Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by 10293847, Aug 25, 2005.
If it wasn't already obvious, here's the proof:
Honestly I think men and women excell each in thier own ways. it's seems men usually have a more 'mechanical' knowlege over women, where women seem to be more imaginative sometimes.
i would agree men and women excel at different things. Women have a much higher emotional IQ than men. And I think women are incredibly systematic and stable with most things they do, whereas men are much more likely to be more creative and likely to be disorganized.
What exactly is an "emotional IQ", just out of interest? Not necessarily implying it doesn't exist; just genuinely curious. I must say, virtually every woman I know has a soap-operaesque emotional volatility to the point where it severely hinders just about every aspect of their own lives and often the lives of those around them.
Don't you guys know about the PC climate of today? Women are the same as men, they just have boobs and a vagina, and they can do anything they want and they especially shouldn't stay at home and take care of the kids!
I wouldn't neccasarily say that women are not as smart as men, but they're definately different then men with their own purposes. Too bad Western Culture doesn't think so.
The difference is that men focus on one thing better, and women can multitask better.
From our genetic roots, men were the hunters, and were really good at it. Women had to cook, take care of children, etc.
who cares if women are stupid.
Look at the US president.
Haha, I suppose they take into account others feelings etc, whereas men would rather not notice. but we are all stereotyping here, and doing a damn good job of it.
There are different kinds of intelligence, old look at human intelligence based on IQ tests has been drastically changed in last decade.
There was a psychological research; a group of 4-5 years old kids was tested. It happened that there were some kids with very high IQ, but leader between kids was a girl that was not strongest, and not smartest, quite opposite. But when talking with psychologists it was clear that she was easily able to understand relationships and characters of other kids, and to use that for her own advantage. He could explain in his words precisely character of every single kid, and relationship of that kid with others and use that to get herself in position of a leader.
25 Years later, test subjects have shown their results in life. Most of the kids with higher IQ were highly educated, or have become experts, very competent and capable people in job they are doing. But they had problems in their private lives, they were not really happy with their lives in most of the cases, and they were not in high positions in hierarchy of companies they are working, or were self-employed. Most successful and happiest person was girl with quite average IQ but with high emotional intelligence. She was happy married, successful business woman, connected with lot of people with friendship and business connections.
Also it is well known fact that people that are very successful most of the times do not have high IQ but very high emotional intelligence. Their employees have high IQ, so they can work for them and make them successful
There are also other kinds of intelligence, for instance some person can be extremely talented for music or mathematics and be complete idiot for everything else.
Women generally have higher emotional intelligence, they have better social abilities, and they are often using them for their own advantage. If the society wasn't that much patriarchal, and we all could have same chances, women would be the ruling class, and I am not kidding about this.
And this one solves the puzzle of "illogical" behavior of woman. They are not logical, they are practical, they are always doing things that are to their advantage if they can and know how. Man want to be moral or logical when arguing, he wants to win based on facts and logic, woman wants to win and control, and she does not give a damn about logic, all she care is results.
Oh I don't know, most of them have actually been pretty self-absorbed. I'm not stereotyping though, I'm just saying what's been the case in my experience. But then, I am surrounded by the relatively young, to be fair.
Men and women need one another, this rivalry between them is useless so I should probably stop encouraging it.
Thats a impressive post. Who was that russian historian or mathmatician you were discussing before?
I guess this just proves that its who you know, not how smart you are. I know for a fact that the music industry works that way. It would make sense that life in general would reflect that. People with superior social skill will ultimately be the most successful
From what I've read, people high in business hierarchies have high IQs.
Has anyone read Sex and Character by Otto Weininger or Eros and the Mysteries of Love : The Metaphysics of Sex by Evola?
Thanks man. Well, I think that post about A. Fomenko is still there in another thread?
Well I don't think that chairman of a corporation will test himself and then admit he has average IQ But I guess you are right in a sense that few most successful people have both high IQ and emotional intelligence.
that was good for a laugh. too bad it isn't legitimate.
Oh no! Silent Song has encountered cognitive dissonance to his silly egalitarian views! Surely, the best way to prove his point is to claim the source isn't legitimate! Why not, Silent Song? Are you going to equate the BBC with a male supremacy site? Or is IQ not really a measure of intelligence? Christfuck, you're a moron.
thank you, i am a moron by your scope of judgment. i accept such as it does not affect me in any way at all. why even seek to prove that men are "smarter" then women? what will it achieve even if proven? what does it matter? will men be appointed to all matters of importance, given that women are deemed "dumber" beings? i severely doubt any claim of such on the subject. and of course IQ is a public failure at measuring intelligence.
Exactly - yourpathetic defense was unnecessary.
It suggests that women know their place - this is mostly something to spite the bra-burners with.
IQ measures certain types of intelligence, usually mathematic, logical, and verbal; funny that these are three types of skills needed to succeed in our society.
This is entirely off topic, so all but Dushan, please do not bother.
Dushan, I did some reading on this Anatoly Fomenko and discovered his ideas are incredibly interesting, but also Russo-centric and incredibly flawed like almost all statistical research. I am surprised he puts so much stock in Astronomical readings and reigns of kings. It all seems highly speculative, and the results can be nothing more than spurious at best. Still, it is all quite interesting. i should really order the book, but I dont know if I should bother because I was laughing at this article about English history he wrote that is on the web. Also, why in the world does he reject all scientific means of historical analysis such as carbon dating and the like?
I have that file with short work on English History, and as far as I remeber it is not personally his work, but of people connected to him. I do think that this alternative ideas about English History go to far without having solid ground sometimes, on the other hand it is not so "out there" if you do know basics from book.
As far as book goes, he was using a lot of different methods that have given very similar results, and second, there was so many interesting facts about flaws in our concept of history that are obviously true, that book is worth just for that, I think. He pays a lot of attention to Russian History in a book (and it is logical, as it is his homeland) but also to Byzantine and Roman empire history, early medieval history, and biblical "History".
Idea with astronomical "Readings" are really interesting and clever I think. There are lot of sky charts on tomb stones in Egypt, and as we know they were able to get very precise maps of sky, so there is no reason to presume that those maps on tombs and gaves were innacurate. It is just that when checking planetary postitions, those very moments when planets were at those positions are more than thousand years later than historians usually date them, and those combinations of positions are really unique.
He does not rejects all means of Hystorical analysis, he just points at flaws that have caused problems. Mostly fact that there was a basic idea of History already, and that all later historians were just adding to it, ignoring or dismissing everything they were unable to make work with this standard idea of historical line.
We are seriously getting off topic, maybe someone could split the topic?