Intelligence and wisdom are subjective. If you're going by some measure that isn't subjective (such as IQ or recorded accomplishments) you MUST be COMPLETELY aware of EVERY man and woman that ever lived. Meaning, you absolutely beyond any doubt must KNOW what every single person in the history of the world's IQ and personal life accomplishments are. If you do not have this information (I'm going to assume you don't, as nobody does) then you are drawing your conclusions from incomplete sources of data, and the entire conjecture is moot.
There is absolutely no scientific proof that your rather passionately sexist theories are correct, as such proof cannot be gathered. You assume the role of someone omniscient to all life that has passed on this planet, and... well, I do not believe that you are.
The only thing you are saying is that you utterly fail to adhere to what is provable truth. Go dig up a comprehensive study that uses the scientific method to prove your points, and present it as it is: a theory, if you wish to have any credibility in these claims.
I knew this would come up. "The recorded data has shown that it is a man that is most intelligent, a man that is most wise, and a man that is most strong" What is your counterpoint? "You haven't recorded everyone, therefor your data can't be conclusive".
It's the same logic as "There's more proof to sugest athiests are right, and that the whole God thing isn't true" and then the other person (you in this scenario) replies "Yeah, well you don't know 'all' the answeres of what you're saying is true, therefor, even though you have far more data to support your claim than I do, a mystical being that magically created everything in seven days is just as a reliable conclusion as what you athiests believe".
So, I'm sexist because the wisest, the most intelligent, and the strongest people were male? Oh yes, ofcourse, because avoiding the actual facts simply because they happen to be males isn't sexist at all.
This is what I can't stand about people like you, you want to slander someone as sexist for stating facts, simply because it isn't in the female gender's favour, so therefor it must be sexist.
Did I say "all men are smarter than women"? No, I said that the smartest, wisest and strongest are male. For example, Einstein and Ghandi.
And just for the whole point of entertaining these points.
Shows that so far on the whole recorded who has the top IQ score, there are four men at the top, and then only fifth is a woman on the list.
Am I saying that women are dumb compared to most men? Am I even saying that there are more smart men than women? No, I'm saying that the ones that have shown to be the best so far, are men.
But hey, if you want to avoid these facts and call 'me' sexist when you're the one avoiding the facts and calling me sexist just because the facts show that it is a male that is the most intelligent, wisest, and strongest simply because they're men, then you go right ahead and call 'me' the sexist one. Something tells me that you're poited finger at the wrong person when you claim I'm the sexist.
Newsflash, saying the genders are equal in something when facts prove otherwise, just because it's not in a certain gender's favour is just as sexist as saying one gender is better than the other.
And here are a few things in which males are famous for, if you can find a female that can compare, then I would like to see (That wasn't sarcasm, I would actually like to know)
You state ZERO facts. You don't even seem to comprehend the definition of what a "fact" is.
You keep parroting the same names "Einstein" and "Ghandi" over and over. Can you say without a doubt that Mother Theresa or Marilyn vos Savant were any more or less "wise" and "intelligent"?
Do you even know what an "opinion" is? The word for saying "Men are smarter and more wiser and that's fact" is pretty simple. It's called a L-I-E. You're posing subjective qualifiers as provable fact, which they simply aren't. In a patriarchal society, that throughout history has provided men with different opportunities than women, you have an EXTREMELY flawed data pool to draw from. There is ZERO proof that any woman out there wasn't "more intelligent" or "more wise" than the men of their era.
You ignore fact by pretending you are the ultimate deity of truth, with ZERO backing, save for the jaded interpretation of records of a male-dominated society. Gee, let's stretch our intellects to the extreme here and take a wild guess at what could POSSIBLY be the sort of data recorded?
Newsflash - there is no fact in existence that proves men are smarter than women. You are woefully incapable of grasping the concept of a "fact" in your counter-points.
Now, if you're trying to argue that the what APPEARS to be, what is RECORDED, and what has been DOCUMENTED (by a couple thousand years of overwhelmingly misogynistic and patriarchal societies) is that men SEEM to be "smarter and wiser" then yes, you could very well be correct. It would still be subjective, but you'd have some backing. To say that you KNOW that this is the case is pure delusion. Nobody can prove these things.
Even the notion that you are "sexist" is an OPINION, yet you seem intensely defensive about this. I stated nothing anywhere that claims women are better in any way. In fact, I didn't state that they were equal, either, I just said that men cannot be proven to be "smarter and wiser". Call me sexist for that if you'd like, that's your opinion.
Ah, ok. Then let's focus on the ones "today"...The link I sent you with the highest IQ, all people from "Today's" world.
What is wrong with you, seriously? I'm not saying that "Men are natrually smarter than women" I'm saying the smartest were individal men, not that men are natrually smarter than women. For God sake, I'm sick of you. Sick of everyone that assumes that if a man says "Oh, Einstein is the smartest" then you assume they're saying that men as a gender are natrually smarter than the female gender.
Language development? It states on the IQ link that Kim Ung-Yong learned abour four languges by his third birthday.
Emotional intelligence? Wouldn't leaders come under that category? Pretty sure people such as Hitler must of played on his people's emotions for the whole Nazi party to start.
I know my second link was a blog, but his information was right on what the people had acomplished, which is why I asked you to tell me the names of people that had acomplished something equal to or greater than what the people on the list acomplished, which you haven't...
Once again, am I saying all females are below average male intelligence? No. I'm saying that the ones that have done better than most, happen to be men. If you dissagree, give me some names to say I'm wrong with a description of what they acomplished.
You state a bunch of legitimate examples of men who are accomplished in certain areas but by no means whatsoever do you state anything that supports the fantasy that the ABSOLUTE "smartest and wisest" and so on and so forth are men. Your outrageously intense defensiveness about people being upset by your claims carries plenty of meaning in its own right and I urge you to look at that emotional reaction.
You've also done a complete 180 on what your claim was. In the original post I responded to you said that the smartest and wisest people are men. Now you are saying that of examples you've found, the ones that take the lead are men. These are two rather radically different claims, and if you read one of my above posts you'll see quite clearly that I said there was a difference between the two.
I agree (as stated before) that recorded examples of people's accomplishments throughout history could easily be argued to favor men. Before your flip-flop, you didn't seem to be complacent with this concession, now you're arguing passionately FOR it.
I could list females with accomplishments but it's not the point I'm trying to make. I only ever disagreed with the ludicrous notion that it was "provable fact" that the smartest and wisest people to ever live were men. Thinking that's provable fact is so outlandishly delusional it would (as you predicted) make just about ANYBODY with a decent head and heart feel incensed. If you had said in the original post that from what you've discovered personally, "The ones that have done better than most happen to be men" I wouldn't have disagreed at all, and I don't think you would have even needed to type anything about how that will probably get people upset at you.
Because clearly certain areas that require intelligence is far greater than others. It's like saying someone that made a chair can be compaired to someone that made a car, obviously the person that made the car holds more intelligence.
Believe me, although I do get irritated, my text betrayes the way I am actually feeling. Yes, I get irritated, but not to the extent you're implying. It's understandable that you would think I am getting big emotional outbursts about this due to it being only text which is hard to view feelings from text.
No there isn't, you just read them wrong. Einstein and Ghandi are men, therefor I said "The wisest and smartest are men" Then I go to say individual men later on, hoping you catch on I don't mean men in general. I'm pretty sure I have even explained that I don't think "men in general" are always smarter than women about three times now.
I didn't do a 180, you just didn't understand that when I was saying "men" I meant men such as Ghandi and Einstein, not just your every average joe man.
I would apologize to you if it was a case of me being at fault for not being clear, but I had explained what I meant in depth that I don't mean men as in all men about three times now, so I'm not going to apologize for that, as I don't see it as my fault for you not understanding what I meant.
I'm arguing for it because I don't like your argument of "Well they might not be the smartest, there might be a female person smarter that just hasn't been noticed". Which in all honesty, if that was the case, the female would of been brought to the light already.
I could just turn around and say "Despite of what you said, even though the smartest person was a man, and even though you say there is a woman just as smart or smarter than the smartest person that so happens to be a man, there could be another man out there smarter than the smartest man recorded and the smartest person that is a woman that hasn't been recorded. And by going by that logic, it just continues on and on to the point we would be saying there is someone that is smart enough that has figured out the creation of the universe at age six...
Females have acomplished many things, things alot, or even most men couldn't measure up to.
"The ones that have done better than most happen to be men" That is what I meant from my first comment, and is what I meant when explaining it about three times. Now do you see where I'm coming from? Why I got irritated? You say you would agree with me on it if it's what I meant, when it's exactly what I meant.
I do understand your viewpoint a bit more now, but it did require some clarification from your original posting, not because of my failure to understand what you wrote, but because you provided insufficient information to come to the conclusion that you're up in arms defending now. I'm also curious... if you believe that it was just happenstance that the people you personally feel are "smartest and wisest" are men, why is it even worth mentioning when you concede that men have no advantage over women overall? By the logic you claim to be operating under, it's the same as pointing out that some great leader stubbed his toe the day he made a world-changing decision - it just so happened to be that way. But look at your original posting, and judge for yourself if what you wrote was simply pointing out a purely circumstantial curiosity. (And if it is, why did you think that people would be upset by it, and why did you feel compelled to say anything about it at all?)
As for your links- you linked something about IQ. Perhaps you could have stated that it's "fact" that men, on average, score 3-5 points higher on IQ tests, which examine specific aspects of mental acumen, such as spatial awareness. You would be correct.
That is, of course, completely disregarding the concepts of emotional intelligence, or one's aptitude with language development (women take the lead in these categories). And what of the entire realm of psychology, or consideration for the fact that tests are simply that - tests. It's widely accepted that some people (male OR female) simply do not preform well on tests.
Your second link is a personal blog by some guy who also claims to love twitter, and wrote a children's D&D game. (I think that's really cool, actually) But... it's some dude's blog.
Do you like the sex you were born with?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Intelligence and wisdom are subjective. If you're going by some measure that isn't subjective (such as IQ or recorded accomplishments) you MUST be COMPLETELY aware of EVERY man and woman that ever lived. Meaning, you absolutely beyond any doubt must KNOW what every single person in the history of the world's IQ and personal life accomplishments are. If you do not have this information (I'm going to assume you don't, as nobody does) then you are drawing your conclusions from incomplete sources of data, and the entire conjecture is moot.
There is absolutely no scientific proof that your rather passionately sexist theories are correct, as such proof cannot be gathered. You assume the role of someone omniscient to all life that has passed on this planet, and... well, I do not believe that you are.
The only thing you are saying is that you utterly fail to adhere to what is provable truth. Go dig up a comprehensive study that uses the scientific method to prove your points, and present it as it is: a theory, if you wish to have any credibility in these claims.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I knew this would come up. "The recorded data has shown that it is a man that is most intelligent, a man that is most wise, and a man that is most strong" What is your counterpoint? "You haven't recorded everyone, therefor your data can't be conclusive".
It's the same logic as "There's more proof to sugest athiests are right, and that the whole God thing isn't true" and then the other person (you in this scenario) replies "Yeah, well you don't know 'all' the answeres of what you're saying is true, therefor, even though you have far more data to support your claim than I do, a mystical being that magically created everything in seven days is just as a reliable conclusion as what you athiests believe".
So, I'm sexist because the wisest, the most intelligent, and the strongest people were male? Oh yes, ofcourse, because avoiding the actual facts simply because they happen to be males isn't sexist at all.
This is what I can't stand about people like you, you want to slander someone as sexist for stating facts, simply because it isn't in the female gender's favour, so therefor it must be sexist.
Did I say "all men are smarter than women"? No, I said that the smartest, wisest and strongest are male. For example, Einstein and Ghandi.
And just for the whole point of entertaining these points.
http://palscience.com/science/the-worlds-top-8-smartest-people/
Shows that so far on the whole recorded who has the top IQ score, there are four men at the top, and then only fifth is a woman on the list.
Am I saying that women are dumb compared to most men? Am I even saying that there are more smart men than women? No, I'm saying that the ones that have shown to be the best so far, are men.
But hey, if you want to avoid these facts and call 'me' sexist when you're the one avoiding the facts and calling me sexist just because the facts show that it is a male that is the most intelligent, wisest, and strongest simply because they're men, then you go right ahead and call 'me' the sexist one. Something tells me that you're poited finger at the wrong person when you claim I'm the sexist.
Newsflash, saying the genders are equal in something when facts prove otherwise, just because it's not in a certain gender's favour is just as sexist as saying one gender is better than the other.
And here are a few things in which males are famous for, if you can find a female that can compare, then I would like to see (That wasn't sarcasm, I would actually like to know)
http://www.bengarvey.com/2005/07/16/smartest-person-ever/
--
PumpkinKate
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
PumpkinKate
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
You state ZERO facts. You don't even seem to comprehend the definition of what a "fact" is.
You keep parroting the same names "Einstein" and "Ghandi" over and over. Can you say without a doubt that Mother Theresa or Marilyn vos Savant were any more or less "wise" and "intelligent"?
Do you even know what an "opinion" is? The word for saying "Men are smarter and more wiser and that's fact" is pretty simple. It's called a L-I-E. You're posing subjective qualifiers as provable fact, which they simply aren't. In a patriarchal society, that throughout history has provided men with different opportunities than women, you have an EXTREMELY flawed data pool to draw from. There is ZERO proof that any woman out there wasn't "more intelligent" or "more wise" than the men of their era.
You ignore fact by pretending you are the ultimate deity of truth, with ZERO backing, save for the jaded interpretation of records of a male-dominated society. Gee, let's stretch our intellects to the extreme here and take a wild guess at what could POSSIBLY be the sort of data recorded?
Newsflash - there is no fact in existence that proves men are smarter than women. You are woefully incapable of grasping the concept of a "fact" in your counter-points.
Now, if you're trying to argue that the what APPEARS to be, what is RECORDED, and what has been DOCUMENTED (by a couple thousand years of overwhelmingly misogynistic and patriarchal societies) is that men SEEM to be "smarter and wiser" then yes, you could very well be correct. It would still be subjective, but you'd have some backing. To say that you KNOW that this is the case is pure delusion. Nobody can prove these things.
Even the notion that you are "sexist" is an OPINION, yet you seem intensely defensive about this. I stated nothing anywhere that claims women are better in any way. In fact, I didn't state that they were equal, either, I just said that men cannot be proven to be "smarter and wiser". Call me sexist for that if you'd like, that's your opinion.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ah, ok. Then let's focus on the ones "today"...The link I sent you with the highest IQ, all people from "Today's" world.
What is wrong with you, seriously? I'm not saying that "Men are natrually smarter than women" I'm saying the smartest were individal men, not that men are natrually smarter than women. For God sake, I'm sick of you. Sick of everyone that assumes that if a man says "Oh, Einstein is the smartest" then you assume they're saying that men as a gender are natrually smarter than the female gender.
Language development? It states on the IQ link that Kim Ung-Yong learned abour four languges by his third birthday.
Emotional intelligence? Wouldn't leaders come under that category? Pretty sure people such as Hitler must of played on his people's emotions for the whole Nazi party to start.
I know my second link was a blog, but his information was right on what the people had acomplished, which is why I asked you to tell me the names of people that had acomplished something equal to or greater than what the people on the list acomplished, which you haven't...
Once again, am I saying all females are below average male intelligence? No. I'm saying that the ones that have done better than most, happen to be men. If you dissagree, give me some names to say I'm wrong with a description of what they acomplished.
--
PumpkinKate
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You state a bunch of legitimate examples of men who are accomplished in certain areas but by no means whatsoever do you state anything that supports the fantasy that the ABSOLUTE "smartest and wisest" and so on and so forth are men. Your outrageously intense defensiveness about people being upset by your claims carries plenty of meaning in its own right and I urge you to look at that emotional reaction.
You've also done a complete 180 on what your claim was. In the original post I responded to you said that the smartest and wisest people are men. Now you are saying that of examples you've found, the ones that take the lead are men. These are two rather radically different claims, and if you read one of my above posts you'll see quite clearly that I said there was a difference between the two.
I agree (as stated before) that recorded examples of people's accomplishments throughout history could easily be argued to favor men. Before your flip-flop, you didn't seem to be complacent with this concession, now you're arguing passionately FOR it.
I could list females with accomplishments but it's not the point I'm trying to make. I only ever disagreed with the ludicrous notion that it was "provable fact" that the smartest and wisest people to ever live were men. Thinking that's provable fact is so outlandishly delusional it would (as you predicted) make just about ANYBODY with a decent head and heart feel incensed. If you had said in the original post that from what you've discovered personally, "The ones that have done better than most happen to be men" I wouldn't have disagreed at all, and I don't think you would have even needed to type anything about how that will probably get people upset at you.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Because clearly certain areas that require intelligence is far greater than others. It's like saying someone that made a chair can be compaired to someone that made a car, obviously the person that made the car holds more intelligence.
Believe me, although I do get irritated, my text betrayes the way I am actually feeling. Yes, I get irritated, but not to the extent you're implying. It's understandable that you would think I am getting big emotional outbursts about this due to it being only text which is hard to view feelings from text.
No there isn't, you just read them wrong. Einstein and Ghandi are men, therefor I said "The wisest and smartest are men" Then I go to say individual men later on, hoping you catch on I don't mean men in general. I'm pretty sure I have even explained that I don't think "men in general" are always smarter than women about three times now.
I didn't do a 180, you just didn't understand that when I was saying "men" I meant men such as Ghandi and Einstein, not just your every average joe man.
I would apologize to you if it was a case of me being at fault for not being clear, but I had explained what I meant in depth that I don't mean men as in all men about three times now, so I'm not going to apologize for that, as I don't see it as my fault for you not understanding what I meant.
I'm arguing for it because I don't like your argument of "Well they might not be the smartest, there might be a female person smarter that just hasn't been noticed". Which in all honesty, if that was the case, the female would of been brought to the light already.
I could just turn around and say "Despite of what you said, even though the smartest person was a man, and even though you say there is a woman just as smart or smarter than the smartest person that so happens to be a man, there could be another man out there smarter than the smartest man recorded and the smartest person that is a woman that hasn't been recorded. And by going by that logic, it just continues on and on to the point we would be saying there is someone that is smart enough that has figured out the creation of the universe at age six...
Females have acomplished many things, things alot, or even most men couldn't measure up to.
"The ones that have done better than most happen to be men" That is what I meant from my first comment, and is what I meant when explaining it about three times. Now do you see where I'm coming from? Why I got irritated? You say you would agree with me on it if it's what I meant, when it's exactly what I meant.
--
PumpkinKate
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I do understand your viewpoint a bit more now, but it did require some clarification from your original posting, not because of my failure to understand what you wrote, but because you provided insufficient information to come to the conclusion that you're up in arms defending now. I'm also curious... if you believe that it was just happenstance that the people you personally feel are "smartest and wisest" are men, why is it even worth mentioning when you concede that men have no advantage over women overall? By the logic you claim to be operating under, it's the same as pointing out that some great leader stubbed his toe the day he made a world-changing decision - it just so happened to be that way. But look at your original posting, and judge for yourself if what you wrote was simply pointing out a purely circumstantial curiosity. (And if it is, why did you think that people would be upset by it, and why did you feel compelled to say anything about it at all?)
As for your links- you linked something about IQ. Perhaps you could have stated that it's "fact" that men, on average, score 3-5 points higher on IQ tests, which examine specific aspects of mental acumen, such as spatial awareness. You would be correct.
That is, of course, completely disregarding the concepts of emotional intelligence, or one's aptitude with language development (women take the lead in these categories). And what of the entire realm of psychology, or consideration for the fact that tests are simply that - tests. It's widely accepted that some people (male OR female) simply do not preform well on tests.
Your second link is a personal blog by some guy who also claims to love twitter, and wrote a children's D&D game. (I think that's really cool, actually) But... it's some dude's blog.
Powerful.