Gee Kavita: Do you think "the men" who devise SAT's, IQ tests, etc. etc., might also consider that when comparing "brain weights, and sizes," that these comparisons might also take into account those weights and sizes in proportion to the differentials between the weights and sizes between men's-and-women's bodies--in other words, relative to their respective sizes, volumes, and weights--I wonder if a woman's brain is "relatively" larger, for her body, than a man's brain is to his????

I also wonder if there exists "the Observer effect" in the mindsets of those who devise such experiments--like how at the energy of both the conscious/subconscious "pre-conceived" notions of what a scientist expects to find in "his" experiments, actually influences "his" findings.

Or maybe it's just the "ego-placebo" effect: "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest!!!"

There is also the saying: If I want your opinion on something, I'll give it to you!

You'll have to be patient with us "typical males," Kavita--we can't help it--it all results from the insecurities derived from a "weak ego"--"size" always seems to be something males try and convince females is a valid measurement.

In actuality, maybe the female audience of the Intentblog knows the real truth: "It's not the size of the wand that counts, it's the skill of the magician who 'wields' that wand that counts!"

Now, my superior brain capacities are failing me again--what was the name of that "wand shop" in Diagonalley--in the "female-written" Harry Potter series? Dave

Hi Kavita,

These tests don't take into account spiritual and emotional intelligence. In my direct experience if anything, I don't really see a difference. They also do not seem to measure the two brain hemispheres working together as a whole.

If we were to try to have a valid measure for intelligence we would need a test that measured the ability for both hemisperes of the brain to work together in an integrated fashion.

Current IQ tests are half brain tests, at least that is how it appears to me. they measure each side of the brain separately. We need a whole brain test where both halves are tested working in an integrated fashion at the same time.

But what is the reality?

1. If size didn't matter women wouldn't be talking about it so much in "female" conversations I am sometimes privy to.

2. Given two master magicians, everything else equal, the magician with the larger wand would get to perform the trick.

3. Given a choice between small med large or extra large. Women pick on average pick large.

The fact that men buy into the myth that size does not matter demonstrates their level of intelligence. Size is a factor although not the only factor. A women will actually take everything into account, for a "relationship" but for just sex.....

An example of whole brain intelligence is women can get laid with little effort, men have to work for it and often must jump though hoops. Now you tell me who is the smarter of the species? the one holding the hoop or the one jumping through it?

Also we do not need to spend all the money on some fancy test, for whole brain intelligence. Women have a larger Corpus Callosum, it is thicker, and in all matters related to size, thicker is better, in fact thickness is favored over length.

The Corpus Callosum is what carries data between the two hemispheres of the brain. Here the female's physical brain has superiority.

Dear DK,

Thank you for an example of what I would call whole brain intelligence.

"In micro-finance loans, they are the ones who have a near zero default rate whereas men are between 10% and 15% default. This is true in Africa, Latin America and Asia."

Infinite Regard
Richard

So in summary, men excel in half brain intelligence, women excel in whole brain intelligence.

Men in the past have had the advantage of superior physcal strength which was a vauable asset for survival. This allowed them to become dominant.

Now that "intelligence" especially the whole brain type is becoming the prime asset and physical strength is no longer required (we have machines) women will take the lead in society around the world, and we will see a reduction in conflict that arises from the combination of ignorance and testosterone.

'..Hence, the question of sex differences became formulated more precisely as: "Are there sex differences on the g factor?"

G-Factor, nicely put,

LOL,
but seriously, who cares about a braincell or neuron, more or less!, wish I had as much 'tikkly spots', ;)

and besides, sooner or later, those bundles of testestron, dopamine, and whatever, still get dominated, anyhow!

Love, Passion!

Women may be weaker than men when it comes to brute force computation and the use of logic but what makes one wonder is, why there are no great women artists in any culture through out the history in east or west.

Social reasons? Cause and effect conundrum?

Fact is that men exhibit better artistic skills too.

No wonder men are smarter than women!

Wow what a study...and i always thought i'm smarter then most men!!!!

Many studies are conducted every now and then in west on various topics but its a wonder that nobody has questioned till now that if women and men were made for competition with each other, then why did nature take the trouble of making two genders of every species on earth?

Dear DK Matai often writes that Albert Einstein used to say that God never throws a dice,then what was the reason that two seperate genders of every species were evolved?Surely if competition of IQ levels wud have been the factor,then the competition wud have been far more interesting if it wud have been between same genders!!!

Has anybody ever conducted a study on this?Has it ever occured to anybody that the two genders might have been made differently in order to cater to different aspects of this magical world-the female to cater to all that is soft and vulnerable and the male to cater to all that is hard and harsh.And the mechanism of love was then created to bring the two together to fulfill eachother's needs that arose basically from the limitation of belonging to a particular sex?I havn't heard of any such study.Have you Kavita?

Dear Kavita,
This is such an interesting (and potentially controversial) topic.
I believe, and know experientially, that the intelligence grows in both men and women according to their spiritual evolution. Intelligence cannot be measured only by scientific means. As others have said in this thread, there are different kinds of intelligence.

I like what DK and Richard had to say about women. It seems though that sages have many feminine qualities that have been traditionally associated with femininity -- among them love, compassion, selflessness. And if it's true that the human brain is evolving, and humanity is evolving as well, Jung's prophecy about an androgynous psyche will also come true. Eventually, mass enlightenment is the next steps for all.

As regards what T.S. Florence said, I am not sure we can say that anciently and more recently, women lacked the necessary skills to be great artists or to excell in other creative expressions.

In the past, there was an open dislike and condemnation (especially and not surprisingly by the clergy) of women pursuing anything other than a modest life in total obscurity.

Here are just a few names as a reminder of the existence of great women:

Marguerite Yourcenar, Literature (Academie Francaise). One of my favorite writer bordering on genius.

Berthe Maurisot, Figurative Painting (Impressionist). One of the most gifted among the Impressionist painters, but as a woman she never became as famous as her male fellow artists.

Sofonisba Anguissola, Italian Renassaince Artist. She was a rarity in her time when women were not allowed to pursue an education. Some women from aristocratic families received teachings at home, but most could not even read. Sofonisba was considered an intellectual prodigy because her enlightened parents encouraged her to study and travel.

Nadine Gordimer a Nobel Prize Laureate in Literature (1991)

Grazia Deledda (1871-1936)
Italian Novelist -- she received the Nobel prize for Literature ( 1926)
Here is what Wikipedia says about this topic:
Another problem [ in researching women artists in ancient times] is the convention whereby women take their husbands' last names.

Renaissance era include Caterina dei Virgi, Maria Ormani, Sofonisba Anguissola, Lucia Anguissola, Lavinia Fontana, Barbara Longhi, Fede Galizia, Diana Scultori Ghisi, Esther Inglis, Marietta Robusti Tintoretto, Properzia de' Rossi, Levina Teerlinc, Catarina van Hemessen

Artists from the Baroque era include Elisabetta Sirani, Giovanna Garzoni, Maria Sibylla Merian, Josefa de Ayala, Mary Beale, Louise Moillon, Rosalba Carriera, Elisabeth Sophie Cheron, Artemisia Gentileschi, Maria Sibylla Merian, Maria van Oosterwijk, Clara Peeters, Judith Leyster, and Rachel Ruysch.

As in the Renaissance Period, many Baroque female artists came from artist families. Artemisia Gentileschi is an example of this. She was trained by her father, Orazio Gentileschi, and she worked alongside him on many commissions.

Women artists in this period began to change the means in which women were depicted in art. Many of the women working as artists in the Baroque era were not able to train from nude artists' models, who were always male. However, they were very familiar with the female body. Women such as Elisabetta Sirani created images of women as conscious beings rather than detached muses. One of the best examples of this novel expression is in Artemesia Gentileschi's Judith and Holofernes, in which Judith is depicted as a strong woman determining her own destiny. While other artists, including Botticelli and even female artist Fede Galizia depicted the same scene with a passive Judith, Gentileschi's Judith appears to be an able actor in the task at hand.

Still Life emerged as an important genre around 1600, particularly in the Netherlands. Female artists were at the forefront of this trend. This genre was particularly suited to women, as they could not train from nudes but could access the materials readily. In the North, these practitioners included Clara Peeters, a painter of banketje or breakfast pieces, or scenes of arranged luxury goods; Maria van Oosterwijk, the internationally renowned flower painter; and Rachel Ruysch, a painter of visually-charged flower arrangements. In other regions, still life was less common, but there were important women artists in the genre including Giovanna Garzoni, who created realistic vegetable arrangements on parchment, and Louise Moillon, whose fruit still lifes were noted for their brilliant colors.

[edit]
18th century

Elisabeth Vigee-Lebrun, Portrait of Marie-Antoinette, 1783
Artists from this period include Rosalba Carriera, Giulia Lama, Anna Dorothea Therbusch, Angelica Kauffmann, Mary Moser, Maria Cosway, Anne Vallayer-Coster, Adelaide Labille-Guiard,and Elisabeth Vigee-Lebrun.

In many countries of Europe, the Academies were the arbiters of style. The Academies were also responsible for training artists, exhibiting artwork and, inadvertently or not, promoting the sale of art. Sadly, most Academies were not open to women. In France, for example, the powerful Academy in Paris had 450 members between the 17th century and the French Revolution, and only 15 were women, and of these most were daughters or wives of members. In the late 18th century, the French Academy resolved not to admit any women at all.

The pinnacle of painting during the period was history painting, the large scale compositions with groups of figures depicting historical or mythical situations. In preparation to create such paintings, artists studied casts of antique sculptures and drew from male nudes. Women had limited or no access to this Academic learning, and as such there are no extant large-scale history paintings by women from this period. Some women made their name in other genres like portraiture. Other women were innovative in their ability to compensate for their lack of training. Elisabeth Vigee-Lebrun used her experience in portraiture to create an allegorical scene, Peace Bringing Back Plenty, which she classified as a history painting

20th century

"The Musician" (1929) by Tamara de Lempicka
Noted women artists of the twentieth century include, Mary Cassatt, Camille Claudel, Elizabeth Catlett, Lee Krasner, Helen Frankenthaler, Louise Bourgeois, Eva Hesse, Frida Kahlo, Barbara Kruger, Tamara de Lempicka, Georgia O'Keeffe, Lee Bontecou, Charlotte Salomon and Zinaida Serebryakova.

The twentieth century brought many new opportunities for women in the arts. It also saw an array of new movements.

Kavita, what are you trying do my dear??Do you want the men and women of the IB to fight it out?

Richard and DK, God bless your souls, you both are so chivalrous. You both bring up excellent points. If you are expecting me to defend the men, I am sorry I can't. You see, as people or parents caring for sick children, women are far superior than men. Most dads can not even give a good history, leave alone dispensing medication. Moms on the other hand are as good as their pediatricians by the time they raise a child or two. The good pediatricians listen when moms are making a point.I speak from personal experience!

Kavita I did come across a saying the other day. I do not know the source. It is not mine.
"All men are created equal. And women are created SUPERIOR!!"

God bless you Kavita. All the MEN of IB I love you.

Eh, I don't pay much attention to those. One year it's men are smarter, the next it's women are, the next it's men, on and on and on. Anyway, what does any of it matter in my life? I meet who I meet, and hash it out from there.

LOL. The idea of comparing men to women itself is absurd. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Cheers!
Navin

Hi Kavita,

I won’t contest the results of these findings. But I don’t think there’s a need either for men to feel guilty about it or for women to feel disheartened about it. This isn’t a new study. Numerous such studies have been conducted which “prove” that cleverer people are more likely to be men than women. We all know that majority of Noble Prize winners are men and not women. I read another finding which said that at IQ score of 155--a level associated with genius--there were 5.5 men for every woman.

But I disagree with the statement: Men are smarter than women. How do you define Smartness? Surely there’s much more to it than just answering a few questions right on an IQ test! To echo Richard, does it take into account the Emotional Quotient (EQ)—the ability to perceive and monitor one’s own or others’ emotions? Nature has bestowed upon women different set of qualities. Rather than copying men and trying to be like them, women should focus on their strengths. From experience I’ve learnt that women are more patient, have a more sympathetic ear, are more compassionate, less egoistic and in general much easier to get along with than men. At work, if I had the choice between a male and a female colleague, I would prefer a female one.

Florence wonders about why there haven’t been any great women artists. Well this is a good question. To be an artist you have to be a little crazy. Men are crazy; women aren’t. You can’t be both completely sane and able to write a great poem. The “trouble” with women is that they are so sane! Women are basically earthly creatures; men have got their heads in the clouds. A Woman is more concerned with her immediate neighbourhood. All women wonder about what’s happening in their next-door neighbour’s house. Men are more bothered about what’s happening in the world. Notice posts dealing with love, relationships, romance and other such earthly things are written always by the likes of Kavita and Ayesha Takki?. You would rarely see Deepak, David or DK writing on such things.

I have no doubt that without women, men would go completely mad. Men need women to bring them back on earth. Men would get completely lost without women.

It is also to be noted that as a man becomes enlightened, he starts betraying all the feminine qualities. To reach at the peak of your intelligence you have to be guided by the heart. And a woman is a clear winner over man in matters of heart. All the good qualities the world is in such dire need today are feminine—love, compassion, sympathy, service sharing. We will always have a Mother Teresa; you’re not likely to see a Father Teresa!

And the ultimate power the nature has endowed women with—To create Life; to give birth. Men it seems have a sort of inferiority complex because of their inability to give birth. Woman as the source and nourisher of life will always have this great power over man. And with technology now, she doesn’t even need man’s company to become a mother. Man would still need a woman to become a father!

All these men with bigger IQs than women were created by women!

Sanjeev

Donatella brings up a good point one major aspect of intelligence is creativity. This can be hard to measure.

The other point is connectivity to a "Universal Source Intelligence". Which means were talking about "connectivity". If we were to correlate this to something accepted by scientists it would be subconscious processing.

What I have found, is that I consume massive amounts of information, research, and knowledge. The result of this is my brain/mind can produce results without linear thinking, so it must be doing it subconsciously.

Lastly.

Mass Enlightenment

The circuitry and switches have been "Being" built. Some lights have already been turned on, some testing done with the lighting etc.

The throwing of the big circuit breaker(s) are coming in 2007 as I wrote in 2002, 5 years ago in the archives. But there will be a lot of lights being switched on between now and then. The archives you will find out about later, they are being maintained by someone all the world knows, she was the original ice breaker.

Check this out for example Google this in quotes "mind took form and they called it brain". Circuitry @ work.

“The half-wise, recognizing the comparative unreality of the Universe, imagine that they may defy its laws. Such are vain and presumptuous fools, and they are broken against the rocks and torn asunder by the elements by reason of their folly. The truly wise, knowing the nature of the Universe, use Law against laws; the higher against the lower; and by the Art of Alchemy transmute that which is undesirable into that which is worthy, and thus triumph. Mastery consists not in abnormal dreams, visions and fantastic imaginings or living, but in using the higher forces against the lower—escaping the pains of the lower planes by vibrating on the higher. Transmutation, not presumptuous denial, is the weapon of the Master.” — The Kybalion

Sanjeev, it would be hard to top what you wrote very comprehenisve perspective. Women are also my preferred partners.

Geeta,

That was the best compliment I had all year. Also thanks for the guidance, I came to the realization that we need to train the women to be the health care providers, so when we implement the new "Health Protocols" we will be training the worlds women to be the new doctors.

I also had this thought last at the club, I like to be dancing in a sea of women you know, that I bet is I can organize 3.6 billion women to withhold sex until the men decide to play nice on this planet. Peace or you don't get laid. What do you think a guy is going to choose? War or Peace?

Actually the Bonobos females use sex to resolve conflict, and it works.

Kavita,

Thanks for bringing a softer, touchy-feely topic

to cool us off from the massive information barrage

provided by D.K., Deepak and Gotham(?).

Although this is information...you know what I mean.

.

Margaret Mead thought women were a bit more unstable.

Men will write on the calender scheduled periods

to prepare for the onslaught of P.M.S. in the home.

Women use their emotions as tools to get any type

of reaction and attention from any man they wish to manipulate.

Carl Jung said,

"I've trusted a few men and have been sorry for it.

I've never trusted a women and I've never been sorry for it."

Why, why, why do we ever try? You,you...scoundrels!

.

I work with a lot of women and enjoy being with them.

There are all kinds because it takes all kinds

of women to put up with all kinds of men.

The chit-chat that goes on is completely different.

I see way more "back-stabbing" amongst the women.

Is there a woman who really likes and enjoys another woman,

where friendship is concerned?

.

I now work with a few Lesbians who left the closet a long time ago.

They are hilarious and joke about it frequently.

They tease the "staight" men and women, all in good fun.

They are not attractive to me, I mean...

no Paris Hilton look-a-likes.

If they were, I'm afraid I would think,

"what a waste". But I'm a man, forgive me.

.

If there was such a person as "the first gay ever",

what kind of soul would want to incarnate to be that?

Eunichs may have once served Nature's purpose,

but they were made, not "born that way".

I have nothing against gays, as long as they don't

"hit" on me or my children.

I'm honest enough to say that I don't understand them

and not understanding something really doesn't bother me.

It happens a lot! "To each his/her own weird." Alan Watts

Were they not included on the I.Q test?

Where in the context would they fit in?

Hi kavita,

I haven't had a chance to read through all of the posts, so I may be redundant here, but there are certain types of intelligence that are not really "testable" OR that tests etc. are not geared toward.

It's been my experience that women have an innate knowing that goes beyond the typical male, compartmentalized mind.

But who knows.

Peace,
Scott.

Kavita:

great topic! I read the story too and wanted to blog it today on drishtikone - instead I opted to blog on the how hitler was besotted by a young Jewish girl when he was 16.

Geeta: your comments were awesome! :-)

Navin and Sanjeev: as usual - fantastic take!!

I just know two things:

1. Biologically speaking women are higher on the evolution scale then men. (as the organisms evolve their systems get more specialized. Women have two different tracts for reproductive and urinary purposes while men have one - so, as my biology teacher concluded very logically, men are lower on the evolutionary scale then women.)

2. Men have their will.. and women have their way!

Its tough to speak abt the IQs though. I have seen more girls pass the PMT (Medical school entrance exams in India) then men... while I have seen more men pass the Engineering Entrance tests then women (including IITs). So, it does seem both have a different brain..

Here is a story I blogged some months back on another study which explains that the brains of men and women are different: http://www.drishtikone.com/?q=node/3193 - it was interesting!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

sorry for my grammar: all the "then"'s in the comparisons should have been "than"'s!

what about seeing ourselves as whole beings??

forget sex or gender.......

a whole and complete being you are no matter what it is you have between your legs.

love...

interesting shares...have always felt that gender definitions have emerged in conditioning spaces..as ramana points out, after all, the body is created by the mind...

Carl Jung spoke on the whole human being

in a book called,"Aeon". He based this idea

on the symbolism of the "Christ" figure.

He marveled at the fact that the myths and legends

of peoples everywhere held the same figures

and told the same stories no matter how isolated their

geographical positioning.

The figures he called, "Archtypes".

The stories led him to the hypothesis of a

"collective conciousness".

He also thought that men could use the life of

Christ as a model. He thought women could model

His mother, Mary.

As far as love and marraige was concerned,

he believed that a man should love his God, first and foremost.

He believed that a woman should love her man as

much as he loved his God.

.

This contributor's views do not necessarily agree

with everything Jung believed.

Dear Kavita, The development of the brain and the central nervous system was a triumph of naturally evolved intelligence. Even greater revolution, dwarfing all that followed, is when we turn the clock back billion years to the invention of SEX. Moving even further back in time (on earth) we come to the grand mother of all revolutions; life itself with the help of genes and the self replicating DNA molecule.

Asexual reproduction has its drawbacks. From the point of view of natural selection, sex allows for greater genetic variation at the same time, as it faithfully reproduces individual genes.

Evolution doesn’t prefer intelligence of males over that of females. It doesn’t even prefer smart over the dumb. Dumb people have shown stellar success when it comes to reproduction. (To answer a question raised by Ved)

No wonder there are so many dimwits in this world who are fooled by the smart sages (men) who have raped (sexually molested) the human thought (feminine wisdom and masculine science) again and again and again through out the history. The abuse is still going on in front (and behind) of your two eyes.

Who says Deepak isnt romantic? Okay now that I've got your attention, this is in response to Keith thanking me for a touchy feely topic:) Keith you need to pick up Deepak's book Soulmates, which is romantic fiction. So he writes stuff other than " heavy"-:) I know many intent posters have read it an enjoyed it.
I must say reading through all the posts here today as I sip my cup of tea with barely three hours of sleep..(I'm leaving for a 3 week vacation today, but will check my email once every 2-3 days)has been energizing and thought provoking. What great posts. Sanjeev, David, Richard, T.S. D.K, Donatella I read and re-read yours-how articulate, well thought out and in your case Donatella, well researched posts.And many made me laugh outright with the tongue in cheek comments.

Desh I'll check out the link-Navin you put it so well in one line. As did Sundar, Simon and Scott. Thanks also Andaleeb, JRH and Ved.
Personally I have thought that the SAT along with some other tests like the LSAT(Law school aptitude test?) are bunkum. I dont think they test your intelligence, just the ability of how well you can take the tests. That is why we have Kaplan and similar coaching classes to help you perfect the technique.
I think what has been really heartening is to see how many men have trashed the thought. Geeta you are right-the men at intent are very lovable!
Jokes apart, I have had great role models in my family who are all men, but I also feel they are great role models because their mothers were one. My dad actually raised a very interesting point.

He said he is a great admirer of women because all the six brothers were raised by an amazing woman who became a widow at 38. He doesnt think it would have been any different if his father had been alive, because he too looked up to his wife. I actually have my dad's thoughts on his mom in a cover story that will be published in October, where he said his brothers and he grew up to be such confident super achievers because in spite of financial constraints after partition, my grand mother did not allow any relatives to interfere in the way she was raising her sons, and that at all times she made her sons believe that they were world beaters. Even with having so little she made them feel it was abundant.

I do feel though that the two sexes complement each other, and are smart in both similar and disimilar ways and can be such a huge force together..its maybe the male ego that is having a bit of a hard time with the boundaries of gender roles getting fuzzier, now that women are thriving in the work force and are discovering so much within themselves.

Strangely all the men that I consider enlightened and well rounded are those who are in touch with their feminine side, who don't feel threatened but are deeply appreciative of that feminine quality that they sense within them being reflected in the women they are with.

Keith you are right about women being more catty..I think by the time it gets that bad men just come to blows! But perhaps women are also less violent because they verbalize how they feel and get it out of their system-men tend to simmer inside and dont vent. I rarely see men sharing confidences or insecurities and its cute how they try to "fix" anything they think is broke even if its not in their control..

Are they smarter than women? I don't know..
The magician who wields the largest wand, gets to do the tricks? I don't know. I rather see great magic than worry about who's wielding the wand!

I have to run or I'll never get ready and catch my flight.
Thank you all for writing such thought provoking posts. I will be reading the comments before I leave. Please excuse me if I dont respond right away, or post frequently while I'm gone, but I appreciate every one of you for taking the time to respond with such good stuff.
love
Kavita

thanks Marek!

Hi Desh,

Reading in your post about Hitler being besotted by a young girl reminded me of a similar example from more recent history. Osama Bin Laden is said to have had—maybe still has—a huge crush on Whitney Houston. Kola Boof, a Sudanese poet and novelist and one of Bin Laden’s mistresses in 1996, has revealed that in her autobiography. Bin Laden said that Whitney was the most beautiful woman in the world and he had a paramount desire to meet and possess her. Despite the fact that he thought music was evil, he found Whitney irresistibly attractive. He even planned to kill Bobby Brown, Whitney’s husband! Boof says that the world’s most wanted man’s briefcase was always full of pictures of Houston and copies of the Playboy!

I am amazed at the power of women to stir up emotions in the basest of men.

Sanjeev

Kavita: Are you saying, with us all complementing each other, "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts?!"

Should you find yourself wandering any of the "off-the-beaten-path" alleyways--such as a "Diagonalley"--you know, those mystic pathways where one might find that special wand.....well, I mean, the students of both sexes needed wands in Hermione, Harry, and Ron's school--if you see one that has my name on it.....I'll pay you back--I'll practice magic on Patzi, and see if it works!

Have a wonderful flight--get some sleep--and the same for your time "back home with the boys." Dave

hi kavita!

who is smarter betwen men and women? here is my answer:

who then is smarter between men and women? i know if nobody asks me, but if somebody asks i do not know...lol.

[it is a slight spin on st augustine's words spoken in trying to answer the question 'what is time?' said he: "so what then is time...i know if nobody asks me...but if somebody asks i do not know...]

enjoy....

for those who are really deeply interested here is a relevant paragraph from my book:
*****

As a species, Homo sapiens are the product of strong interactions at the base. However, further within this species, woman is the product of electromagnetic interactions while man is the product of strong interactions. Now as the electromagnetic interactions realm is basically the realm of emotions and the strong interactions realm that of the reason or intellect, woman is basically an emotional creature while man is an intellectual creature. Though because of the wheels-within-wheels or spirals-within-spirals nature of the evolution – or because of their further going through four basic interactions of their main basic interactions and so on - many times they may appear to be just on the reverse sides i.e., woman appearing more on the intellectual side while man more on the emotional side....

Dear Ravi,
That's a nice little poem you wrote on apples and oranges.

Dear Harb,
I liked St. Augustine's way of answering the "what is time?" question and also your spin on it in the context of this thread.

Cheers!
Navin

Ha! It makes me laugh when people say--I don't care if you're gay, just don't hit on me.--

Why would that offend a person so much? Why couldn't they take that as a compliment? There's no difference in a gay person hitting on a straight person than there is a straight person hitting on a straight person. Get that? Meaning that it's just a dang question! How does that offend? The thoughts behind the question are the same.

And why is it so unbelievable that a person couldn't be "born that way". Where's the proof?

RICHARD: First of all I wish you luck convincing 3.6 billion women to withhold sex until the men decide to play nice on this planet. Actually this sentence of your's has flaws. All those women are not in the, "being interested in the sex" age. Also, if the Earth's population is 6 billion, where did you come up with 3.6 billion women? Are there really 3.6 billion women for 2.4 billion men?? RICHARD, are you counting some female spirits too from the other side??

I thought the Bonobos info was very interesting RICHARD. Thanks. Love and God bless.

DESH: I was mostly fooling around in my comment above. Men and women are different. Men are great in mathematics, in Engineering, and in goal oriented skills. Women are good in language skills and are more emotional and nurturing, and intuitive.

As RICHARD pointed out women have better developed corpus callosum, which contains the nerve fibres that connect both the hemispheres of the brain. So they can look at anything in its entirety. That is another reason we see more boys suffering from ADHD and AUTISM than girls. Thank you DESH. Love and God bless.

RAVI, thank you for a nice poem.

I wonder what Malcolm Gladwell (of the Tipping Point and Blink fame) would have said about the subject.. My view is that women are more connected to th eworld they live in and hence smarter!

Tiffany,

Long time, no see.
I don't mean to make no enemy.

I think you were talkin' bout me?
I think I was thinkin' ahead.

To my knowledge I have never been "hit on" by a gay guy.
I can't truly say I know how I would react.
Gays must be intuitive or I look straight.
If they are attracted to looks and/or inteligence,
I have nothing to worry about.

Only a pedophile hits on kids, my bad, sorry.

Dear Geeta

Your comments are outstandingly refreshing, and I cannot resist offering you some applause, and thanks for the chance to read them.

love, Heather

Hey Geeta, thanks, oh and I was kinda kidding about the withholding sex thing so I didn't really think it out. Your points are correct.

The biggest flaw in the idea is, in general, women want it just as bad as men, so they might be able "give it up" for very long.

RICHARD HEATHER: Thank you both. Love and God bless.

No problem Keith... I tend to get a little defensive at times when I heard those things. I have a few very close gay friends. I've had two friends, one dead, one still missing, both for being gay. I have a soft spot I guess. My questions really weren't aimed specifically at you--just aimed out in the air--no apology necessary. :) No worries!

The other day I read the result of a study which said people who eat more are more likely to be obese. I was going to comment about the value of such a study when I realised you were asking for our opinions. So from experience (I'm a guy) I've never really felt smarter than someone else because they are a guy or a girl. I don't know if it is the cultural outlook or not, but academically speaking, girls who do well tend to be hard working students. My memory might be bailing out on me, but I would have to say I know a lot lot more really really really smart guys as opposed to girls. Does that mean anything? I don't think so. Emotionally speaking, I think we are all floundering. In terms of coping with the pressure, I'd have to plead ignorance. Ok so my experience doesn't matter much:P

This is in response to: 1. Posted by David on September 9, 2006 06:55 AM

When you said" Gee Kavita: Do you think "the men" who devise SAT's, IQ tests, etc. etc., might also consider that when comparing "brain weights, and sizes," that these comparisons might also take into account those weights and sizes in proportion to the differentials between the weights and sizes between men's-and-women's bodies--in other words, relative to their respective sizes, volumes, and weights--I wonder if a woman's brain is "relatively" larger, for her body, than a man's brain is to his????"

The thing to realize is not ALL men are created equal. Some are just as stupid as women and you Dave definitely fall into that group. I'll be you bleed for seven days every month. Fucking bitch.

MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES

Steve Blinkhorn is a controversial psychometric researcher and gender scholar who has been repeatedly implicated in many attempts to deliberately falsify evidence. He is widely known for maintaining a strong ideological kinship with gender feminism and the liberal Keynesian economics of the social welfare state. Blinkhorn is also a staunch advocate of the extreme social constructionism propagated by the late Harvard palaeontologist S.J. Gould, another fellow socialist academic suffering from a severe bout of left-wing infantile psychosis. It has been fully established by much of the scientific community at large that much of his research has been thoroughly discredited by all leading proponents of hereditarianism and evolutionary biology. Many of the studies that have been produced by Blinkhorn have actually been derided by many scholars as both methodologically unsound and characterized by frequent distortions of whatever available scientific evidence is on hand. To illustrate, it was widely believed by a number of British psychologists, as determined by the mechanical technique of establishing coefficients of co-variation by means of electromagneto-encephalography (EM-EEG), that brain electrical activity could be reliably associated with psychometric differences in measured intelligence; the mathematical determination of “string length”, interpreted as average evoked potential, is expressed in terms of evoked potential component amplitude, and often under the parameters of such brain wave features as latency, contour length, variability, and zero-crossings. The major premise of those investigations involved in gathering together such empirical observations is based on the null hypothesis that people of high intelligence would have more reliable brain electrical responses to stimuli generated by the outer environment. Many within the academic community argued that the string length of the average brain electrical potential demonstrated an unmistakably positive correlation with both reaction time and differential abilities in mental capacity.

In his desperation to provide documentary evidence of a positive correlation between brain evoked potential and psychometric intelligence, Blinkhorn, as well as fellow left-wing colleague D.E. Hendrickson manufactured evidence for a 1982 study which purportedly demonstrated that such an association was an objectively quantifiable phenomenon. Most of the evidence gathered by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson was deliberately falsified, with much of the data being wilfully invented in order to further bolster claims of a direct causal relationship between average brain-evoked potentials and mental ability. The English psychologist of German extraction, Hans Eysenck, who is also celebrated as the great radical libertarian defender of hereditarianism, along with colleague P.T. Barrett, subjected much of the documentary evidence collected by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson to rigorous scientific scrutiny in two studies produced in 1992 and 1994 respectively. They failed to replicate any of Blinkhorn’s findings on string length measure of individual differences in average evoked potentials. In numerous instances, Eysenck and Barrett had actually managed to reverse the same association that had previously been established by Blinkhorn and co. Therefore, I submit that Blinkhorn is an academic charlatan; he is a pseudo-intellectual fraud who should, under no circumstances, be trusted by anyone seeking a rigorously scientific explanation of observed gender-based differences in human intelligence.

Blinkhorn’s rather quite inane and laughable criticisms of the research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005) are easily disposed of once all of the dust has settled. The most powerful evidence in favour of the meta-analysis produced by Lynn and Irwing (2004) is the fact that it is based on 57 representative general population samples that consist of a total of 80,928 participants. Much of the available evidence for greater male mental ability in childhood clearly reveals that there is a marginal male intellectual superiority up until the onset of early adolescence. When the child reaches the fifteenth year of his physical development, his level of general intelligence increases by 5-10 IQ points; both female intellectual development and cranial capacity remains roughly static throughout the period of her adolescence beginning with the onset of her first menarche. In full confirmation of this, a study was conducted by M. Y. Quereshi and Rainer Seitz (1993) on the basis of those raw scores obtained through the administration of a comprehensive battery of psychometric tests (WPPSI, WISC-R, and the WPPSI-R) to children under the age of 6 years. On all three tests, it was shown that pre-pubescent males actually scored considerably higher than the average female. Through this avenue of psychometric testing, it was clearly demonstrated that males are significantly more intelligent than females (p < 0.05). Moreover, the fact of substantial gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence on the WISC-R in favour of male intellectual dominance was also further reinforced by the researchers Lynn, Raine, Venables, Mednick, and Irwing (2005). Boys obtained a significantly higher full scale IQ by 5.8 points; in addition, boys also obtained a higher performance IQ by 6.5 points and a higher mean verbal IQ by 1.0 points. Furthermore, it was mathematically calculated through a rigorous methodological analysis based on a series of complex statistical computations that boys possess a significant advantage on measures of Spearman’s operationalization of fluid intelligence, otherwise known as “g”. According to the fundamental statistical methodology of principal component analysis, it was determined that boys had an advantage over girls on Spearman’s g by 6.15 IQ points. The raw test scores underlying this figure are finally converted into a series of point-biserial correlations. The resulting numbers are then entered within the full matrix of subtest correlations where these are subjected to a further factor analysis. By subsequently determining the sex loading on g, one finally ends up with a positive correlation between sex and g of .224, the equivalent of 6.9 IQ points. It is this evidence which fully establishes the developmental aspect of Lynn and Irwing’s theory of female intellectual inferiority, namely that a marginal sex difference in mental capacity exists giving males the advantage until the 14th year. At the age of 15, a significant cognitive difference between males and females is manifested much more visibly; the statistical mean of male intelligence gradually increases to its adult value of anywhere between 5-10 IQ points in favour of male intellectual superiority.

Moreover, there are further lines of converging evidence from four adult samples of gender-based differences in intelligence (n = 11,896) which confirm that men are intellectually superior to women by about as much as 10 IQ points or two-thirds of one standard deviation. The researchers Colom, Juan-Espinosa, Abad, and Garcia, on the Spanish standardization of the WAIS-III, found considerable sexual dimorphism in human intelligence on two separate studies conducted in 2000 and 2002. They mathematically calculated the male lead over the female in intelligence to be 3.6 IQ points, a finding which they have modestly described as being “negligible”. Furthermore, H. Nyborg (2005) has argued that higher level of male intelligence in general as well as the wider mean distribution directly create those conditions necessary for an “exponentially increased male-female ratio at the high end of the g distribution”. According to Nyborg, this also goes a long way towards providing an explanation for the universality of male patriarchal dominance for untold millennia. Consistent with this body of accumulated data, Canadian investigators D.N. Jackson and J.P. Rushton, in a large standardization sample (2006, where n = 102, 515), reportedly found a male advantage in mental capacity of 3.6 IQ points amongst 17 year olds.

Additionally, Blinkhorn has foolishly criticized Lynn and Irwing for not adopting weighting by sample size, as well as excluding the Backhoff-Escudero study (1996). By resorting to such mud-slinging, Blinkhorn further manifests his complete ignorance of meta-analytic technique as a means of correcting error and bias in research findings. After submitting a number of psychometric tests to a rigorous methodological analysis, Lynn and Irwing managed to isolate a number of moderator variables that could produce differing estimates of gender-based differences in mental capacity. The two researchers found a strong amount of evidence for two such variables; variables which could possibly skew the results for any investigation into sex differences in psychometric intelligence. These were, respectively, (1) the kind of test administered and (2) the tendencies of some universities to selectively recruit brighter men or brighter women. Because of the presence of these strong moderator variables, many of the studies provided biased estimates of the sex difference in psychometric intelligence. A logarithmic graph constructed by Lynn and Irwing and organized around d-score values demonstrates that the Mexican study itself is heavily biased and helps produce a significant underestimate of gender-based differences in mental ability, ultimately making it a statistical outlier. Given the high probability of bias in this sample, to weight it by its sample size (n = 9,048) would produce a serious underestimate of the population sex difference in IQ. Therefore, the authors adopted the methodological principles of meta-analysis as laid down by R. Rosenthal (1995), and taking the median estimates, including that of E. Backhoff-Escudero, ended up with a measure in Cohen’s d, which is the difference between two group means divided by the standard deviation of either population group, expressed mathematically as d = M1 – M2 / O (the pooled standard deviation). The Cohen’s d extracted in this situation is .31; this dividend favouring males is again converted into a 4.6 IQ point difference which accurately reflects prevailing trends within the general population sex demographic itself. As determined by Messieurs Lynn and Irwing, these calculations demonstrate that there is a preponderance of evidence clearly showing that they have produced an under-estimate in gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence and definitely not the overestimate as Blinkhorn preposterously imagines.

Interestingly enough, Blinkhorn, by employing a similar methodology, uncovers a marginal male intellectual superiority to the mentally inferior female. According to his method, by adjusting the standard deviation of 15 IQ points to 10 IQ points, and weighting the corresponding figure by sample size will inevitably produce a mean difference of 1.5 IQ points (10 x 0.15) still favouring the vastly more intellectually superior male.

Anyone who employs the study of Ian Deary et al (2003) as a means of establishing that there are no gender differences in intelligence either has an ideological axe to grind or has simply not read the paper in its entirety. The study by Deary et al is a study of population sex differences in IQ variability pertaining to a small number of individuals living at a particular socio-historical conjuncture before the Second World War. As the authors clearly point out, its findings are absolutely not generalizable to any group of individuals living before or after the time of the study and is not even applicable to other population demographics. Deary et al says:

The SMS1932 data apply to people whose main educational and occupational attainments occurred from just before the Second World War until retirement in the mid-1980s. Therefore, the distributions of IQ scores represent this specific cohort without necessarily generalising to prior or subsequent cohorts.

The Deary et al study itself happens to be based on considerably antiquated data (an IQ test administered to 11-year-olds in 1932!) at a time in the 1930s and 1940s when the initial tests constructed by Sir Cyril Burt (another fraudulent charlatan like our dear Steve Blinkhorn) and Lewis M. Terman were strongly biased in favour of females. However, the original Stanford-Binet underwent a series of successive re-standardizations involving the subsequent introduction of gender-neutral items replacing those terms already biased towards both female verbal ability and emotional intelligence. From the 1950s onwards, the tests themselves have become gradually free of bias; even within the frigid atmosphere of gender neutrality enforced by the burgeoning political correctness of the twenty-first century, psychometric testing itself still clearly demonstrates a considerable degree of male intellectual superiority over the cognitive deficiencies of the inferior female.

From what I understand, the main objective of the Deary et al study is to purportedly reveal the existence and underlying basis of whatever significant differences already exist in the standard deviations between males and females, given the fact that the male variability hypothesis had been long established by a general consensus emerging like a mist from the decadence of late Victorian times. It would seem that the basic idea of the paper is to show that boys, during their childhood development phase, tend to overpopulate the high and low extremes of cognitive ability. Because the findings only apply to gender-based differences in human cognition during childhood, the authors clearly state that their study in no way contradicts the research of Lynn and Irwing, scholars who have vigorously shown, through much of their research, that there are sex differences in innate mental capacity from mid-adolescence to early adulthood. To quote the authors verbatim:

The SMS1932 data apply to childhood and so do not address the debates concerning sex differences in abilities in later adolescence, adulthood, and old age (Hedges & Nowell, 1995). For example, Lynn (1994, 1998) suggests that any male–female mean difference becomes more marked after age 16…

Consistent with this line of reasoning, the authors also admit that N.J. Mackintosh (1998), an academic with strong gender feminist proclivities, agreed with Lynn (1998) that males score significantly higher than females on the Wechsler intelligence test which, even on an international level, is still one of the most commonly administered tests. Further bolstering this claim, a scientific paper produced by A.R. Jensen and C.R. Reynolds (1983) found, on the basis of results obtained from the WISC-R, that the male IQ was 103.08, with a corresponding standard deviation of 14.54; women had a somewhat lower IQ of 101.41, with a corresponding standard deviation of 13.55. Jensen, the great pioneer in understanding race-based differences in mental capacity, typically dismissed male intellectual superiority over the female as being the direct product of a somewhat marginal phenomenon. However, on a deeper level of statistical analysis, the colossal significance of such numbers can be readily seen by immediately converting them into z-scores. This is accomplished by means of the equation z = x (raw score) – mu (mean population score) / sigma (standard deviation). By plugging the numbers from Jensen’s statistical research into the equation itself, we find that there is a 55% probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female. Alternately, there is a 45% probability that the average female is more intelligent than the average male. Ergo, men are intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female because there are more average men who happen to be much smarter than the average for mean female intelligence.

The proportion of white to gray matter in the male and female central nervous system is largely irrelevant to those scientific facts which lucidly and abundantly demonstrate female intellectual inferiority. Consistent with the research of Haier et al (2003), it has been shown that men have bigger brains than women (d = .30-.35) and have 15% more neurons than the female brain (Packenberg and Gundersen, 1997). The presence of a significantly greater quantity of neurons within the male brain means that men can process and systemize considerably more information and at a much accelerated pace than the retrograde functioning of the primitive, lesser evolved female brain.

Lastly, the“file drawer” effect is the belief that only those papers which prove the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence get published. Those papers that reveal little or no gender difference in mental capacity are presumably archived with little or no recognition from the academic community. This is sheer nonsense. That there is no bias operating here, especially when it comes to the published research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005), is evident from the fact that even Blinkhorn himself observes, in his frequently hysterical rantings, that virtually none of the published literature focusing on Progressive Matrices deals with gender differences. The existence of a large number of studies in print, propagandizing the notion that there are null sex differences and touting the standard ideological pap of second wave feminism, simply undermines the so-called file drawer effect. The fact that 21 out of 22 population samples (with the sole exception of Backhoff-Escudero) based on IQ differences between the sexes has shown that men are more intelligent than women simply proves to a sceptical world, dominated by the false egalitarianism of an omnipresent liberal establishment, that male intellectual superiority is a universal phenomenon that must be dealt with at once.

In short, the fact that women are both intellectually and biologically inferior to men is a fact that is fully substantiated by a tremendous amount of experimental data; it is a fact that was first recognized by Paul Broca in 1861 and subsequently confirmed by the great evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin in 1871 and 1874. Of all the major statistical analyses of gender-based differences in mental capacity produced during the present day, 21 out of 22 studies demonstrate that men exceed women in average mental capacity on all psychometric measures of g. Thus, it is impossible that any amount of radical social constructionist theory can ever undermine the fact that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female. The notion that males and females are roughly equivalent in mental capacity is not grounded on any firm scientific basis whatsoever. It is a falsehood propagated by generations of gender radicals who have taken the high road of Ms Wollstonecraft’s Folly; they are benighted fools, filled with all the naiveté of a child, who have become fiercely ideologically motivated by the cardinal tenets of Marxist sociological analysis and feminist rhetoric through a gradual process of media-directed brain-washing. Those who continue to propagate the lie that women are the intellectual and biological equals of men are dangerous revolutionaries who have no interest in the substance of external reality or the results of empirical observation itself. Only those people interested in reinforcing their own personal bigotry would dare say that women were the equal of men; the notion of equality between the sexes is not founded on any kind of scientific reasoning whatsoever.

Today, men are intellectually superior to women; and far into the foreseeable future, men will always be intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female.

We should stop believing what we wish to believe; we must break the crystal bubble by trying to see the world as it is; this is the beginning of modern conservatism.

MALES HAVE GREATER GENERAL INTELLIGENCE THAN FEMALES