Men Are Mentally Superior To Women

Σατυρ wrote:

d63tark wrote:

List of shoulders I have had to stand on:

Sylvia Plath, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Nicole Blackman, Lauri Anderson, Barbara Ennerich, Addriene Rich, Malcom X, Joyce Carol Oates, Ann Sexton, Beth Nugent, rosalie waldrop, langston Hughs, Billie Holiday, Patsy Cline, Tricky, the chick in KMFDM, the hot chick in White Zombie, Prince, Cornell West is kind of cool and really upbeat, Toni Holiday from Curve, shit, Sheryl Crow who in her second album was one of the best lyricists there was at the time, Ani DiFranco, and I'm quite certain I could go on and on with women and minorities who have blown me away in the same way that any white male can.

My god...you are a social princess.

Shoulders indeed.

Quote :

Men are smarter than women, according to a controversial new study that adds another cinder to the fiery debate over whether gender impacts general intelligence.

"For 100 years there's been a consensus among psychologists that there is no sex difference in intelligence," said J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, Canada.

Recent studies, however, have raised questions about the validity of this claim, he said. One such study showed that men have larger brains than women, a 100 gram difference after correcting for body size. Rushton found similar results in a study of gender and brain size.


To determine if there was a link between gender and intelligence, and perhaps between brain size and intelligence, Rushton and a colleague analyzed the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores from 100,000 17- and 18-year-olds.

G-factor

When Rushton and colleagues weighted each SAT question by an established general intelligence factor called the g-factor, they discovered that males surpassed females by an average of 3.6 IQ points.

The g-factor works like this. "If I tell you the last four digits of my telephone number and ask you to repeat them back to me, that's a low g-loaded memory test," Rushton explained. "But if I then ask you to repeat them back to me in the reverse order, that suddenly requires a tremendous amount more cognitive processing. It is a very high loaded g-item.”

So the g-factor "is really the active ingredient of the test," Rushton said. "It's the single best, most predictive part of the test."

Rushton suspects that the results are due to males having more brain tissue than females on average. "It's a very reasonable hypothesis that you just need more brain tissue dedicated to processing high ‘g' information," Rushton said.

The study, which Rushton co-wrote with Douglas Jackson, also of the University of Western Ontario, is detailed in the current issue of the journal Intelligence.

Flawed conclusion

Bruce Bracken, a psychologist at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, who was not involved in the new study, said he thinks Rushton and Jackson make a convincing argument for the sample they used.

"The difference appears to be real," Bracken said.

But he questions the team's conclusions. "I believe that the differences probably lie in the variables they hadn't considered," Bracken said.

One plausible explanation is that more females than males decide to go to college and thus take the SAT test. The study did in fact include about 10,000 more females than males.

"This suggests that more males are deciding to do something else," Bracken said. "It may be that the males who would not have scored as high on the SAT chose not to take it, and they chose another route."

A more reliable study, he said, would be to match each male with a very similar female and then compare the results.

The debate goes on

The findings add fuel to a still smoldering debate ignited by former Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who stated early last year that males have a higher intrinsic aptitude in science and engineering.

In a letter from Summers days after his controversial statements, he wrote: "Despite reports to the contrary, I did not say, and I do not believe, that girls are intellectually less able than boys, or that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of science. As the careers of a great many distinguished women scientists make plain, the human potential to excel in science is not somehow the province of one gender or another.”

While Rushton called his results significant, he doesn't think they are a basis for uprooting the field of education.

"I don't think it has any real implications for education policy or schoolwork," he said. "In fact, females actually get better grades than males.”

Plus, he doesn't think the IQ difference would show up in everyday activities. "For the vast majority of people in the vast majority of jobs, it really doesn't translate into very much," he said.

But when it comes to Nobel Prize winners, he said that men could outnumber women 10-to-1. "Where it will really show up is at the very high end of the distribution," Rushton said.

Rushton has left the door open for opposing views and findings that might contradict his new study.

"I wouldn't say it's the last word. We really do need more research on it before we can be absolutely certain," Rushton said.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Poison:

No offense but I'm too far 'above it'.

In a way I couldn't possibly put into layman's terms.....

Yeah this woman posing as a philosopher is so above the rest of the fray that she can't even philosophize any simple defense of arguement in favor of herself or her sex.

Actually it's because in all actuality she hasn't the ability to.

Notice that she doesn't even try. The fact is she can't.

This girl doesn't have the slighest amount of depth to her yet she pretends to have somthing all the same.

I would like to see this exquisite female intelligence of yours Poison.

When am I going to see it exhibited on the board here? I'm waiting.......

Quote :

Mangina MonoExplosion:

Oh I get it! So for you, it is not that everybody is their own person. But, it's also not that everybody is one of a type of person. It's somehow... more complex than that... Like, the angle has to be obtuse so as to get in the nook and cranny out the facts. I get it. Yeah, I'm like, way way up there.
That is way up there too... Or is it way down there? I mean depth wise... It's far away. That's what I know. You are far away.

Oh, my gosh! Like, totally!

Quote :

Abstract:

It is a different type of ingenuity and creativity.

I'll give you this. Women are intelligent and highly proficient within the social setting.

So in a sense I agree that they do have a very gifted social intelligence.

They know that they are a heavily valued objectified prize and trophy to men where they are exceedingly clever in playing that ploy over most men that repeatively fall for it throughout history.

A woman's seduction is a powerful thing.

Make no mistake here. I'm not saying women don't have any intelligence at all.

I'm just saying overall men are by far more smarter, intellectual, intelligent, and knowledgeable over women.

Quote :

No, I'm just saying that women are better then a great deal of things than men.

There are some things that truely take the touch of a woman that only a female can do. Sure.

There are some things which women alone excel at over men. Granted.

Overall however they can't compete against men when it concerns accomplishments and knowledge.

Quote :

But that is hard to tell sense so few generations of their freedom to show such have been witnessed...and so little time has been given to see them step past the past.

You will never see it. This conversation will still be present a hundred years from now assuming civilization doesn't kill itself first.

Women by far like their sense of self entitlement and their sense of worth by men of whom they constantly manipulate with female vices.

It's not in their nature to exceed their male counterparts. They're simply unable to and unwilling.

TheJoker wrote:

You will never see it. This conversation will still be present a hundred years from now assuming civilization doesn't kill itself first.

Women by far like their sense of self entitlement and their sense of worth by men of whom they constantly manipulate with female vices.

It's not in their nature to exceed their male counterparts. They're simply unable to and unwilling.

What this suggests is that despite lack of proof you believe you are right, and that there is no way to prove or disprove it...this borders on belief in God...?

Fact of the matter is, you would not feel compelled to incessantly prove your worth through the accomplishments of men far greater than you'll ever be if it weren't for your own short-comings and insecurities.

Your problem is that you do, deep down, feel competition from women....namely one that frequents this board.

There are far too many factors involved in what you consider superiority in the sight of men.......

And frankly it's a lot more racial than it is sexual....