[quote]Stronghold wrote:
BG doesn’t fit this pattern, but she’s an exception to the norm[/quote]
Damn, you in the dog house or what, son?
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
That doesn’t mean that women are not still vulnerable, or that women who are concerned with that are, to quote Rush Limbaugh “femi-nazis”. It might make it simpler to think in these terms, letting the people on the fringes inform your opinions, but it won’t make it accurate.
In general terms, men and women are different and that’s a good thing. In an ideal world, they complement each other. These people espousing gender neutral parenting are kooks. They don’t represent the average feminist. I love men, but I’ll continue to be concerned about the treatment of women, particularly in developing countries and in the Middle East. If you don’t see something wrong with the abortion of 163 million little girls, over the past three decades, then you have a bigger problem than these kooks in the original article.
[/quote]
Awesome post PP[/quote]
x2
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
For all the people in the world who have war on their own door steps and in their yards, all genders and ages are affected. When the bombs fall, they don’t just fall on the men over 18.
[/quote]
thank you,
also, women have fought in every war as women or in disguise (I can give you the books and the historical citations including the Punic Wars). ALSO when all those brave men went off to war and took all the weapons they left the women to take care of the children, the farms, the business, …with nothing but their frying pans and their intelligence. OH thank you so much for taking all the weapons so we could fight off the invaders.
Whenever I see a boy start this kinda thread I think he is looking for an ego stroke.
In regards to the IQ test, this just kinda proves more men need to prove to themselves they aren’t stupid so they take the test. I would like to know how many men take the test as opposed to women. I have never taken an IQ test and I pretty much do not consider myself stupid.
So tell me… how many insecure men take the test in relation to women?
.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
For all the people in the world who have war on their own door steps and in their yards, all genders and ages are affected. When the bombs fall, they don’t just fall on the men over 18.
[/quote]
thank you,
also, women have fought in every war as women or in disguise (I can give you the books and the historical citations including the Punic Wars). ALSO when all those brave men went off to war and took all the weapons they left the women to take care of the children, the farms, the business, …with nothing but their frying pans and their intelligence. OH thank you so much for taking all the weapons so we could fight off the invaders.
Whenever I see a boy start this kinda thread I think he is looking for an ego stroke.
In regards to the IQ test, this just kinda proves more men need to prove to themselves they aren’t stupid so they take the test. I would like to know how many men take the test as opposed to women. I have never taken an IQ test and I pretty much do not consider myself stupid.
So tell me… how many insecure men take the test in relation to women?
[/quote]
I certainly disagree with your two points :
-Yet men seem to die much more often in wars. The farmer woman had to struggle to feed the family when she lost her husband in a war against some nobleman for a random hill, but it was the man and/or his young son who died there.
I don’t disagree that everybody suffers in war, but would you rather stay home and take care of the farm and the business or fight in a trench during World War I and die to gas, diseases, hunger, allied or enemy fire?
Women were not allowed to fight in pretty much all armed conflicts of history. You can talk about Punic Wars, Taiping Rebellions or rebellions in Spain and France in the XIX century, but the truth is, men fight and die more in wars.
About your second point, you can’t be serious. So the reason why there’s more men with higher IQ it’s because…they are insecure and take the test more often. I mean, really?
So, instead of thinking that it could be because men have bigger brains, a deal with cromosomes, something about being more rational, whatever reasons that one could think, your logic is that men are not more intelligent, just they take the test more often.
For the record, I took the test when I was 10 because the psychologist decided so. I don’t know anyone who went to a professional (because you can’t perform those tests by yourself) to get his IQ determined.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
For all the people in the world who have war on their own door steps and in their yards, all genders and ages are affected. When the bombs fall, they don’t just fall on the men over 18.
[/quote]
thank you,
also, women have fought in every war as women or in disguise (I can give you the books and the historical citations including the Punic Wars). ALSO when all those brave men went off to war and took all the weapons they left the women to take care of the children, the farms, the business, …with nothing but their frying pans and their intelligence. OH thank you so much for taking all the weapons so we could fight off the invaders.
Whenever I see a boy start this kinda thread I think he is looking for an ego stroke.
In regards to the IQ test, this just kinda proves more men need to prove to themselves they aren’t stupid so they take the test. I would like to know how many men take the test as opposed to women. I have never taken an IQ test and I pretty much do not consider myself stupid.
So tell me… how many insecure men take the test in relation to women?
[/quote]
Sooooooooo taking the test more often inflates guys scores?? Therefore, either:
A) all guys are smarter than womena nd if they take the tests more often it will inflate their sex’s scores.
OR
B) Insecure test writing guys are smarter than confident women, creating an unfair skew.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote: I would like to know how many men take the test as opposed to women.
[/quote]
Sorry I can’t provide a reference off-hand but I recall that this could not explain the difference. But I would argue that we don’t know if it needs to be explained anyway.
An IQ of 170 would be 4.67 standard deviations from the mean so we’re talking about tiny, tiny numbers of individuals in the population, and even fewer that have undergone a verified test. It would be remarkably difficult to make any claims about the significance of differences accounted for by biological sex with those sorts of numbers.
On top of that, we’re not even sure that it would be relevant. How much of this difference is biological? 100gm of brain mass is about the only thing we can really point to and say “this looks like a genuine, biological difference between male and female brains”. This is a really long way off saying “this looks like a genuine, biological difference between male and female intelligence”.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
With the Billie Jean/Riggs tennis thing…maybe they could redo it with Federer and whomever is the top ranked female tennis player? Would that be one of the Williams’s?[/quote]
It would be Nadal against Wozniacki. If Caroline would win more than 10 points in the entire match, I’d be surprised.
Clijsters, Zvonareva or Wozniacki against someoneranked 700 or so would be more interesting.
From what I have seen IQ tests are skewed towards environmental factors, ie what you have been exposed to. For example, the ones I have taken have a fair dose of spatial relationship problems. As a designer, these are right up my ally. However, most women I know are more visual and have difficulty with spatial relationships (insert relationship joke here).
Further, IQ tests for the most part seem to dwell on a certain type of reasoning. There are many types of intelligence. My wife cannot build a computer, yet she often blows my mind with her wisdom. Yet I know MANY obviously intelligent Engineers who have difficulty grasping the most common sense concepts.
Although, I have done quite well on the tests I have taken, I don’t give them much stock. A person will do much better in life generally having a high EQ (Emotional Quotient)as opposed to a high IQ. Also, not surprisingly the more I take these tests the smarter I seem to get.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
I certainly disagree with your two points :
-Yet men seem to die much more often in wars. The farmer woman had to struggle to feed the family when she lost her husband in a war against some nobleman for a random hill, but it was the man and/or his young son who died there.
I don’t disagree that everybody suffers in war, but would you rather stay home and take care of the farm and the business or fight in a trench during World War I and die to gas, diseases, hunger, allied or enemy fire?
[/quote]
Of course more men die in war than women on the front lines. I don’t really think anyone can argue that. The attrition rates for trench warefare in WW I were astronomical.
However, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to think that women are staying home taking care of the farms. In my opinion, wars fought on your soil are punic wars that all too often involve burning the farm and everyone on it. We don’t exactly have to reach to ancient history to cite examples. Many of them are civil wars involving the ever popular ethnic cleansing.
The lions share of people killed on the front lines are men due to the fact that women, typically are not allowed in front line combat nor do we usually get a hard on to do it. Just don’t romanticize the ‘Rosie Rivetter’ who’s at home keeping the munitions factory running. She is the exception. Think, instead of the people in Srebenica in the early '90’s or places like Sierra Leone.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
In regards to the IQ test, this just kinda proves more men need to prove to themselves they aren’t stupid so they take the test. I would like to know how many men take the test as opposed to women. I have never taken an IQ test and I pretty much do not consider myself stupid.
So tell me… how many insecure men take the test in relation to women?
[/quote]
Sorry OG, the statistics here are based on the standardization sample, not on the number of people, male or female, who have actually taken the tests. For the Wechsler Scales for adults, that would be 2,200 people. The Stanford Binet 5th edition had a random sample of 4,800 people with a demographic that matches the 2000 US census.
As for how to explain more men in the top and bottom percentiles, you have to look at genetic factors here. The XY chromosome set creates something slightly more “advantageous” on one end, and also more “fragile” on the other side of the coin, making them more vulnerable to mental retardation with only one X chromosome to mitigate any X specific disabilities. This is a simplified look at the genetics, but women carry two XX chromosomes, so there’s a fairly random X activation in each cell. One X is “expressed”, but we have an X from each parent. Men don’t have that, and it accounts for why they really get hammered if something goes wrong with the X they do have. The inverse is also true, accounting for the lucky few at the very top.
And Testy is right about several points. The more someone takes these kinds of tests, the better they get at them, TO A POINT. Just like taking the SAT multiple times will often “teach” you some things about test taking. And a lot of other factors enter into “success” in life, including someone’s motivation and work ethic, or as Testy mentioned, emotional intelligence which would include things like being socially adept.
As for nature vs nurture arguments, both are important. Heritability is significant. Statistically speaking, if you want smart kids, marry someone smart. The same goes for some other possibly more important things, too. If you want to have schizophrenic or depressed kids, you can also raise your odds by finding a spouse who is schizophrenic or depressed.
I have tested hundreds of people over the years, and environment certainly does play a part. Particularly with factors like vocabulary and general information. For a purely anecdotal story, when I worked in “the hood” here in the LA area, I would frequently see some kids, usually boys, who would just slam dunk all the nonverbal or spatial stuff, but they would get very low scores in vocabulary and some of the general information factors. Many of them had few to NO BOOKS at home. They might be “street smart” as hell, but that isn’t the kind of information on these tests. In these cases, the Performance or Nonverbal IQ is more predictive of the person’s potential, however, they will still perform less well in school because they lack the vocabulary and so forth. It’s very hard to “catch up” when you come from an environment like that. So there’s the argument for environment, right? There are other factors at play as well. Being able to read, or have a very high level of literacy has only been important to human success or survival for a couple of hundred years. We have a long genetic past, where spatial or visual factors and even physical strength might have been more important, particularly in men. So there’s another side to the genetic argument, or at least an explanation for why some people, especially men, might fit that pattern of very high Performance IQ.
Once in a while I’d find a really brilliant kid, who came from a very deprived environment, who would still do really well across the board. It was a thing of beauty, like a flower growing up between the cracks in the sidewalk. I still remember evaluating a little girl. She was in about the 5th grade. She was so intellectually gifted, it just took your breath away. And she was being raised in one of the worst housing projects, by a grandmother who was barely literate. I was so stunned by her, I cried on the way home that day, grateful for having seen such a beautiful thing. I got to help get her out of her very dangerous neighborhood school and into a program for the gifted. I’ve often wondered what happened to her.
LOL @ a woman not understanding averages in this thread.
/JOKING.
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
I certainly disagree with your two points :
-Yet men seem to die much more often in wars. The farmer woman had to struggle to feed the family when she lost her husband in a war against some nobleman for a random hill, but it was the man and/or his young son who died there.
I don’t disagree that everybody suffers in war, but would you rather stay home and take care of the farm and the business or fight in a trench during World War I and die to gas, diseases, hunger, allied or enemy fire?
[/quote]
Of course more men die in war than women on the front lines. I don’t really think anyone can argue that. The attrition rates for trench warefare in WW I were astronomical.
However, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to think that women are staying home taking care of the farms. In my opinion, wars fought on your soil are punic wars that all too often involve burning the farm and everyone on it. We don’t exactly have to reach to ancient history to cite examples. Many of them are civil wars involving the ever popular ethnic cleansing.
The lions share of people killed on the front lines are men due to the fact that women, typically are not allowed in front line combat nor do we usually get a hard on to do it. Just don’t romanticize the ‘Rosie Rivetter’ who’s at home keeping the munitions factory running. She is the exception. Think, instead of the people in Srebenica in the early '90’s or places like Sierra Leone.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with anything you say, but she specifically said women FOUGHT, as in, kill with a gun/sword, die with a gun/sword.
Those are a vast minority in all military conflicts, be it because they are not allowed or any other reason.
When the nazis were sieging Stalingrad, all people inside starved, no matter what gender or age. So yeah, I don’t disagree.
Powerpuff, which kind of tests do you run?
When I did mine, I was 10 years old and it was mostly about mental speed, memory and some kind of coordination skill, but can’t remember more.
Funny how this thread basically turned into a men vs women thread.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]alexus wrote:
do you think a male who is genetically unsuitable for a sport would surpass the performance of a female athlete who was genetically suitable for her sport if they trained equally hard?[/quote]
Depends. Tennis and football (soccer) has shown that amateur men can defeat professional women. Kim Clijsters, one of the best tennis players ever, admited she had troubles winning POINTS against her former boyfriend, Lleyton Hewitt. Both have been number #1 though.
Serena and Venus Williams, when they were younger, played some friendly match (one set each) against a German guy who was like #600. He totally trashed both…and it seems he even smoked between games.
Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, best Spanish female tennis player ever, got trashed by some random guy (number #800 in the world or something like that) 6-0, 6-1. It’s also reported that many professional tennis players play sparring games against local young guys (17-19) to train for tournaments and they lose way too often for their professional ranking.
I’d love to know how it’s possible that recently turned adults in the tennis academies can make the ball spin and stuff and then I go watch professional women playing tennis and all the hits over a 90 minutes match are PLAIN.
[/quote]
That’s pretty interesting.
I’d have to say I’d be hard pressed to find a sport where women would beat men correspondingly. Boxing? No way. Basketball? Nope. Football? They don’t play the sport, but even if they did the size difference would be massive. Hockey? Doubt it.
Maybe chess. Maybe darts. Maybe pool, maybe bowling. There’s plenty of tough chicks out there but if it’s a head to head sport where you’re depending on fast-twitch fibers and brutal strength as well as skill, it’s just not going to happen.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
If feminists somehow abolished men they would bring them back after they realized they need someone to blame for their problems. [/quote]
LOL!!!
[/quote]
And mow the grass.[/quote]
and hit them.
[quote]DeltaOne wrote:
Funny how this thread basically turned into a men vs women thread.
[/quote]
? Turned it started in the first post.
The difference between men and women doesn’t become a problem until we argue that my difference is better than your difference.
Yo Momma - That was very, very funny.
Edevus - What you are describing could be a memory of some of the subtests of a standard IQ test, or a shorter test of nonverbal intelligence. There are quite a few. In my practice, I’ve given a number of tests related to IQ and achievement, among other factors related to learning. If you come across your old test results, I’d be happy to look at them for you, via PM.