Men are not smarter by the median average but males are represented at both the top and the bottom of the IQ curve. In essence yes men are smarter but not by enlarge. What this means is that there are a greater number of "stupid" males than females but there is also a greater number of males that are "smarter" than females. This disparity of selective traits is not uncommon among males and such dimorphism are show thorough out the animal kingdom. Take the male peacock for instance for an example of a "physical" dimorphism. All of this is a result of male male competition and female choice. Human males not excluded are also the variables from which to choose from. This accounts for the disparity and gives rise to pronounced traits among males that females have preferred over time. Intelligence being one of them..
One must understand that IQ and "intelligence" as a definition is nebulous and subjective at best. In terms of competency and what intelligence is supposed to accomplish as a trait is what needs to be measured. As such men and women are equally competent to reaching the same means to an end. More importantly we are made to do so together. Make no mistake that women have tremendous intelligence above and beyond men in terms of our ultimate goal of competency which is really the result of intelligence. Again one must remember the inverse of the above results as it is also true that proportionately there are indeed more smart women than men. Numerically speaking there are more "stupid men" than stupid women. One must see both sides of the picture here. Proportionately though males are indeed at the top of IQ and performance spectrum things are evened out when you look at the inverse
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/29/5118.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence
Men are represented at the top and bottom of the IQ curve and this is consistent with dimorphisms due to the heavy selective pressures on us. Female choice as constant, male male competition and her selection of male variables leads to this larger curve or pronounced traits through out the animal kingdom.
There’s no doubt that most IQ distribution follows (much) the same Normal curve for both males and females. The question is whether there are differences between the sexes at the extremes of the curve — i.e. whether the curves for males is ever so slightly wider than that for females. There’s little dispute over the fact that there are more lower or abnormally performing males than females. The question is whether the opposite holds true i.e. whether the male’s IQ curve also stretches a bit further to the right. If males were twice as likely as females to be in the top one hundredth of one percent for math and science abilities; that would easily explain why male math and science PhDs outnumber females.
"Men outperform women on average by 3-4 IQ points.[58][59] Studies illustrate consistently greater variance in the performance of men compared to that of women (i.e., men are more represented at the extremes of performance)[60], and that men and women have statistically significant differences in average scores on tests of particular abilities, which even out when the overall IQ scores are weighted.[61][62]"
Studies show a greater variance in the IQ performance of men compared to that of women, i.e. men are more represented at the extremes of performance, and less represented at the median.
-a b Larry V. Hedges; Amy Nowell (1995). "Sex Differences in Mental Test Scores, Variability, and Numbers of High-Scoring Individuals". Science 269: 41–45. doi:10.1126/science.7604277.
-IJ Deary, G Thorpe, V Wilson, JM Starr, LJ Whalley (2003). "Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: the Scottish mental survey 1932". Intelligence 31: 533–542. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00053-9.
-Ian J. Deary, Paul Irwing, Geoff Der and Timothy C. Bates. Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979. Intelligence, In Press. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.003
In studies of autism researches have compelling evidence that while male and female intelligence quotients are close and in most all cases have the same potential, that extreme variance is prevalent in males giving toward a higher probability of males being at the higher and lower IQ range than the median average.
http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/1999_BC_extrememalebrain.pdf
^ Simon Baron-Cohen, 'The Extreme-Male-Brain Theory of Autism', in H Tager-Flusberg (ed.), Neurodevelopmental Disorders, (Boston: The MIT Press, 1999).
^ Simon Baron-Cohen. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. (Boston: The MIT Press, 1997).
"Male brains seem to be "pushed" towards extremes of low ability or high ability in various forms of mental abstraction, especially those related to space and logic. This means the average scores of young women and men in mathematics, for example, will be close, but there will be more men than women in the very low scores and in the very high scores[9] There is evidence to suggest that forms of autism common mainly in males may be essentially extreme expressions of certain typically male characteristics and aborational exaggerations of the male brain" Males such as Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and others have been ascribed to aspergers, a form of autism. Of all cases 90 percent are male. This would suggest a propensity of exaggerations unique to the male brain phenotype.
------------
I don't think this suggest that "men are smarter than women" as intelligence has a broad definition. What it means is that men are more likely to be at the top and bottom performers over women in IQ or rather certain abilities. Also once in awhile the world will have a man of acceptional talent such as Bill Gates, Steven Hawking, or Einstein for instance and by enlarge have a higher profusion of males at the upper and lower ends of the performance spectrum in areas of certain abilities. Given the sexually selective pressures upon him, this finding is consistent in my opinion with male provisionary and utilizational purpose over resources. I believe in terms of sexual selection this expression of extremes of sexually selective traits and abilities is consistent and similar to a dichotomy among males in the animal kingdom. Grossly exagerated sexually selective traits sought for in males is not uncommon in the animal kingdom, take the male peacock for instance and other dimorphisms.
I believe the gender specific IQ curve may make sense in humans as males at the top end of the scale do indeed have more mating opportunities with females. One must look at humans and see which males do in fact get the most mating opportunities with females. It seems clear that as intelligence is directly correlated with the males ability to acquire status within a group and his ability to acquire and utilize resources. And at this point these men do indeed get the most mating opportunities with females. Therefore given the freverency of preference for these traits or the prevalent traits that brought about the desired traits they may indeed become exaggerated over time. This is not to say that men do not look for intelligence in women but intelligence in men was and is more adaptive to external challenges but also to male-male challenges of competitive advantage between males and therefore holds more importance to the female in selection of a mate. Genes on the sex chromosomes directly influence sexual dimorphism in cognition and behavior, are carried on through sexual selection and are gender specific. Adaptive traits that are selected for by the female are indeed passed down and become pronounced in the male and vice versa. In an evolutionarily biological sense it can be said that woman is our creator, that woman made man what he is.
Given the very premise of exclusive female-choice in human mating, gross exaggerations of selective traits are likely to present themselves in males due to heavy selective pressures upon them. It seems quite possible that other aspects of female biological value to males may outweigh or dilute male preference for female intelligence, for instance youth, symmetry and reproductive potential when selecting a mate.
My response to feminist retort of "Is There Anything Good About Men? by Dr. Roy F. Baumeister -http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
Dr. Baumeister presented this paper above at the American Psychiatric Association and is on the same subject matter that caused the firing of Larry Summers the former president of Harvard University. I ask you to read my response below as well.
Very respectfully ladies, I think your missing the point of the paper. What he is trying to illustrate is
that indeed male male competition and female choice exists in sexual selection in humans. Suffice as to
say that a man can't just go out and have sex with as many women as he wants yet a woman can. As such
conclusive DNA evidence shows that about 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. That modern day human gene expression represents 40% of the total male population over time. That predominantly "successful" male gene expression through reproduction has represented itself exponentially to create this selective disparity among males that is evident to this day. This fact
illustrates the intense selective pressures that are placed on male through male male competition and
female choice. What the author is trying to illustrate is that this is why men are represented at the
extremes of the sexually selective trait spectrum i.e. in looking at the curve in males alone there is a
greater extreme of dimorphisms in height, intelligence, size and strength, risk taking behavior,
creativity, aggressiveness, resource acquisition ability, resource utilization ability i.e. what has
become engineering in our modern time and pretty much any other selective trait that was sought for by the
female. He is saying that as female choice and male male competition exists and as illustrated by DNA gene
expressions in modern humans males were selected for and indeed show higher motivation and aptitude in the
employment of those traits and the end results make themselves presented by those traits being employed by
the male in historic and indeed modern society.
Indeed there may be elements of society that did not give
women rights and such but this is simply an adverse effect of the competent and productive male that
female choice in the sexually selective process sought to create. Your lack of rights in the political and legal sphere have not only been resolved but have swung in you favor. There is no discrimination towards females in reaching the top percentiles in academia. There is no discrimination toward women to accel in elements of the sciences and engineering and further more to the top percentiles of performance in these fields. Masses of government funds have been poured into full scholarships for women in these fields such as computer science but they are not taking up the battle saber as you have hoped. Men are what we are because we are in
fact the variable. To the chromosome level the Y is in fact the variable. and as such the male is the result of heavy selective pressure by the female and thus a
disparity and dichotomy of extreme representations is created. This extreme of dimorphism is not only
present between males but between males and females. Males as a separate sex have a function that the
female does not. This is in fact why two sexes exist. Males do what females placed selective pressure on
us to do. One can speculate that as males do indeed serve a separate function we would posses more
aptitude and indeed motivation to perform these functions. I will ask you to ponder what these selective
functions are and how they are expressed even to this day and finally why males are represented in spheres
of society, at the extremes of these spheres and how they may have been useful to the female. It is true
that men do not dominate or are more proficient and motivated to do and become these things by accident. It
is true that males are designed to complement what the female required of us. The female is in fact in a
biological sense the creator of men. Men are the way we are because women selected for us to be this way,
to in fact serve a function as a separate sex and in that in many ways this should not be looked at as him
being "better" but complimentary to the female. You refuse to understand that men and women do not have the same performance at extreme ends of the spectrum. Your statistics are composed of the aggregate. You must understand that the male dimorphic curve in performance, when the top and bottom performing males are aggregated this is what produces the median average with females. Men are necessary and perform a useful function to this
day.
Many women ask "are men necessary" "can we kill them off" "can he please go extinct now" The answer
to this is NO. If you want to do things on your own away from male protective, provisionary, resource acquisition and utilizational purpose go
ahead but STOP blaming men for becoming what is indeed what you have asked and needed us to become. If you
do not need us or want us then don't.
However I ask you to ask yourselves why men are necessary as husbands, fathers and to society and make
amends with us. This denigration of men by women and feminists has to stop. It is driving men and women
apart at both ends. I ask you to look at the modern human pair bond and marriage behavior and tell me this
is not true...So now what do we do when you no longer want us...What will happen, and what are the results
of your castigation of the male..I will not explain but I can tell you the results will not and has not been good for
men, women, children and society at large...You must make amends with the human male
as he is your partner and not your enemy!
The firing of Dr. Larry (Lawrence) Summers, the president of Harvard University by the Feminist Party for suggesting dimorphic disparity not only among males but between males and females as well as the above is disgusting and reprehensible. I am so thankful that President Obama has rescued this EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT man from the destitution of the back alleys of our civilization and gave him the job of top economic advisor of The United States. Furthermore, any attempts to open logical and
intelligent conjecture with women's groups and The National Organization of Women is meet with claims of
misogyny and hateful comments. Your demands for affirmative action for female representation in all areas
of human society will not only serve to further denigrate the human male but slow productivity and our
human advancement as a species. Your request for a Cabinet Level Department "Office of Women" that reports directly
to The President of The United States for the needs of one gender alone will serve to divide and destroy
our nation. For a Cabinet Level official office to represent one gender, one race, one religion alone will
destroy our nation. I assure you that you will not silence the voice of men.
You have indeed succeeded in making the male an optional accessory to the pair bond and marriage not due
to the obsolescence of the male in actuality but the synthetic, systemic and mandated transference of male
resource provision through alimony, child support and the increasing formation of systems of government
husbandry. Indeed your "independence" is false and your ostrisization of the male will have grave
consequences. Currently women initiate over 2/3 divorces. Marriage is on a steady 45 degree angle decline.
1960 to 2000:
— The number of marriages per 1,000 unmarried women age 15-plus has declined from 73.5 to 46.5.
— The number of divorces per 1,000 married women age 15-plus has risen from 9.2 to 18.9.
- The presence of single women has increased remarkably — women who must choose either to remain childless
or to raise children by themselves.
— The number of births per 1,000 women age 15-44 has declined from 118.0 to 67.5.
— The percentage of live births to unmarried women rose from 5.3 to 33.2.
— The percentage of children under 18 living with a single parent rose from 9 to 27.
I ask you to look at government and other reputable statistics on the adverse psychological development of
children from single mother households and the effect of isolation from exposure to the male archetype for
children to formulate a boys masculine identity as well as a young females formulation of what makes an
acceptable and adequate mate in a male. I ask you to consult the greater scientific community to
understand how human development takes place and indeed begins with an infant understanding itself as a
separate identity and then as male or female. That proper development of a child requires both father and
mother.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment