Feminist "Philosophy"

[AngryAtheist8]

Betterave, tisk, tisk for you. Apparently, you can’t comprehend the conversation as it unfolded. Obviously, I don’t support David Stove, In Spiration or your views. The Pope regards men and women equal. There are women on his scientific advisory committee and other committees! Hey, and don’t forget Mother Teresa. She was incredibly intelligent. Your continued attack on women lacks charity. As far as I’m concerned, your current etiquette is hurtful and a great disappointment, considering you claim to be a Catholic. You haven’t added anything worthwhile to the topic as far as I am concerned except for rhetoric.

I also would like to thank AngryAtheist8 for taking the time to comment. I appreciate it. Best wishes to you.

As I said before, Betterave is a troll, albeit an amusing one.

 

[inocente]

Dude: I pointed out that inocente made false claims which he should have known were baseless and quite probably false, since he obviously didn’t read the article he so condescendingly criticized. Your pretending that my pointing this out is nothing but a personal attack is reee-diculous!

Stove’s article is delightful lunacy, simplistic inanity, bigoted buffoonery, with lines like: Child-bearing is so extremely obvious an impediment to intellectual performance… :whacky:

Stove called his essay The Intellectual Capacity of Women, and Jenny Teichman wrote a diplomatic reply which she called The Intellectual Capacity of David Stove:

*David Stove’s essay “The intellectual capacity of women” was first published in 1990, in the Proceedings of a Sydney philosophical society. It has been re-published twice since his death. It seems though that during his lifetime Stove himself refused to agree to its being re-printed. This raises two questions: Did Stove believe his essay on women contains mistakes? And: does it contain mistakes?

The main flaws in the essay stem from a rash adoption of simplistic ideas about probability coupled with a question-begging definition of capacity. The work also contains contradictions and exaggerations and some unwise forays into social history. Stove was an intelligent man so it seems likely that he would have recognised those flaws. - journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=64567*

Teichman is female of course so I guess we should also discount her claims, along the lines of asking where does the dear lady get it into her pretty little head that she can think when everyone knows women should be seen and not heard. Yikes dude.

 

[In_Spiration]

You are insulting the Catholic Church (or at least its principals) in this instance, whether you realize it or not.

The Catholic Church claims that men and women are basically equal, just like men of different races are not fundamentally superior or inferior (which the Church also asserts now).

But by claiming that women are intellectually inferior (e.g. stupid) and that the Church knows this (or at least should know it) you are dismissing the teaching/moral authority of the Church.

Your “premises” begin by mentioning an affirmation of “basic equal[ity]” between men & women and also a denial of any races being “fundamentally superior or inferior”. Then your conclusion regards a claim that women are “intellectually inferior.” Quite obviously, you have equivocated between ‘basic’/‘fundamental’ and ‘intellectual’. (Side note: ‘stupid’ is not necessarily the same as ‘intellectually inferior’ – that’s two dishonest equivocations in one paragraph.) You may believe that one’s intellectual capacity is the sole determining factor of his fundamental worth, but I don’t. Most folks w/common sense wouldn’t either, since that idea seems obviously false.

Also keep in mind that I’ve never claimed that men and women are basically or fundamentally unequal. I still have no reasonable criteria as to what constitutes basic/fundamental human value. Just as I wouldn’t be able to properly interpret you if you say, “Men and women are fundamentally equal,” you wouldn’t know what I meant if I said the same/opposite. Because we haven’t established those terms, and we likely disagree – a whole lot – about those standards.

Other Catholics should explain such basic theology to you. But since none of them are speaking up at the moment, the task falls to me.

Frankly I don’t even particularly like the Catholic Church. But what your saying is so obviously wrong I feel compelled to respond.

You don’t care about what the Church actually teaches. Your fronts, as being some righteous Upholder of Fact, a Protector of Intellectual Consistency, are painfully transparent. If a Catholic wishes to discuss Church doctrine (that is, binding teachings), then I’ll listen, but you should stay out. Your only investment in the matter is narrowly limited to this thread, and your entire “research effort” will amount to a few skewed, self-favoring Google searches.

That doesn’t mean your prejudices are any more valid than mine (or anyone else’s).

My simple point should not have been so terribly misunderstood. All I was indicating is that we both are unavoidably fed the reigning modern view, that men and women are absolutely equal in intelligence, w/no natural, non-environmental differences. No one who grows up in our culture could possibly be ignorant of the stock “logic” behind this egalitarian notion. So it’s safe for you to just assume that what you’re saying isn’t new to me. (Yes, I am indeed implying that your outlook has been rather thoughtlessly assumed as a mere product of the environment you inhabit.)

If you have any decency at all, you should let a woman know that you think women are stupid/inferior before getting into any sort of serious romantic relationship with her. At least if you feel strongly enough about it for this belief to influence your decisions and behavior to any significant extent.

More equivocation. And I don’t think the fact that I tend to believe women are intellectually less capable than men is appropriate first-date material. We must have differing approaches toward attracting girls. And it would most frequently be pure naivete to mention something that’s sure to be misinterpreted or elicit a non-logical, emotional overreaction. (Especially w/women being more socially oriented and inclined to conform to group norms. More later.)

I have been addressing your points. [False.]

Your [Again? C’mon.] simply not happy with the way I have been dismissing them. [True.]

You talk as though you want to have a serious intellectual discussion about a controversial topic.[True.] But you have provided no proof of your assertions, or even a decent argument for your case. [Whether I did or not, Stove did.] So I have no reason to take your assertions that seriously. [Your comment about how I must warn all future dates about my frightful opinions would suggest you take them far more seriously than I.]

I have been addressing YOUR assertions (and the lack of proof thereof). [Hardly.] You are the one asserting that women are intellectually inferior.[And Stove. Remember?] Its [OK what exactly did contractions ever do to you?] up to YOU to provide evidence of your claim.

OK. Next post.

 

[In_Spiration]

How about this, this, or this? (I can go on if you need.) Also, this, this, this, this, and this certainly fit with my own observations.

And it’s not the tests that make up my mind, but instead my own experience and inductions. Just read the greatest philosophers, scientists, writers, etc., if you don’t believe me. Furthermore, men have more abstract intelligence, while women have more “emotional intelligence”. The latter is based in what psychologists would call “Theory of Mind”.

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one’s own. [Wiki]

Abstract “Theory of Reality” thinkers function to make more accurate predictions, analyses, and interactions of/with the external world; ToM minds function to allow for greater empathy and nurturing. ToR thinkers are more concerned w/logically finding and organizing facts about external reality so that their internal worlds will mirror the external, but ToM thinkers are primarily focused on merely reading what others think and being able to communicate/“express themselves”. One of these does not firstly emphasize mental correspondence w/complex facts of reality. Guess which one. Both are obviously very important. However, the “male brain” is more important, more conducive to logic and innovation.

More:

That trade-off would show up as a trade-off between abilities to understand and manipulate other humans (Theory of Mind), and abilities to understand and manipulate reality (Theory of Reality). These are the differences that are seen in people along the autism spectrum. I will discuss how a less developed ToM interferes with ASDs communicating with neurologically typical individuals (NTs) and their very well developed ToM. For the most part ASDs don’t pick up the nuances of communication, particularly how it relates to motivations, beliefs and other mental states. The NT ToM forces NTs to think in anthropomorphic terms, even when it is inappropriate because they lack a robust ToR.

There are multiple ToMs, each language is different to some extent, although there are other communication modes, body language, cultural signals, gestures. There is only one ToR, the one which accurately describes reality as it actually is. Individuals may have a ToR that is highly specialized and individualistic, physics or medicine for example. But all of the different ToRs all mesh into one (or should) because they all describe a single reality.

Which individuals are most adept at tool use today? It is people with Asperger’s, people with ASDs. Many scientists and engineers have Asperger’s, and it is suggested that Einstein, Newton, and many brilliant scientists had Asperger’s. [22] Asperger even said “It seems that for success in science or art a dash of autism is essential.” [23] The stereotypical nerd is someone with facility at math, science and with characteristically poor social skills[24]. The mirror neuron system[25] (responsible for understanding the actions of other individuals) exhibits dysfunction proportional to ASD severity. [26]

Coincidence?

Asperger Syndrome is up to ten times more common in males than in females.

An interesting and positive trait that people with Asperger Syndrome have is that they develop unique interests and become highly intelligent especially in their main area of interest.

Now look here. More on the neurotypes, namely why a “male brain” is ultimately more truth-conducive, especially in a world of fallen humans:

These culture notions are transmitted through the robust NT ToM. To avoid being adversely influenced by potentially incorrect ToMs, ASDs require a weaker ToM, a ToM that perhaps allows some communication, but one that can easily be ignored, resulting in the ability to ignore the “Kool-Aid” which is a stronger version of groupthink. The delusional world views that some NTs have can become extremely compelling to them, such that they are unable to perceive that it is delusional, particularly when a charismatic leader with a strong ToM (essentially the definition of a charismatic leader) imposes it on his/her followers.

I’ll continue even though I know it’s probably futile.

 

[In_Spiration]

If we use male intelligence as the norm, and assume that women are significantly less intelligent than that, then women are stupid (because they are way below average intelligence wise).[Non sequitur.]

If we use female intelligence as the norm, and assume that men’s intelligence is significantly above that, then the natural conclusion is that men are (for the most part) all quite intelligent and clever (because they are much more intelligent than average). However history seems to indicate otherwise. In fact numerous scientific studies have shown that men are (on average) more prone to risky/stupid behavior than women.

Third strike on equivocation. ‘Risky’ isn’t tantamount to ‘stupid’. You’re right that men take more risks though. Testosterone will do that. A greater need for competitiveness requires less aversion to risk-taking. Males are the “biologically expendable” sex that must compete/display in order to reproduce. One could make the case that the cause of higher intelligence/larger brains in men is due to the fact a male’s evolutionary success depends much more on “winning” over greater competition. (Think capitalism; more competition benefits the whole.) In other words, genetic fitness is a more important factor in a male’s genetic reproduction, as consistent w/the fact that “80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.” From the the NYT article on the finding:

For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities.

(More, from the original source)

Note that all those things I listed — literature, art, science, etc — are optional. Women were doing what was vital for the survival of the species. Without intimate care and nurturance, children won’t survive, and the group will die out. Women contributed the necessities of life. Men’s contributions were more optional, luxuries perhaps. But culture is a powerful engine of making life better. Across many generations, culture can create large amounts of wealth, knowledge, and power. Culture did this — but mainly in the men’s sphere.

AngryAtheist8:

Therefore your claim that, women are significantly less intelligent than men, but that’s no reason to assume that women are stupid, is not credible.

No, women are just not as likely to be of very high intelligence. They’re more usually neither especially dumb nor super bright. Average would only be considered “dumb” in comparison to genius, not overall.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

AngryAtheist8, I haven’t seen any peer-reviewed journals such as Science or Nature that support In Spiration’s claims. I’ll stick behind what I said on the previous page. Honestly, if In Spiration went to a major science forum filled with women, he would be ousted out. If he was in a courtroom would be too. Oh by the way, there a quite a few female judges.

 

[In_Spiration]

Males are on average stronger than females as they have a greater percentage muscle and are physically larger. US males are also on average taller than Japanese males, yet we might want to think twice before asserting that Japanese males are inferior to US males.

Um OK. But, given your fact, it would then be correct if you said, “US men are physically/athletically superior than Japanese.” I’m not the one making the ridiculous implication that strength or intelligence is how anyone can or should weigh overall personal worth. Intelligence can cause massive harm just as often as it can cause great good. Its virtuous use is more contributory to moral, personal, or overall worth.

Historically many societies have educated females to lower standards than males using a syllabus selected by males. Self-fulfilling prophesy - educate females to lower standards in ways that don’t interest them anyway and gee whizz they’re intellectually inferior so there’s no point educating them . Yet those same societies entrusted the vital role of raising children to females, and child labor was common in male-dominated Christian counties 150 years ago - dominant males are not so hot at running things.

victorianweb.org/history/hist8.html
eiu.edu/eiutps/childhood.php

There definitely are differences between men and women, but rating one as better depends on who sets their educational syllabus, the values of their society, and who’s doing the judging. It also raises the question of motives when ¡viva la diferencia!

independent.co.uk/news/science/womens-brains-uareu-different-from-mens-ndash-and-heres-scientific-proof-870849.html
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=girl-brain-boy-brain

If the only thing feminism has ever achieved is to shake us into always looking at the bigger picture then that alone makes it worthwhile.

Look at my previous posts for an idea of why I’d it seems that the “male brain” is ultimately superior to the “female brain”. If we can agree that there really is a difference between the normal man’s neurotype and the normal female’s, and that men are more suited to subjects like science, math, etc., then I’d be glad to move the discussion forward, i.e., to an assessment of their respective values.

I appreciate that you did more than toss out a bunch of shaming language. You even provided sources. I like it. The angry atheist should try that, 'cuz the other stuff is a waste of space.

 

[In_Spiration]

I have provided an intelligent arguement. A failed attempt of an anti-intellectual put down from you by your comment leads me to realize that once again a failure to impress me with your innuedos. Honestly, I’m quite sickened by men like yourself that wish to make women their object of put-downs. Very clear observation on my behalf, outside of the Internet there are no men (religous or non-religous) that treat woman with disrespect and vice versa. In this case, the topic of females by the men leave a lot to be desired. Good-bye!

You truly consider the following to be “an intelligent arguement”?!?

I’m a woman. I think men can be just as empatheitc and compassionate as women can be. As far as the rest of your statement, it’s absolutely without a doubt in my mind and experience untrue. Futhermore, it’s biased and bigoty too. Your belief system in this case is contrary to reality. I will also tell you this much, I wouldn’t and don’t hang around in real life outside of the Internet with men or women who think as you do. That is the TRUTH!

All you’ve done here is emote (and rather ironically, considering the debate topic). Can you not see that? The above is not logical. Solipsistic, anecdotal, “expressive”, heavy-handed, yes; rationally organized, no. You disagree. We get that part.

Betterave, tisk, tisk for you.

Leave your maternal instincts out of this. You do not need to teach Betterave how to behave or think. He’s a grown man, not your child. Plus, I doubt that he’s disposed to change his views just because you disapprovingly wagged your finger at him. Because he thinks critically and impartially. His personal and emotional investment in theoretical dialogues has always been reasonable.

Apparently, you can’t comprehend the conversation as it unfolded. Obviously, I don’t support David Stove, In Spiration or your views. The Pope regards men and women equal. There are women on his scientific advisory committee and other committees! Hey, and don’t forget Mother Teresa. She was incredibly intelligent. Your continued attack on women lacks charity. As far as I’m concerned, your current etiquette is hurtful and a great disappointment [Miss Manners has no business here; don’t be so offended that Betterave highlighted your fallacies], considering you claim to be a Catholic. You haven’t added anything worthwhile to the topic as far as I am concerned except for rhetoric.

Nobody denies that there are plenty of highly intelligent women. Mother Theresa was quite intelligent. I wouldn’t call her a genius or anything, but she clearly had a keen mind. Female scientists often make solid contributions to scientific discovery. No dispute there. Elizabeth Anscombe was amazing.

But, as you should know, that’s not – and never was – the point. Further, she was no Aquinas. And there are no female Einsteins or Newtons. Or Da Vincis or Shakespeares. Compare the best w/the best, if you must.

I haven’t seen any peer-reviewed journals such as Science or Nature that support In Spiration’s claims. I’ll stick behind what I said on the previous page. Honestly, if In Spiration went to a major science forum filled with women**[uh, how does scientific merit relate to the presence of females? if it’s wrong, it wouldn’t matter the sex of the person “ousting” me.]**, he would be ousted out. If he was in a courtroom would be too.

AA8 said I gave no evidence whatsoever, so I provided an outline of some background for a broad, cumulative case, from more mainstream links that he could actually read and understand. I’ll go ahead and add that I am indeed aware my posts wouldn’t qualify for publication. The links do all cite professionals who have done research, though. They’re significant enough to draw more than a two-line dismissal. As confident as I am in your research skills, you could still perhaps humor me by providing a general explanation, with outside sources, of why all the links I cited are so horrifically and laughably beneath refutation. All you’ve seemingly done in this post is hope that people will accept your viewpoint as long as you convincingly display some sort of unwavering arrogance. (Such queenly attempts to induce “acceptable beliefs” in our little social group here!)

If I’m wrong, so be it. I’m not nearly as egotistically invested in this “battle of the sexes”. The very fact women are so zealously driven to succeed in this debate in the first place is a little discouraging. As I’ve said over and over, your relationship w/God, your moral character, those are what count in the end. Not IQ. If you are “victorious”, you’re no closer to God or more likely to be rewarded w/eternal joy in heaven. Nevertheless, if I’m to change my mind (and win your high esteem and approval!), I’ll need you to show me.

Oh by the way, there a quite a few female judges.

Thanks for the fun fact. (Even though it’s irrelevant.)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Your “premises” begin by mentioning an affirmation of “basic equal[ity]” between men & women and also a denial of any races being “fundamentally superior or inferior”. Then your conclusion regards a claim that women are “intellectually inferior.” Quite obviously, you have equivocated between ‘basic’/‘fundamental’ and ‘intellectual’. (Side note: ‘stupid’ is not necessarily the same as ‘intellectually inferior’ – that’s two dishonest equivocations in one paragraph.) You may believe that one’s intellectual capacity is the sole determining factor of his fundamental worth, but I don’t. Most folks w/common sense wouldn’t either, since that idea seems obviously false.

Also keep in mind that I’ve never claimed that men and women are basically or fundamentally unequal. I still have no reasonable criteria as to what constitutes basic/fundamental human value. Just as I wouldn’t be able to properly interpret you if you say, “Men and women are fundamentally equal,” you wouldn’t know what I meant if I said the same/opposite. Because we haven’t established those terms, and we likely disagree – a whole lot – about those standards.

You don’t care about what the Church actually teaches. Your fronts, as being some righteous Upholder of Fact, a Protector of Intellectual Consistency, are painfully transparent. If a Catholic wishes to discuss Church doctrine (that is, binding teachings), then I’ll listen, but you should stay out. Your only investment in the matter is narrowly limited to this thread, and your entire “research effort” will amount to a few skewed, self-favoring Google searches.

My simple point should not have been so terribly misunderstood. All I was indicating is that we both are unavoidably fed the reigning modern view, that men and women are absolutely equal in intelligence, w/no natural, non-environmental differences. No one who grows up in our culture could possibly be ignorant of the stock “logic” behind this egalitarian notion. So it’s safe for you to just assume that what you’re saying isn’t new to me.** (Yes, I am indeed implying that your outlook has been rather thoughtlessly assumed as a mere product of the environment you inhabit.)**

More equivocation. And I don’t think the fact that I tend to believe women are intellectually less capable than men is appropriate first-date material. We must have differing approaches toward attracting girls. And it would most frequently be pure naivete to mention something that’s sure to be misinterpreted or elicit a non-logical, emotional overreaction. (Especially w/women being more socially oriented and inclined to conform to group norms. More later.)

OK. Next post.

I see that you were quick to copy Betterave’s insult based style.

I’m sure that he is flattered, but it says nothing good about your own creativity.

 

[ignatius777]

I see that you were quick to copy Betterave’s insult based style.

I’m sure that he is flattered, but it says nothing good about your own creativity.

Why is it so many people seem to “insult” you?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Your “premises” begin by mentioning an affirmation of “basic equal[ity]” between men & women and also a denial of any races being “fundamentally superior or inferior”. Then your conclusion regards a claim that women are “intellectually inferior.” Quite obviously, you have equivocated between ‘basic’/‘fundamental’ and ‘intellectual’. (Side note: ‘stupid’ is not necessarily the same as ‘intellectually inferior’ – that’s two dishonest equivocations in one paragraph.) You may believe that one’s intellectual capacity is the sole determining factor of his fundamental worth, but I don’t. Most folks w/common sense wouldn’t either, since that idea seems obviously false.

Any sort of basic equality between men and women that doesn’t account for physical, emotional, and intellectual equality is of little value. You are the one suggesting the equality Pope John Paul II speaks of is so worthless, not me.

Also, are you suggesting that certain races are superior to one another, or that the Catholic Church doesn’t support the idea of equality between the human races?

 

[ignatius777]

Any sort of basic equality between men and women that doesn’t account for physical, emotional, and intellectual equality is of little value. You are the one suggesting the equality Pope John Paul II speaks of is so worthless, not me.

Also, are you suggesting that certain races are superior to one another, or that the Catholic Church doesn’t support the idea of equality between the human races?

Could we agree that “equal” is not the same as “alike”?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

More equivocation. And I don’t think the fact that I tend to believe women are intellectually less capable than men is appropriate first-date material. We must have differing approaches toward attracting girls. And it would most frequently be pure naivete to mention something that’s sure to be misinterpreted or elicit a non-logical, emotional overreaction. (Especially w/women being more socially oriented and inclined to conform to group norms. More later.)

But my peer, my fellow member of the great and good gender, for what possible reason could a mere women have for getting angry with or upset at one of our exalted kind for just suggesting that women are stupid?

Let me give you a relevant counter example In Spiration:

How would you feel if your wife/girlfriend, or merely a woman you were interested in confessed to you that she thought all men were shallow pigs (only interested in sex)?

Would you be justified in getting a little upset?

 

[ignatius777]

But my peer, my fellow member of the great and good gender, for what possible reason could a mere women have for getting angry with or upset at one of our exalted kind for just suggesting that women are stupid?

Let me give you a relevant counter example In Spiration:

How would you feel if your wife/girlfriend, or merely a woman you were interested in confessed to you that she thought all men were shallow pigs (only interested in sex)?

Would you be justified in getting a little upset?

Sure but how would or should that affect your behavior

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
I have been addressing your points. [False.]

Your [Again? C’mon.] simply not happy with the way I have been dismissing them. [True.]

You talk as though you want to have a serious intellectual discussion about a controversial topic.[True.] But you have provided no proof of your assertions, or even a decent argument for your case. [Whether I did or not, Stove did.] So I have no reason to take your assertions that seriously. [Your comment about how I must warn all future dates about my frightful opinions would suggest you take them far more seriously than I.]

I have been addressing YOUR assertions (and the lack of proof thereof). [Hardly.] You are the one asserting that women are intellectually inferior.[And Stove. Remember?] Its [OK what exactly did contractions ever do to you?] up to YOU to provide evidence of your claim.

.

Stove did not provide a decent argument. There are two primary flaws in his article that would cause any decent scientist or scholar to dismiss it (which Stove himself admits to):

It is not embraced, as far as I can see, on any grounds at all, but from mere prejudice and passion.

Stove does not disprove or even specifically dismiss the evidence for the opposing viewpoint. He freely admits he does not even know what that evidence is.

“Would fifty years, or five hundred years, of equal intellectual performance by women and men, convince you of their equal intellectual capacity?” That would depend entirely on the circumstances. For it might then be my turn to cry “The game’s not fair,” and I might be able to make the charge stick too. I might be able to identify some interfering factor which was more than adequate to explain the discrepancy between my theory and the observed facts. Pressure-cooker education for all girls, say, or huge cash-incentives for brilliant women university students, or punishment for brilliant male ones. Obviously, if there really were such factors at work, it would be quite irrational for me, or for anyone, to take the equal performance at face-value, however long it might go on.

What would convince me of the equal intellectual capacity of men and women is, simply, the kind of evidence which, as things are, convinces me of the opposite: that is, equal intellectual performance, over a long time, and in the widest variety of circumstances.

Stove basically admits here that nothing would convince him of the intellectual equality of women. Or at least nothing less than women performing intellectually on a level equal to men in times and places roughly equivalent to all of recorded human history so far.

A good scientist or honest scholar MUST be willing to change their views in the face of overwhelming evidence. Stove freely admits that he does not.

 

[ignatius777]

Stove did not provide a decent argument. There are two primary flaws in his article that would cause any decent scientist or scholar to dismiss it (which Stove himself admits to):

It is not embraced, as far as I can see, on any grounds at all, but from mere prejudice and passion.

Stove does not disprove or even specifically dismiss the evidence for the opposing viewpoint. He freely admits he does not even know what that evidence is.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How about this, this, or this? (I can go on if you need.) Also, this, this, this, this, and this certainly fit with my own observations.

And it’s not the tests that make up my mind, but instead my own experience and inductions. Just read the greatest philosophers, scientists, writers, etc., if you don’t believe me. Furthermore, men have more abstract intelligence, while women have more “emotional intelligence”. The latter is based in what psychologists would call “Theory of Mind”. Abstract “Theory of Reality” thinkers function to make more accurate predictions, analyses, and interactions of/with the external world; ToM minds function to allow for greater empathy and nurturing. ToR thinkers are more concerned w/logically finding and organizing facts about external reality so that their internal worlds will mirror the external, but ToM thinkers are primarily focused on merely reading what others think and being able to communicate/“express themselves”. One of these does not firstly emphasize mental correspondence w/complex facts of reality. Guess which one. Both are obviously very important. However, the “male brain” is more important, more conducive to logic and innovation.

More:
Coincidence?
Now look here. More on the neurotypes, namely why a “male brain” is ultimately more truth-conducive, especially in a world of fallen humans:
I’ll continue even though I know it’s probably futile.

Most of your sources deal with I.Q. test scores. But even the American Psychological Association has some doubts about the validity and accuracy of I.Q. tests (source: apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx).

Moreover, the smartest person in the world (according to the Guinness Book of World Records and based on I.Q. testing) is a woman, Marilyn vos Savant (source: ft.com/cms/s/2/4add9230-23d5-11de-996a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1DfXA0ZKi). Although even she (and the Guinness Book people) now doubt the ability of I.Q. testing to accurately measure intelligence.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

AngryAtheist8, thank you for your post. In Spiration insults towards me as a woman in his post 139 is that of a male chauvinist. You can’t change a male chauvinist. I don’t personally know any male chauvinists. I thought they disappeared decades ago but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Regarding “intelligence” the Human Genome Project has this to say:

*In reality, there is no universal agreement on the definition of intelligence, even among those who study it for a living.

Having established a definition for research purposes, the investigator still must measure the behavior with acceptable degrees of validity and reliability. That is especially difficult for basic personality traits such as shyness or assertiveness, which are the subject of much current research. Sometimes there is an interesting conflation of definition and measurement, as in the case of IQ tests, where the test score itself has come to define the trait it measures. This is a bit like using batting averages to define hitting prowess in baseball. A high average may indicate ability, but it does not define the essence of the trait.

Behaviors, like all complex traits, involve multiple genes, a reality that complicates the search for genetic contributions.

As with much other research in genetics, studies of genes and behavior require analysis of families and populations for comparison of those who have the trait in question with those who do not. The result often is a statement of “heritability,” a statistical construct that estimates the amount of variation in a population that is attributable to genetic factors. The explanatory power of heritability figures is limited, however, applying only to the population studied and only to the environment in place at the time the study was conducted. If the population or the environment changes, the heritability most likely will change as well. Most important, heritability statements provide no basis for predictions about the expression of the trait in question in any given individual. *ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

I did have an IQ test long ago. It was 171. This whole topic is like a game of chess for me. And I’m still holding tight to what I posted on the previous page.

 

[inocente]

Um OK. But, given your fact, it would then be correct if you said, “US men are physically/athletically superior than Japanese.” I’m not the one making the ridiculous implication that strength or intelligence is how anyone can or should weigh overall personal worth. Intelligence can cause massive harm just as often as it can cause great good. Its virtuous use is more contributory to moral, personal, or overall worth.

Agreed. Of course, if we said women are far superior at giving birth to men, that would also be true.

Look at my previous posts for an idea of why I’d it seems that the “male brain” is ultimately superior to the “female brain”. If we can agree that there really is a difference between the normal man’s neurotype and the normal female’s, and that men are more suited to subjects like science, math, etc., then I’d be glad to move the discussion forward, i.e., to an assessment of their respective values.

Not sure about aptitudes. As I understand it, when given equal opportunities females are just as likely to graduate in science as males. There are differences in preferences (women for life sciences, men the opposite) and more men go on to PhD level, but variances across countries indicate this is probably purely cultural. Then anecdotally, women make better fighter pilots and so on. On average men and women score equally on IQ tests although males have a wider variance, but IQ tests aren’t up to much either.

In other words the evidence is mixed and open to a lot of interpretation.

There’s a deeper issue though about whether it’s in any way safe to assume that our values are reasonable, that our world is the best of all possible worlds.

Suppose we were still hunter-gatherers. There would be fewer of us, a lower average life expectancy and we’d be materially worse off but we just might be happier. As it is though we spend more time working to survive than those ancestors, have a population explosion while depleting the planet’s resources, and overall our species is probably carrying a higher level of risk. In many ways our world, achieved essentially through male dominance, is not all it’s cracked up to be, and continuing down the same male route probably won’t lead to an alternative where we lead happier, more fulfilled lives.

Overall then removing bias in the data, intended or unintended, is fairly intractable. From a Baptist (and I suspect Catholic) perspective every person is unique and uniquely valuable, we’re all equal before God, and the evidence is that’s good to go - men and women are different but equal.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And it’s not the tests that make up my mind, but instead my own experience and inductions. Just read the greatest philosophers, scientists, writers, etc., if you don’t believe me. Furthermore, men have more abstract intelligence, while women have more “emotional intelligence”.

I have read many of them (I studied history in college, and the subject has always interested me). Its undeniable that many of the philosophers, writers, and scientists now considered great believed women to be intellectually inferior (or outright stupid).

But it went further than that.

In pre-modern times women were commonly regarded as physically, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually inferior. You can see this in the writings of the ‘great’ men you speak of.

If you accept these writings as decisive evidence (which I do not) regarding the intellectual capacity of women, then the idea that women are not merely stupid but subhuman (or at least a significantly lower class of human being).