By the way, earlier you mentioned that men were more intelligent because they had more gray matter than women. I read up a bit on the matter, and found that professor Richard Haier, who led the experiments done on male and female brains, said, “These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior." Basically, though the male and female brains are wired for two separate types of thinking, the two different roles are equally intelligent. I used another article to cross-reference this information, which read, "Researchers stressed that just because the two sexes think differently, this does not affect intellectual performance." and, "Scientists find it very interesting that while men and women use two very different activity centers and neurological pathways, men and women perform equally well on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as intelligence tests." Did you do your research?
It would depends on when those articles or statements were made. Saying women are inferior to males in any sense of intelligence gets a bad reaction. A math teacher was fired for stating boys are better at math. Unfortunatly, that is the way the world is. I'm looking more in to the subject, I haven't read it up in a year or so. You have to remember that even if men were superior in intelligence, society would never allow it to be seem, nor stated. So they go for "they're both equal".
Secondly. If males and females are as smart as eachother, that would still make males superior. They both have the same intelligence, but only males have superior strength.
I have no doubt that in different areas, women have equal performance, such as women are equally as good at language as men are at math. But, we need to see which one of the two that each brain is more better at for usefulness in the society that was made after our brains were. So do the rules and intelligence our society go by run better with male brain or female brain?
I think that it is quite a clear indication that if one group has more of something that enhances their ability to do something, and the other group has something else that enhances something else, they aren't going to be the same in every subject.
I would have to read more in to that psychologists statements. Did he give any information that shows how they are equally smarter?
So far these science links state that males are better at science, math (problem solving). What intelligence is more required in today's society, the intelligence that gives better mathamatics, better science, and more reasonable and logical thinking without more emotion, or the intelligence that isn't equiped to do as well as the other in maths (problem solving and science, etc? White matter supports multitasking and things such as language, which I believe women excel more at. However, when it comes to progressing things, male brains are more equaiped, and society shows this with all the great men in the past and present that progress out technology, science, etc.
Coiuld you link those pages, I would like to see them, too.
Thanks.
Your first statement is what bothers me. You say that it would be politically correct to say that they're equal, and so you think it's implied that men probably are? I see why you might think that, but you have to remember that this is scientific and medical evidence. The doctors and professors involved in the study would not have themselves quoted saying faulty information solely to be "politically correct," it would go against their credibility and their pride.
Secondly, is strength really how we judge a person? If we were to somehow get Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. to fight to the death, and Hitler won, would we say, "Oh, Hitler must be the superior person." It might have been different a couple hundred years ago, but in this day and age, strength doesn't count nearly as much as intelligence and the ability to function in society.
Neither brain is more useful to society- like the articles said, each brain was built by evolution for a certain, equally intelligent, equally important task. We're not debating with math right now, we're debating with language. Though our society does seem to value math and science more, language, art, and emotion are equally as important in a spiritual way as well as a mental way. The world isn't just about progress, progress, progress. I know that you don't like emotion, since it dissuades the truth (and you are very correct). But that's only from a debating standpoint. What would the world be if we couldn't feel? If we could never get fully, emotionally invested? If we didn't love our children as much as we do, chances are, a lot of them would end up dead and unappreciated.
I think the point I'm trying to make is, you see the world as being clockwork- we have to keep moving, and getting better technology. I'm trying to tell you (for lack of a better phrase) to slow down and smell the roses. There's a different side to life that you're just not acknowledging.
I'd write more too, but I also have places to be. I read the same articles that you did, plus these:
Society is filled with it. Today we avoid anything that would show women as inferior at something, even if they are, so it isn't really a stretch to say they would be bmade to go by politicl correctness.
You're missing the point. You said we are both equally intelligent. If that is so, then men also are far more stronger, so they have an xtra trait for usefulness. If they are equal, then have one more extra trait that is needed, then that would imply they have more to offer.?
I have to dissagree. We could of gotten this far in technology without those things, where as we couldn't without the male intelligence, science, math, etc.
I never said emotion was bad, I said it's bad when it overcomes logic.
Life isn't all that different. We work towards progression our whole lives, and so does our species.
(Hurrying this up, so I'll read and reply back to those links in a bit. I have to do barn work)
An extra trait for usefulness? Sorry I'm bringing Hitler up so much, but he saw things in the same light, only he killed anyone that he didn't see to be useful enough. Not that you're Hitler, I just wanted to draw the connection.
Again, I think the problem is that we're looking for different character traits in people. I'm looking for a sense of loving and overall morality, you're looking for progress.
Yes, we've gotten technology from "male intelligence," but you're missing my point- what I'm saying is that technology isn't everything. We can't judge a person by their degrees of usefulness. There's more to life than moving forward, and if you don't learn to appreciate that, then you'll never have a chance to experience it.
That's exactly what I'm saying- emotion is only bad from a debating viewpoint, and the whole world isn't a debate website.
I have to go back to you using the term "male intelligence." Do we really have to divide up our society that way? The whole world isn't a war between men and women.
There's a difference, and the example was a bad one. I'm not saying kill the ones that are less useful, that doesn't mean they aren't less useful. You're trying to bring an emotional example in to this. Hitler based what he seen as superior on what people "believe", not their capability.
If both have the same equal intelligence, and men have another trait that is needed just as much, where as women don't, then going by logic, men are superior, becase they share equal intelligence, yet men win in strength, so men have a quality women don't.
There is no connection here. If someone said "This person is better because they ate a green apple over a red apple", then I said "This person is better because they have a better trait", i's the same logic, Hitler had no facts, he based his judgements on biased opinion and their beliefs, not their capability.
I am stating a fact. If both are equal in one area, then only one is better in the other, then the one with two good qualities are superior. The Hitler example was a terrible one, I have to say.
Sense of loving and overal mortality is not important as progression. For example, if we didn't progress as a species, stayed in our primnal states, morality wouldn't be invented, we would be murdering, attacking, hurting eachother all the time, it was progression that made us seek order, which made morality more in line, not emotion.
Technology isn't everyting, it's most of it, though. Technology in today's society is needed to keep it running the way we have it now. Technology is man's greatest acomplishment.
There isn't more to life than moving forward. As an example, I will say homeless people. They aren't able to move forward, and look at their position.
I never said emotion is bad, I said it's bad if it overcomes logic, not that it's bad in general. Emotion only becomes a problem when it ignores logic and reasoning.
Well, it was male ntelligence, so I don't see the problem. yes, we do. Too many times are women getting praised for their efforts in society directly, where as a lot of male intelligence that succeeds the woman's aren't being noticed.
Maybe it wasn't a snap comment? It was me stating the known, that it was male intelligence. I think it's quite irritating when we take intelligence and call it our own, when they don't belong to the same group. Men and women run under the same species, but not the ame group. Just like how people like to mention how there are mor criminals, murderers, rapists than women doing such things, I will mention how their are more greater intelligent men inventions and contribution than women's.
If I am to say "Human intelligence" when it was directly male intelligence, then I am not going to until "Male criminals" become "human criminals".
Like I said, I wasn't implying that you were Hitler, nor was I accusing you of anything- I was drawing a parallel. In this case, I'm not talking about the prosecution of Jews. I was referring to the murdering of people with disabilities because, as Hitler said, they were not "useful."
See, there's the real difference in our opinions. I see life's importance inside a human being, you see life's importance in what the human does outside him or herself. Yes, we had to progress to a certain length to be able to feel morality. I'm not saying that progress isn't important. What I'm saying is that we don't have to constantly be thinking "progress" now that we have progressed as far as we have.
The point I was trying to make was, most men and women I know don't see it as being men vs. women. You're one of the few people I've talked with who thinks that society is one big argument between the two genders. You say that you're not sexist, but the definition of sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex" which is what you're doing. I'm not saying that men cannot be discriminated against, I'm saying that whether you like it or not, you are making startling generalizations. Don't get me wrong, so am I- but at least I admit it. We are all a bit sexist and racist, we can't help it.
Look, if it's all the same to you, I'd like to draw this debate to a close. If you have anything else you'd like to say to me, then feel free to reply. But I feel as though we're simply going in circles, and there are more productive (I am well aware of the irony) things to do. Some debates are not meant to be won; rather, they are meant to be learned from.
I would of replied last night, but my internet was being an asshole.
I don't see women inferior to me by default.
I do treat people how I want to be treated. I respect them (as an opposing debater) and read what they have to say and reply to all of the imortant parts, and if asked to reply to a specific part, I do.
I have to go for a bit, so I'll reply to the second part soon. I had to rush the top part, unfortunatly.
Do you have IIN enemies?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
By the way, earlier you mentioned that men were more intelligent because they had more gray matter than women. I read up a bit on the matter, and found that professor Richard Haier, who led the experiments done on male and female brains, said, “These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior." Basically, though the male and female brains are wired for two separate types of thinking, the two different roles are equally intelligent. I used another article to cross-reference this information, which read, "Researchers stressed that just because the two sexes think differently, this does not affect intellectual performance." and, "Scientists find it very interesting that while men and women use two very different activity centers and neurological pathways, men and women perform equally well on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as intelligence tests." Did you do your research?
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It would depends on when those articles or statements were made. Saying women are inferior to males in any sense of intelligence gets a bad reaction. A math teacher was fired for stating boys are better at math. Unfortunatly, that is the way the world is. I'm looking more in to the subject, I haven't read it up in a year or so. You have to remember that even if men were superior in intelligence, society would never allow it to be seem, nor stated. So they go for "they're both equal".
Secondly. If males and females are as smart as eachother, that would still make males superior. They both have the same intelligence, but only males have superior strength.
I have no doubt that in different areas, women have equal performance, such as women are equally as good at language as men are at math. But, we need to see which one of the two that each brain is more better at for usefulness in the society that was made after our brains were. So do the rules and intelligence our society go by run better with male brain or female brain?
http://socyberty.com/society/men-vs-women-who-is-more-intelligent-2/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm
I think that it is quite a clear indication that if one group has more of something that enhances their ability to do something, and the other group has something else that enhances something else, they aren't going to be the same in every subject.
I would have to read more in to that psychologists statements. Did he give any information that shows how they are equally smarter?
So far these science links state that males are better at science, math (problem solving). What intelligence is more required in today's society, the intelligence that gives better mathamatics, better science, and more reasonable and logical thinking without more emotion, or the intelligence that isn't equiped to do as well as the other in maths (problem solving and science, etc? White matter supports multitasking and things such as language, which I believe women excel more at. However, when it comes to progressing things, male brains are more equaiped, and society shows this with all the great men in the past and present that progress out technology, science, etc.
Coiuld you link those pages, I would like to see them, too.
Thanks.
I would say more, but I'm hurrying.
--
nAt2017
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your first statement is what bothers me. You say that it would be politically correct to say that they're equal, and so you think it's implied that men probably are? I see why you might think that, but you have to remember that this is scientific and medical evidence. The doctors and professors involved in the study would not have themselves quoted saying faulty information solely to be "politically correct," it would go against their credibility and their pride.
Secondly, is strength really how we judge a person? If we were to somehow get Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. to fight to the death, and Hitler won, would we say, "Oh, Hitler must be the superior person." It might have been different a couple hundred years ago, but in this day and age, strength doesn't count nearly as much as intelligence and the ability to function in society.
Neither brain is more useful to society- like the articles said, each brain was built by evolution for a certain, equally intelligent, equally important task. We're not debating with math right now, we're debating with language. Though our society does seem to value math and science more, language, art, and emotion are equally as important in a spiritual way as well as a mental way. The world isn't just about progress, progress, progress. I know that you don't like emotion, since it dissuades the truth (and you are very correct). But that's only from a debating standpoint. What would the world be if we couldn't feel? If we could never get fully, emotionally invested? If we didn't love our children as much as we do, chances are, a lot of them would end up dead and unappreciated.
I think the point I'm trying to make is, you see the world as being clockwork- we have to keep moving, and getting better technology. I'm trying to tell you (for lack of a better phrase) to slow down and smell the roses. There's a different side to life that you're just not acknowledging.
I'd write more too, but I also have places to be. I read the same articles that you did, plus these:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6849058/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/genders-really-do-think-differently/#.UArI9HDavmd
http://www.livescience.com/3808-men-women-differently.html
Thanks.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Society is filled with it. Today we avoid anything that would show women as inferior at something, even if they are, so it isn't really a stretch to say they would be bmade to go by politicl correctness.
You're missing the point. You said we are both equally intelligent. If that is so, then men also are far more stronger, so they have an xtra trait for usefulness. If they are equal, then have one more extra trait that is needed, then that would imply they have more to offer.?
I have to dissagree. We could of gotten this far in technology without those things, where as we couldn't without the male intelligence, science, math, etc.
I never said emotion was bad, I said it's bad when it overcomes logic.
Life isn't all that different. We work towards progression our whole lives, and so does our species.
(Hurrying this up, so I'll read and reply back to those links in a bit. I have to do barn work)
--
nAt2017
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
An extra trait for usefulness? Sorry I'm bringing Hitler up so much, but he saw things in the same light, only he killed anyone that he didn't see to be useful enough. Not that you're Hitler, I just wanted to draw the connection.
Again, I think the problem is that we're looking for different character traits in people. I'm looking for a sense of loving and overall morality, you're looking for progress.
Yes, we've gotten technology from "male intelligence," but you're missing my point- what I'm saying is that technology isn't everything. We can't judge a person by their degrees of usefulness. There's more to life than moving forward, and if you don't learn to appreciate that, then you'll never have a chance to experience it.
That's exactly what I'm saying- emotion is only bad from a debating viewpoint, and the whole world isn't a debate website.
I have to go back to you using the term "male intelligence." Do we really have to divide up our society that way? The whole world isn't a war between men and women.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
There's a difference, and the example was a bad one. I'm not saying kill the ones that are less useful, that doesn't mean they aren't less useful. You're trying to bring an emotional example in to this. Hitler based what he seen as superior on what people "believe", not their capability.
If both have the same equal intelligence, and men have another trait that is needed just as much, where as women don't, then going by logic, men are superior, becase they share equal intelligence, yet men win in strength, so men have a quality women don't.
There is no connection here. If someone said "This person is better because they ate a green apple over a red apple", then I said "This person is better because they have a better trait", i's the same logic, Hitler had no facts, he based his judgements on biased opinion and their beliefs, not their capability.
I am stating a fact. If both are equal in one area, then only one is better in the other, then the one with two good qualities are superior. The Hitler example was a terrible one, I have to say.
Sense of loving and overal mortality is not important as progression. For example, if we didn't progress as a species, stayed in our primnal states, morality wouldn't be invented, we would be murdering, attacking, hurting eachother all the time, it was progression that made us seek order, which made morality more in line, not emotion.
Technology isn't everyting, it's most of it, though. Technology in today's society is needed to keep it running the way we have it now. Technology is man's greatest acomplishment.
There isn't more to life than moving forward. As an example, I will say homeless people. They aren't able to move forward, and look at their position.
I never said emotion is bad, I said it's bad if it overcomes logic, not that it's bad in general. Emotion only becomes a problem when it ignores logic and reasoning.
Well, it was male ntelligence, so I don't see the problem. yes, we do. Too many times are women getting praised for their efforts in society directly, where as a lot of male intelligence that succeeds the woman's aren't being noticed.
Maybe it wasn't a snap comment? It was me stating the known, that it was male intelligence. I think it's quite irritating when we take intelligence and call it our own, when they don't belong to the same group. Men and women run under the same species, but not the ame group. Just like how people like to mention how there are mor criminals, murderers, rapists than women doing such things, I will mention how their are more greater intelligent men inventions and contribution than women's.
If I am to say "Human intelligence" when it was directly male intelligence, then I am not going to until "Male criminals" become "human criminals".
--
nAt2017
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Like I said, I wasn't implying that you were Hitler, nor was I accusing you of anything- I was drawing a parallel. In this case, I'm not talking about the prosecution of Jews. I was referring to the murdering of people with disabilities because, as Hitler said, they were not "useful."
See, there's the real difference in our opinions. I see life's importance inside a human being, you see life's importance in what the human does outside him or herself. Yes, we had to progress to a certain length to be able to feel morality. I'm not saying that progress isn't important. What I'm saying is that we don't have to constantly be thinking "progress" now that we have progressed as far as we have.
The point I was trying to make was, most men and women I know don't see it as being men vs. women. You're one of the few people I've talked with who thinks that society is one big argument between the two genders. You say that you're not sexist, but the definition of sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex" which is what you're doing. I'm not saying that men cannot be discriminated against, I'm saying that whether you like it or not, you are making startling generalizations. Don't get me wrong, so am I- but at least I admit it. We are all a bit sexist and racist, we can't help it.
Look, if it's all the same to you, I'd like to draw this debate to a close. If you have anything else you'd like to say to me, then feel free to reply. But I feel as though we're simply going in circles, and there are more productive (I am well aware of the irony) things to do. Some debates are not meant to be won; rather, they are meant to be learned from.
I would of replied last night, but my internet was being an asshole.
I don't see women inferior to me by default.
I do treat people how I want to be treated. I respect them (as an opposing debater) and read what they have to say and reply to all of the imortant parts, and if asked to reply to a specific part, I do.
I have to go for a bit, so I'll reply to the second part soon. I had to rush the top part, unfortunatly.