a good idea, and most of us have either one of those.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Who postulated that women were inventing just as much as men?

The postulate was, that I had YOU define, to avoid this slippery changing of the position technique you enjoy was;

And then you quote yourself, instead of MY DEFINITION that you asked for.... which was THIS:

Edrick
Well, you seemed to imply the only reason that women are not attributed with inventions and such, is because men write the history, and have kept the contributions of women OUT of history.

I would like you to substantiate your claim.

YOUR "Translation" of my definition, is quite different than what you asked me to provide...

Therefore, your argument is a Strawman, and you are arguing against a phantom that you created.

If you would like to respond *TO* my definition, as opposed to one you just create out of thin air... be my guest.

-Edrick

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Edrick]

Originally posted by Edrick

With all due respect, you were claiming something that was by definition, impossible to prove...

What kind of response did you honestly expect?

I knew exactly where you were going with that. And it wasnt impossible to prove, was it?

Originally posted by Edrick
To claim that this is a slight against women, is a gender bias.

Now you are really reaching deep into the pocket of ridiculous.

Originally posted by Edrick
And I have proved that this is not something that effects women alone... Accept that.

Funny, I dont remember ever claiming that it was something that affected women alone. Did I do that?

Originally posted by Edrick
Ok, that was easy, Done... Now you factor out the Victimhood special status of women and recompute.

Since when is stating a simple fact "victimhood special status of women?" Lol. What were male SAT scores in history?

Originally posted by Edrick
You are denigrating the contributions of Asian peoples?

Really?

You really do make me laugh. Of course that is what that is. A racist attack against Asians. Pointing out that they have a higher average IQ than Europeans is generally how you do slander Asians. That really pisses them off. If you meant why I brought up specific things and said that Asians did NOT invent them, then no, that wasnt a slander against Asians. But against your own logic. You were the one who had been claiming that if women had higher IQ's those types of inventions that forwarded our society would have been made by women, not men. I am simply pointing out that even with their lower average IQ and lesser genius, European men have managed to struggle along with their 5 less average IQ points and invent things as well. Much like women have been able to, since they have had access to education.

Originally posted by Edrick
You would do well to read our entire conversation (Mine and Gorman91's), as you are treading on dangerous ground.

Why? Because in your arguments with Gorman91 your ability to logic was vastly improved compared to your argument with me? I did re-read your argument with Gorman. Not impressed. And, not willing to use Gormans argument as an excuse to side track from our argument. Good try, however.

Originally posted by Edrick
See? She didn't need someone's permission to be educated... did she?

You are a riot. None of your examples come from before the 1800's. Why is that? Perhaps because it was then that women were fighting for and gaining some limited access to higher education.

Originally posted by Edrick
So.... then this universal oppression of women was... sporadic?

And dependent upon culture?

As opposed to an inherent disposition of men?

What on Earth are you talking about? Who argued that women being kept away from education was due to an inherent disposition of men? You really do just make up whatever you want and then knock it down, dont you? Including your moving the goalpost theory. You are the one who later comes along and claims the goal post was somewhere else. Put it in context, if you claim it is true. I asked you to do that before and you did not. Which speaks volumes.

When women have been afforded the access to education, and had the right to choose to some degree, (even a small degree) to set their own course in life, they do educate themselves, and they do invent. Your own "proof" shows that.

Originally posted by Edrick
And the farmer, too poor to send his son to collage.... he has inherent rights that these women didn't have?

Or is it more likely that Education was not Universal?

I hate to say this, but either you are not on the shiny end of the male variance of IQ scores, or you are just being deliberately obtuse. The question was, why was your example of a female who attained higher education one of the first women to get a college degree in the US. And your answer is the above. Really.

The answer, had you not been playing games was, "Because prior to that time frame, women were not allowed in universities." But you cant say that, because it doesnt support your argument. So instead you throw out the tripe above and pretend that that makes sense somehow.

Not being allowed to enter college no matter how much money you have, (and she didnt by the way, have her education paid for by her father, she paid it herself, and gave her father a promissory note for the income to the household he was losing because she was not working and giving him her wages) and not being able to afford college are logically equivalent in your mind, apparently.

Not allowed at all, even if you could afford it. = Cannot afford to go, but are allowed.

Sure.

Originally posted by Edrick
Fair enough... Marie Curie proves my point anyways.

Sure she does. She had to leave her own country, because women were not allowed in college at all there, to go to another country that was just beginning to let women attend college, but still limiting their access to maths. Clearly that proves that women have historically had equal access to higher education.

Originally posted by Edrick
Biting sarcasm.... You are so angry...

Dont flatter yourself. I am much less angry and much more tired. Arguing with you requires stamina, and it is late. You are going to "win" by the stereotypically female method. Wearing the other person down with irrationality, rather than logic.

Originally posted by Edrick
I suppose that you think that you DO reach the level of argumentative genius?

If genius is comparative, than in this debate I would have to say yes. I would not count myself among the top five in all of recorded history, so in absolute terms, I would have to say no. But the silliness you are trotting out certainly makes me look good by comparison.

Originally posted by Edrick

That *IS* interesting... could you think of any reason that women would do better on schoolwork, than they are represented as doing on a test that makes it harder to cheat?

In the article I have linked you several times, there are many suggestions as to possible reasons. Women tend to be more deliberate, (slower and more thorough) women tend to be less willing to risk a wrong answer and guess, women may have higher test anxiety, the questions may be biased, yadda yadda yadda.

And I do note YOUR biting sarcasm that women may be whining about bias, but in fact, the only changes to the SATs to correct for bias have been done to help MALE scores. In reading.

www.education.com...

Dwyer cites as an example the fact that, for the first several years the SAT was offered, males scored higher than females on the Math section but females achieved higher scores on the Verbal section. ETS policy-makers determined that the Verbal test needed to be "balanced" more in favor of males, and added questions pertaining to politics, business and sports to the Verbal portion. Since that time, males have outscored females on both the Math and Verbal sections. Dwyer notes that no similar effort has been made to "balance" the Math section, and concludes that, "It could be done, but it has not been, and I believe that probably an unconscious form of sexism underlies this pattern. When females show the superior performance, 'balancing' is required; when males show the superior performance, no adjustments are necessary."

So the only ones crying bias and getting the test questions changed to improve their performance, have been men.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I knew exactly where you were going with that. And it wasnt impossible to prove, was it?

You forget that I asked you something completely different that what you answered to...

Edrick
Well, you seemed to imply the only reason that women are attributed with inventions and such, is because men write the history, and have kept the contributions of women OUT of history.

I would like you to substantiate your claim.

You responded to THIS:

Illusionsaregrander
Ok, so I need to prove that women have historically not been given credit for their contributions to science simply because men have had the power to give credit as they see fit. Easy.

Now, as you can see... the two are not the same, are they?

Funny, I dont remember ever claiming that it was something that affected women alone. Did I do that?

You seemed to think that it was the reason that women have far less contributions in the fields of science than men do.

I responded that this "Theft" effects both men and women, and does not account for the SIGNIFICANT disparity between the inventions of males, and the inventions of females.

Do you agree that "Invention Theft" would not account for this disparity?

Since when is stating a simple fact "victimhood special status of women?" Lol. What were male SAT scores in history?

I have no doubt that they were higher than men's...

But you are not arguing my point are you?

You were claiming that the Disparity of contributions between men and women was due to "Historical Editing" or Theft.

I responded that theft is not a significant factor to account for this discrepancy... hence, my citing of the "Victimhood Status"

You really do make me laugh. Of course that is what that is. A racist attack against Asians.

I was just asking, because I honestly did not know.

You were the one who had been claiming that if women had higher IQ's those types of inventions that forwarded our society would have been made by women, not men.

I never claimed that, but I accept the premise.

I am simply pointing out that even with their lower average IQ and lesser genius, European men have managed to struggle along with their 5 less average IQ points and invent things as well. Much like women have been able to, since they have had access to education.

Can you explain the avoidance of the fields of Hard Mathematics, Engineering, and Science by women?

Because they have ACCESS to these fields, but they don't seem to want it.

Why? Because in your arguments with Gorman91 your ability to logic was vastly improved compared to your argument with me? I did re-read your argument with Gorman. Not impressed. And, not willing to use Gormans argument as an excuse to side track from our argument. Good try, however.

The argument with Gorman91 that I was referring to was a slippery slope.

He claimed that the women in the lives of great inventors were responsible for the inventors achievements.

"Why Stop There?" I asked myself, and started contributing the achievements of our inventors to cobblers, butchers, bakers, etc, that could have fed and clothed our inventors.

The argument *IS* moving the goalpost, and VERY slippery, because if you go down that road, No one is responsible for ANYTHING.

Do you get my point, or are you going to attempt another Ad Homenim?

You are a riot. None of your examples come from before the 1800's. Why is that? Perhaps because it was then that women were fighting for and gaining some limited access to higher education.

You missed my other link then, where I provided MANY examples of women in positions of power and authority...

Alas, Female inventors for those periods are sporadic, at best....

What on Earth are you talking about? Who argued that women being kept away from education was due to an inherent disposition of men? You really do just make up whatever you want and then knock it down, dont you? Including your moving the goalpost theory. You are the one who later comes along and claims the goal post was somewhere else. Put it in context, if you claim it is true. I asked you to do that before and you did not. Which speaks volumes.

When women have been afforded the access to education, and had the right to choose to some degree, (even a small degree) to set their own course in life, they do educate themselves, and they do invent. Your own "proof" shows that.

Yes, they do... and many female inventors did not even NEED legitimate access to educational institutions to invent.

But, alas... Female inventors are still rare, and females in the hard sciences and mathematics are ALSO rare.

Despite education, they don't seem to want the "Chore" of moving society forward.

The female who will desire education for the purposes of advancing society is RARE.

Men of this same capacity are FAR less rare.

It could be because of high intelligence, which men have more than women.... or it could ALSO be because the women just do not want it.

I hate to say this, but either you are not on the shiny end of the male variance of IQ scores, or you are just being deliberately obtuse. The question was, why was your example of a female who attained higher education one of the first women to get a college degree in the US. And your answer is the above. Really.

No, your Statement that I was responding to was:

And she too is hardly an argument for the ease at which women were able to obtain equal education.

Not every male had easy access to Education, as you seem to think is every male's Right.

I understand that you are having a difficult time following this debate... but misunderstandings happen...

Just take your time, breath, try not to get upset, and we can begin this again, ok?

Sure she does. She had to leave her own country, because women were not allowed in college at all there, to go to another country that was just beginning to let women attend college, but still limiting their access to maths. Clearly that proves that women have historically had equal access to higher education.

And she didn't let the circumstances present to her STOP her from perusing her education...

THAT is what I am talking about.

You seem to think that "Access" to education automatically equates with "Inventions" or "Discovery"

IT does not.

Many male inventors had little to NO education, and they did alright.

Dont flatter yourself. I am much less angry and much more tired.

I understand Completely.

Arguing with you requires stamina, and it is late. You are going to "win" by the stereotypically female method. Wearing the other person down with irrationality, rather than logic.

That may be too hasty a response... MY logic is quite good... we have just had some misunderstandings is all...

That can get confusing, believe me, I know.

If genius is comparative, than in this debate I would have to say yes. I would not count myself among the top five in all of recorded history, so in absolute terms, I would have to say no. But the silliness you are trotting out certainly makes me look good by comparison.

I wouldn't count on that too much...

And If I were you, I would not care as much as how you APPEAR to be doing... unless you are merely arguing for purposes of winning brownie points for the Audience.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


You are just being intellectually lazy. You dont read the data presented to you. You dont even read the data you offer me. (the Sparta fiasco) And you dont even go back and pull up your own definition to demonstrate I am making a straw man. You just say I was because I used my own statement rather than yours. Even though if you DID present it, it would merely show that I was giving you what YOU asked for. Which I made sure in advance to make sure you asked for, because I knew from your style you would try to wiggle out of it if I did give you what you asked for. Much like the moving the goal post fallacy that you seem so fond of claiming I am using. (Though you have yet to substantiate that, either.)

I can accuse you of anything. You are a big blue alien. There.

Accusations mean a whole lot of nothing without evidence. The trick is to demonstrate it. Not just say it. You make claims I am doing this, that or the other, but you dont actually back it up. Until you do, it is just another fantastic claim. With no substance.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Accusations mean a whole lot of nothing without evidence. The trick is to demonstrate it. Not just say it. You make claims I am doing this, that or the other, but you dont actually back it up. Until you do, it is just another fantastic claim. With no substance.

You are arguing points that I have not made.

You are rewording Arguments to be in your favor.

You are going off on WILD tangents that have no basis to the argument at hand.

You are hurling ENDLESS insults, as if it makes your own position better.

You are distracting with petty facts that have no bearing on the actual conversation.

You are ignoring my Responses, as if they don't exist.

And you keep bringing up the SPARTANS?!?!?!

What have they got to do with anything?

Bottom line, You have butted your way into a conversation that I was having with another person, and you have gotten yourself confused with your own inability to understand the *CONTEXT* of the Argument.

They Gave you a College Degree for this?

Try again.

-Edrick

P.s. (Im not Blue... I am CLEARLY Red.)

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Edrick]

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Edrick]

Edit; I give. Whatever you are arguing, you will have to continue with someone else.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

An Explanation, In C Minor.

(With the Mod's Permission, of course)

Illusionsaregrander
Arguing that women have made no innovations that have made our civilization great, when "historically" (in the time of writing) women were often not the historians, is weak.

This, by definition, is an indefensible position, as it assumes a negative, that can never be proven.

I.E. That women are inventing all of the time, but mean old men are stealing the inventions, and writing history in their favor.

The only way we could possible KNOW about such things, is through history.... SO, it is an unprovable Claim.

Thus, I responded:

Edrick
So you have proof to the contrary? or just assumptions?

Thus, The Challenge was issued!

Illusionsaregrander
You are a verbal game player, so, to eliminate some of the needless bickering, tell me specifically what you want me to prove in terms of female contribution to science, and I will provide it.

Ok, that is strange....

I want her to Explain or Defend her *UNKNOWABLE* position, so I will ask her as much:

Edrick
Well, you seemed to imply the only reason that women are not attributed with inventions and such, is because men write the history, and have kept the contributions of women OUT of history.

I would like you to substantiate your claim.

AND

Edrick
Prove that women have had an equal contribution to science, mathematics, engineering, etc... as men.

Prove that men have NOT done most all of the work to *forward* society.

is that clear enough for you?

I thought it fair, If she is going to state something that is unknowable, I would ask her to prove it. (An impossible Task, by definition)

Also, I asked her to prove that women *HAVE* been contributing to science. (Once again, by her claim that thir contributions have been removed from history, impossible to prove.)


Her Response...

Illusionsaregrander
Ok, so I need to prove that women have historically not been given credit for their contributions to science simply because men have had the power to give credit as they see fit. Easy.

Now, her response indicates that her "Proof" was actually recorded in history, which does not qualify as proof as I spelled it out (and as her original position implied)

Thus, the proof she argued was fallacious.


I subtly implied just that with my response:

Edrick
So... riddle me this...

How did you find out about this, if her contributions were kept out of history?

Now she goes completely south...

Illusionsaregrander
I knew you were going to say that, which is why I chose her. You are intent on claiming that lack of proof that something was means that the thing could not actually be. And, as I said, lack of evidence to the contrary is not proof OF anything, except lack of proof.

Keep in mind, that her original point, that I was refuting, was utterly impossible to prove.

She, however, wants me to believe her position, merely because we cannot know that it is FALSE.

This is a logical fallacy known as "Negative Proof Fallacy"

en.wikipedia.org...

Claiming that because something cannot be proven false, that it must be true.

Next, she tries to make her original point TRUE, by stating that Credit was stolen from the woman, and then given back.

Illusionsaregrander
I also knew you would not take the time to actually read the articles linked to, so I quoted what you needed to understand that. But, I will go over it again for the slower children in class. Lise Meitner just so happened to have her work go uncredited at a point in time where women were gaining rights in Europe and the US. So, her contributions were first deliberately underplayed by her male colleagues, and she was left out of the Noble prize, and later scientists trying to rectify the treatment of women in the Sciences repaired that error to some degree. Had the same incident happened 50 or 100 years earlier, we would be right back in your little mind game of, "there is no proof, so it must not have happened." The only possible way to show you the "proof" you demanded was to find someone who had first had credit stolen then restored. I did that. Accept it.

When in fact, the more honest position would be to state quite clearly, that her position is not defensible, and can never be proven.

Keep in mind, that my entire line of questioning was based on her original premise that:

"Arguing that women have made no innovations that have made our civilization great, when "historically" (in the time of writing) women were often not the historians, is weak."

Because she is implying that this sort of theft happens a GREAT DEAL, and about inventions that "Made our society great"


Additionally, her statement about her "Proof" falls under the logical fallacy: "Proof by example": where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition.

I.E. One woman got her idea stolen from, it must have happened to SO MANY WOMEN! which is why we don't see many women inventors.



Furthermore I responded as such to her argument:

Edrick
With all due respect, you were claiming something that was by definition, impossible to prove...

What kind of response did you honestly expect?

Secondly, Thomas Edison had stolen some inventions from Nikolai Tesla...

Inventions are stolen all the time by other, more ruthless peoples.

To claim that this is a slight against women, is a gender bias.

Theft slights pretty much indiscriminately.

And she cleverly responds thusly:

I knew exactly where you were going with that. And it wasnt impossible to prove, was it?

No, I'm sorry, but by definition, what you are claiming IS impossible to prove, that this "Theft" is a majority reason why women inventors are not prolific.

The fact that you had an example PROVES that she was not removed from history.



So, it was a WILD ride, I hope it was enjoyable... because this was just ONE sticky thread of this FREAKY discussion.

And I loved every minute of it!

-Edrick

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Edrick]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Pity I wasted all that money on a degree in Philosophy, studying argumentation and logic. I should have realized simply having ovaries would have been sufficient.

Actually it’s not about stereo types, efficiencies, or deficiencies.

It is rather about two other important aspects of human nature.

The first is that a person convinced against their will is a person who remains unconvinced.

The second is the inherent nature of people to dominate one another as a means of security and to combat insecurity and obtain validation for their own thoughts and perspectives through that endeavor of attempting to dominate.

When I say it is impossible to win an argument with a woman that does not mean that women win the argument either.

It just means because each has an inherent desire to dominate the other that typically the argument will rage on until the point someone becomes tired of arguing and APPEARS to temporarily submit to the other side of the argument.

However because a person convinced against their will is a person who remains unconvinced the same argument will just pop back up later.

No one really ever wins the argument no one ever really looses the argument as the argument never truly gets settled, no real consensus or agreement is every reached, just temporary agreements between parties that simply have run out of time and or energy to keep pursuing the argument.

This is in part the macrocosm that leads to the microcosm of the duality of the human mind, Just as we have competing hemispheres in our own minds that carry on eternal arguments between our own feminine and masculine sides.

The eternal struggle for dominance between men and women is simply an extension of what happens in our minds in whether our feminine or masculine sides of our brains win an internal eternal argument.

Personally I think discretion is the better part of valor and when you are faced with a no win situation not to play the game.

Which is why my first post to the thread was a joke, and my second post to the thread was asking Edrick if he really imagined he had any chance of winning this eternal argument.

I am a much better sadist than I am a masochist therefore I decline to argue the points because the argument can simply not be won by either side for the reasons listed above.

No amount of indignation or other emotion or determination will in fact override what I have listed above, and maybe when the thread gets to 9,999,999,999,999,999 pages as the servers crash in the apocalypse those arguing this will realize, as usual Protoplasmic Traveler was right!