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?)
Do you like the sex you were born with?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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?)