Bow before us, normals!

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8471182.stm

 

If you find video games a struggle, it could be to do with the size of certain parts of your brain, a study suggests... (Subjects) then had to play one of two versions of a specially developed game. One required them to focus exclusively on achieving a single goal, the other involved shifting priorities.

[Moose]

Hmm, this might explain the restricted vocabularly of the average gamer.

 

Also I like this opening line:

 

"There is broad acceptance of a link between brain size and intelligence."

 

Concerning brain size, on average women have smaller brains. Given the topic's study seems built on the premise brain size is linked to intelligence, would I be right in thinking it has also inadvertently concluded all women are intellectually inferior to their male counterparts? Interesting.

 

Edit:

 

No it's better than that:

 

"But that's no excuse for saying I'm not going to bother doing my homework. The person born with the large brain can easily be outstripped by someone with a smaller brain. No matter what your brain size is, it's what you do with it that counts. Just remember the hare and the tortoise."

 

All women are tortoises. Scientific fact.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Moose

[Dark_Rayvin]

Concerning brain size, on average women have smaller brains. Given the topic's study seems built on the premise brain size is linked to intelligence, would I be right in thinking it has also inadvertently concluded all women are intellectually inferior to their male counterparts? Interesting.

/

All women are tortoises. Scientific fact.

 

I'm not really sure about all the other women out there; But I like to think of my 'little brain' as giving me a reason to be extremely random aswell as an excuse to forget things I don't wish to attend

Just a random point of view ^^

[jaguars4ever]

Concerning brain size, on average women have smaller brains. Given the topic's study seems built on the premise brain size is linked to intelligence, would I be right in thinking it has also inadvertently concluded all women are intellectually inferior to their male counterparts? Interesting.

 

All women are tortoises. Scientific fact.

 

I'm not really sure about all the other women out there; But I like to think of my 'little brain' as giving me a reason to be extremely random aswell as an excuse to forget things I don't wish to attend

Just a random point of view ^^

Quiet wench! Get back inside your tortoise shell like a good lass, and leave this serious matter of debating to us men.

[LadyCrimson]

Concerning brain size, on average women have smaller brains. Given the topic's study seems built on the premise brain size is linked to intelligence, would I be right in thinking it has also inadvertently concluded all women are intellectually inferior to their male counterparts? Interesting.

 

[...]

 

All women are tortoises. Scientific fact.

Considering the article is actually talking about having a certain area of the brain be larger, rather than overall brain mass, I'd say....no.

 

But the article might explain why my husband is so much worse at video games than I am...as well as why I can verbally converse while watching TV and not lose track of either, while he can't at all. His caudate and putamen sections must be smaller.

 

So now we will have "caudate and putamen envy."

[mkreku]

Perhaps women are not inferior to men. But think about this: what do women do better or equal than men?

 

There has never been a female chess world champion (only one woman in the top 100 right now, at rank 46).

Most inventors and scientists are men.

 

Men run faster (at all distances), jump higher, jump longer, swim faster (at all distances and disciplines), throw longer (at all disciplines) and so on.

 

Men found America, climbed the Himalayas, explored Africa, built and flew the first airplane, took the first step on the moon, sent the first telegraph across the pond, took the first photo, built the first car and so on.

 

...

 

Exactly why are we forced to think the sexes are equal and men are not better when all the evidence points to the contrary? And it's extremely politically incorrect to point this out (I feel bad just from typing this!) and there are lots and lots of explanations to be found why things are the way they are. But it doesn't change the fact: I'm struggling to find something where women are equal or better than men. In the real world, where we live and exist, men ARE superior to women, according to the measurable accomplishments we have at hand.

 

Except aiming sports (skeet, archery). Females seem to have great aim.

 

 

Ps. I love women.

[Rosbjerg]

"There is broad acceptance of a link between brain size and intelligence."

 

Concerning brain size, on average women have smaller brains. Given the topic's study seems built on the premise brain size is linked to intelligence, would I be right in thinking it has also inadvertently concluded all women are intellectually inferior to their male counterparts? Interesting.

 

Interestingly I saw a lecture on a particularly boring TV channel where a neurologist talked about the differences in male and female thought patterns - which she described as almost equivalent to analogue and digital data.. The majority of males were best at handling a single, but long stream of information, while the majority of females were best at handling shorter, but multiple streams of information.

This was in regards to how intelligence may work in different ways than we imagine and how each person approach learning, as apparently our brain is pre-mapped to cope better with one of these particular methods.

 

In response to this article it might also be interesting to see if that had an effect - perhaps girls are better at strategy and boys are better at FPS games.. due to the nature of how we think.

 

Perhaps women are not inferior to men. But think about this: what do women do better or equal than men?

 

There has never been a female chess world champion (only one woman in the top 100 right now, at rank 46).

Most inventors and scientists are men.

 

Men run faster (at all distances), jump higher, jump longer, swim faster (at all distances and disciplines), throw longer (at all disciplines) and so on.

 

Men found America, climbed the Himalayas, explored Africa, built and flew the first airplane, took the first step on the moon, sent the first telegraph across the pond, took the first photo, built the first car and so on.

 

...

 

Exactly why are we forced to think the sexes are equal and men are not better when all the evidence points to the contrary? And it's extremely politically incorrect to point this out (I feel bad just from typing this!) and there are lots and lots of explanations to be found why things are the way they are. But it doesn't change the fact: I'm struggling to find something where women are equal or better than men. In the real world, where we live and exist, men ARE superior to women, according to the measurable accomplishments we have at hand.

 

Except aiming sports (skeet, archery). Females seem to have great aim.

 

 

Ps. I love women.

 

Ehh.. It never occurred to you that this is still a male-oriented and male-dominated world? and perhaps women would easily equal or even surpass us, in a lot of fields, if they were given a fair chance? I think it's stupid to say that men are superior to women, when women still don't have an equal opportunity prove themselves..

 

It's like shooting your competitor in the leg and then claim your obvious superiority when you outrun him..

 

Edit: I'm not disputing physical advantages though, men are designed to be stronger and faster than women - but I don't see any evidence on us being smarter.. quite the contrary actually..

[Moose]

Most interesting experiment comparing the sexes I saw was an audience all asked to draw pictures of a bicycle - a very unisex machine imo, in fact it was often said in Victorian times it helped women gain independance by allowing them extra freedom to travel.

 

But I digress.

 

Each member of the audience drew a picture of a bicycle and when the pictures were collected and analysed they found all the men drew pictures depicting a functional machine, chain - cranks - diamond frame. The women on the other hand failed to do this, their bicycles were not functional, however all the women drew their bicycles with a drawing of someone riding them - where as only one man did this.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Moose

[mkreku]

...and there are lots and lots of explanations to be found why things are the way they are.

Ehh.. It never occurred to you that this is still a male-oriented and male-dominated world? and perhaps women would easily equal or even surpass us, in a lot of fields, if they were given a fair chance? I think it's stupid to say that men are superior to women, when women still don't have an equal opportunity prove themselves..

 

It's like shooting your competitor in the leg and then claim your obvious superiority when you outrun him..

 

Edit: I'm not disputing physical advantages though, men are designed to be stronger and faster than women - but I don't see any evidence on us being smarter.. quite the contrary actually..

No, it never occurred to me.. Sigh. I bolded a part for you from my previous post.

 

And still, no matter WHAT the causes are, women ARE inferior to men in all measurable accounts. This is just fact, no matter what. We may not like it, but it's there.

 

Also, isn't there some kind of conclusion to be drawn from the mere fact that we live in a male-oriented world? Why is it male-dominated? In nature, the stronger species always dominates the weaker ones. That's nature. Why are men dominating women, in almost all cultures all over the world? Some sort of evil hive mind that only men can sense? A diabolical masterplan that have all men across all borders unite to suppress women? I would love to see an explanation to this.

 

And feel free to explain how you don't see men as any smarter. I'm not sure how to measure such a thing except for chess (perhaps, very weak link to intelligence) and scientific progress (where men are the driving force behind almost all scientific discovery for the last thousand years). You actually think it's the contrary? Based on what?

 

 

 

Remember, I am NOT of the opinion that men are inherently smarter than women just because we're men. I just think it's an interesting discussion and it baffles me that noone is allowed to even discuss the subject without being personally attacked, by both men and women.

['GM']

Perhaps women are not inferior to men. But think about this: what do women do better or equal than men?

 

There has never been a female chess world champion (only one woman in the top 100 right now, at rank 46).

Most inventors and scientists are men.

 

Men run faster (at all distances), jump higher, jump longer, swim faster (at all distances and disciplines), throw longer (at all disciplines) and so on.

 

Men found America, climbed the Himalayas, explored Africa, built and flew the first airplane, took the first step on the moon, sent the first telegraph across the pond, took the first photo, built the first car and so on.

 

...

 

Exactly why are we forced to think the sexes are equal and men are not better when all the evidence points to the contrary? And it's extremely politically incorrect to point this out (I feel bad just from typing this!) and there are lots and lots of explanations to be found why things are the way they are. But it doesn't change the fact: I'm struggling to find something where women are equal or better than men. In the real world, where we live and exist, men ARE superior to women, according to the measurable accomplishments we have at hand.

 

Except aiming sports (skeet, archery). Females seem to have great aim.

 

 

Ps. I love women.

 

 

Look here you! Women can have babies! And it is a proven fact - in our circle of life here - that I can pout and stomp my feet much more efficiently than any man. I can burst into tears as easy as drawing in a breath at will, thereby gaining my own way at whatever it is I wish. A man would be ridiculed for doing such. Women can wear guy clothes or girl clothes and no one would think anything odd.... try dressing a guy in a skirt and frilly blouse and he just copped himself a label.

 

Seriously though, the sexes are not equal to each other, imo, for the very obvious fact that one is a man, the other a woman with obvious physical differences. So it would seem logical enough that our thinking processes differ as well. To say one sex is superior to another I think would depend on your concept of what you mean by 'superior'.

 

When it comes to physical abilities requiring strength, yeah ... men have us beat... And I do so appreciate the man's ability to do those things that most women would find difficult or close to impossible.

 

I think a lot of the reason why society insists on equality has to do with the women's movement, which I think has good points, such as gaining respect as human beings and not just as a man's property. There are a lot of not so good as well. I might get slammed on for this, but I think the majority (meaning not all) of women should not be in politics. They have this tendency to 'prove' their capabilities by being unreasonable (or narrow-minded), confusing that with being strong and adhering to a principle. Not that men can't be that way too, it just seems to me women are more so. This has been my observation up to now anyway. On the other hand, I think women make great doctors and teachers... that inborn nurturing often gives them an advantage over men. I remember being hugged and comforted as a child by some of my women teachers. That was important... never by a man though. I guess hugging and comforting is a no-no now though.

 

I might think of some more stuff later...

[RPGmasterBoo]

Women can create life.

 

Everything great men do from writers to artists, from inventors to composers is an attempt do the same.

 

Women will never be superior to men in those things because they lack mans fanatical drive to surpass the limits of his existence.

 

They lack it, because its already solved for them.

[Meshugger]

Are asians still the smartest? are whites in the middle, and arabs and blacks in the bottom? If their brainsizes are the same, then there's something else to it, i think.

[kirottu]

And still, no matter WHAT the causes are, women ARE inferior to men in all measurable accounts. This is just fact, no matter what. We may not like it, but it's there.

 

Women score higher than men in linguistic parts of IQ tests.

[Hurlshort]

Like 80% of everything I have ever done has been to impress a woman, so I'm pretty sure they've got the upper hand.

[Purkake]

*reads thread*

 

[Gorgon]

Ehh.. It never occurred to you that this is still a male-oriented and male-dominated world?

 

Are you sure we live in the same world ?.

[Rosbjerg]

And still, no matter WHAT the causes are, women ARE inferior to men in all measurable accounts. This is just fact, no matter what. We may not like it, but it's there.

 

Also, isn't there some kind of conclusion to be drawn from the mere fact that we live in a male-oriented world? Why is it male-dominated? In nature, the stronger species always dominates the weaker ones. That's nature. Why are men dominating women, in almost all cultures all over the world? Some sort of evil hive mind that only men can sense? A diabolical masterplan that have all men across all borders unite to suppress women? I would love to see an explanation to this.

 

True, it shouldn't be taboo to air an opinion..

 

I think your conclusions are weak, you use history as a way to give weight to your point, but since women have been forcefully kept out of any kind of intellectual circle from ~500 bc and until the 20th century - it's not a fair comparison. Also you argue that men must be superior since they've been able to subdue women, this argument has some weight, but it merely proves that we are physically superior, after all the fear of death or ostracization from society is a powerful weapon.. To that extent you must also take culture into account, as women were not allowed to educate themselves they could not fight back equally and rarely knew how.

 

Would you say that slaves were inferior to their masters for instance? Since the same mechanism were in place here, if only in a much stronger way..

 

And feel free to explain how you don't see men as any smarter. I'm not sure how to measure such a thing except for chess (perhaps, very weak link to intelligence) and scientific progress (where men are the driving force behind almost all scientific discovery for the last thousand years). You actually think it's the contrary? Based on what?

 

Remember, I am NOT of the opinion that men are inherently smarter than women just because we're men. I just think it's an interesting discussion and it baffles me that noone is allowed to even discuss the subject without being personally attacked, by both men and women.

 

As demonstrated in my question above, my problem with your reasoning is that it is comparable with saying that white people are more intelligent than black people, since we are richer, more technologically advanced, have dominated the scientific community and have ruled over and conquered them with ease.. As such, we must be the superior race?

 

If you look at IQ scores I would wager that you don't see big variation around the median, but I would think men are more presented in the extremes - so we have more retards and more genius level intelligences..

[Gfted1]

A study from 13 years ago:

 

Bigger doesn't mean better

Edited January 21, 2010 by Gfted1

[mkreku]

I think your conclusions are weak, you use history as a way to give weight to your point, but since women have been forcefully kept out of any kind of intellectual circle from ~500 bc and until the 20th century - it's not a fair comparison. Also you argue that men must be superior since they've been able to subdue women, this argument has some weight, but it merely proves that we are physically superior, after all the fear of death or ostracization from society is a powerful weapon.. To that extent you must also take culture into account, as women were not allowed to educate themselves they could not fight back equally and rarely knew how.

I think you're still missing the point somewhat. Ok, sure, men were forcefully keeping women out of their intellectual circles for a thousand years. But wouldn't that mean that men must have started these intellectual circles? To keep someone out of a circle, you have to "own" the circle. If the circle of intellect was started by women, it would have had to be replaced by men and thus the intellect would have been lost. Do you see my point? Why weren't women starting intellectual circles instead of men?

 

Would you say that slaves were inferior to their masters for instance? Since the same mechanism were in place here, if only in a much stronger way..

I think your arguments are weak. Slaves and masters are exactly the same (men and women) and the only difference between them were cultural. Yes, the guy with power can control the ones without. It has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever. What I am wondering is if the biological differences between men and women are making men superior to women.

 

As demonstrated in my question above, my problem with your reasoning is that it is comparable with saying that white people are more intelligent than black people, since we are richer, more technologically advanced, have dominated the scientific community and have ruled over and conquered them with ease.. As such, we must be the superior race?

Perhaps. East Asians were very advanced thousands of years ago, the south American indians were very advanced, the Arabic nations were highly developed.. but Africa? Nothing much has come from that continent. But it's a whole other (equally uncomfortable) discussion.

 

And you didn't answer my question as to why you consider females to be smarter than males. You do realize it's exactly the same as what I am proposing, except the other way around (biological differences making one gender smarter than the other)?

[Rosbjerg]

I think you're still missing the point somewhat. Ok, sure, men were forcefully keeping women out of their intellectual circles for a thousand years. But wouldn't that mean that men must have started these intellectual circles? To keep someone out of a circle, you have to "own" the circle. If the circle of intellect was started by women, it would have had to be replaced by men and thus the intellect would have been lost. Do you see my point? Why weren't women starting intellectual circles instead of men?

 

I see your point, but I think we are misunderstanding one another.. I propose that men took control at the beginning of the agricultural age (before any organized science or larger state), as they were the hard workers, given their physical strength, and thus demanded the right to power. Men being stronger could force this through and women, having no physical advantage were forced to surrender their power. It's interesting that before the Aryans (which are believed to be the first to develop agriculture) there were quite many matriarchal societies spread out across the world, but as agriculture and Aryan culture spread so did the belief that men were the superior gender.. As they proved more valuable in producing food.. The Aryans had the advantage of technology and thus were able to subjugate the other tribes and further spread their ideas. The 500bc remark was to draw your associations to the Roman and Greek cultures who were very patrician in their structure, since their cultures have had a profound effect on they way we live and think today.

 

Of course the fact that we took power so early implies that men were quicker to take advantage or their abilities and use it to gain power, which could be used to argue that they are better - but I think it's rather a question of the time rather than the specific gender's genetic advantage.

 

I think your arguments are weak. Slaves and masters are exactly the same (men and women) and the only difference between them were cultural. Yes, the guy with power can control the ones without. It has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever. What I am wondering is if the biological differences between men and women are making men superior to women.

 

Basically I guess it comes back to that moment in time, when men first took control.. the sufficiently powerful will always be able to defeat the lesser powerful people and once men had secured power over women it was easy to keep it. Those in power want to keep it and naturally try to create a culture and belief around their destiny to wield said power, since genders seems to be a much looser categorization than say geology, culture, religion and later nationality - we can assume that women were not able to organize themselves enough, based on this, to turn the cultural tide. The question here is if it was mental superiority of men that allowed us to take control - I think not - but I can't prove it. Question is if you can prove that it was? Saying that we are superior, simply because we were able to maintain a culture that kept us in power is not enough imo.

 

Perhaps. East Asians were very advanced thousands of years ago, the south American indians were very advanced, the Arabic nations were highly developed.. but Africa? Nothing much has come from that continent. But it's a whole other (equally uncomfortable) discussion.

 

I think Egypt did quite all right to be honest..

 

And you didn't answer my question as to why you consider females to be smarter than males. You do realize it's exactly the same as what I am proposing, except the other way around (biological differences making one gender smarter than the other)?

 

Sorry, I didn't see your reference to my statement.. I don't think women are superior, so my words were ill chosen. I merely looked at a history controlled by men and didn't quite like what I saw - but not knowing the alternative I have no idea if a female dominant history would be better.. my gut feeling however, tells me it would have been a little more peaceful..

[alanschu]

What I am wondering is if the biological differences between men and women are making men superior to women.

 

I'm skeptical.

 

There could be some predispositions to particular types of thought, but I think culture plays a very strong effect.

 

 

As for the subjugation of women, I think a lot of that comes down to one thing: strength. Looking back at history, but all the intellect in the world doesn't matter very much if someone has physical domination over you. And men are stronger.

[Meshugger]

Men rule since they can work in teams for a common goal more effeciently than women, and they are physically stronger.

 

Hasn't anyone found any answers to my previous question yet?

[Trenitay]

Men rule since they can work in teams for a common goal more effeciently than women, and they are physically stronger.

 

No they can't. Men work towards their own goals, which might, in effect, help the team as well.

[Walsingham]

I'm just glad I introduced a topic that doesn't involve war.

[Tigranes]

Interesting, a good debate for once.

 

mkreku, you're saying, how did men come to be in a dominant position anyway - isn't it because men were superior / stronger in some way that allowed them to gain and maintain that dominance for so long, and so their dominant position doesn't mean that they have an 'unfair advantage'?

 

Well, yes - but historically speaking, it would be too shaky a footing to suggest that globally, over hundreds of years, the dominance of patriarchal societies over matriarchal ones (which, after a while, due to overlapping patriarchal societies, would have an exponential / domino effect) points to some biological or other fundamental superiority in the male sex. I mean, I don't think it's that hard to imagine matriarchal societies hitting the 'magic point' in terms of technological advances, societal organisation and whatnot very early on in human history, and things unravelling so that we have a modern society with women in a similarly dominant position.

 

It's also pretty hard to go back and deconstruct the whole process by now because so much of what a 'man' is is dependent on historico-cultural influences as well as biological ones. Simple example: clothing and colour preferences for young children were not very differentiated in 18th/19th centuries, and around 1900, for some, pink was actually a boy's colour - 'pink for girls' was only set in stone around the 40's and 50's. Obviously this will have a much smaller impact on something like physical strength.