Are females intellectually/cognitively superior to males?

[Mingle]

I'm not making any conclusions myself but I will present whatever evidence I find and let you make a conclusion -

Brain size is irrelevant to intelligence, females have other features in their brains that could make them smarter:


Although men have bigger brain size which is partly explained by their bigger bodies, women have greater cortical thickness, cortical complexity and cortical surface area (controlling for body size) which compensates for smaller brain size.[68] Meta-analysis and studies have found that brain size explains 6–12% of variance among individual intelligence and cortical thickness explains 5%.[69][70]

A 2012 study published in Intelligence by researchers Miguel Burgaleta and Richard Haier dispelled previous claims that bigger brain size indicates greater male g factor than females. They found greater male brain size was instead associated with greater visuospatial abilities but not with g factor or general intelligence.[73] The study also found no sex differences in g factor among the 100 participants.[73]

Females > males in school:


A 2014 meta-analysis of sex differences in scholastic achievement published in the journal of Psychological Bulletin found females outperformed males in teacher-assigned school marks throughout elementary, junior/middle, high school and at both undergraduate and graduate university level.[121] The meta-analysis, done by researchers Daniel Voyer and Susan D. Voyer from the University of New Brunswick, drew from 97 years of 502 effect sizes and 369 samples stemming from the year 1914 to 2011, and found that higher female performance was not affected by publication year and thereby contradicted recent complaints of "boy crisis" in academic achievement.[121] Another 2015 study by researchers Gijsbert Stoet and David C. Geary in Intelligence found that girl's overall education achievement is better in 70 percent of all the 47–75 countries that participated in PISA.[122] The study consisting of 1.5 million 15-year-olds found higher overall female achievement across reading, mathematics, and science literacy and better performance across 70% of participating countries including many with negative gaps in socioeconomic and gender equality, and they fell behind in only 4% of countries.[122] Stoet and Geary concluded that sex differences in educational achievement are not reliably linked to gender equality.[122]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

--------------------

Women with mild cognitive impairment progressed at a faster rate than men did:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352873715000190

--------------------

Cognitive function in the oldest old: women perform better than men:

http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/71/1/29

---------------------

Men are more likely to have cognitive impairment:

http://www.mdedge.com/neurologyreviews/article/73409/alzheimers-cognition/men-are-more-likely-have-mild-cognitive

-----------------------

Women have a smaller amygdala which plays a role in them being less sexual and violent (I guess making women more "self-controlling"):


"Recent brain imaging studies show that a part of the brain that helps produce violence, called the amygdala, is larger in men than in women. Also, the frontal cortex (frontal lobes), which help to regulate impulses coming from the amygdala, is (are) more active in women. Mounting evidence supports the claim that male and female brains are different in many species, including us, partly because of androgenizing (masculinizing) influences of testosterone on the (anterior) hypothalamus, amygdala, and other parts of the brain involved in sex and violence.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/04/16/400075715/is-it-sexist-to-say-that-women-are-superior-to-men

[Mingle]

Women are better surgeons than men:


Even after those adjustments, patients of female surgeons were 4% less likely to die, be readmitted or experience complications 30 days after their surgery compared to patients of male surgeons.

This is not the first time a study has found that a doctor’s gender may influence patient outcomes. In a study earlier this year, other researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health looked at a group of patients seeing general internists and found that those with female doctors tended to have lower death rates and were less likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days than those with male doctors. The authors attribute the favorable patient outcomes to the female doctors’ ability to communicate and engage with their patients to ensure compliance with medications and therapy, their adeptness at collaborating with colleagues and their tendency to adhere to guidelines when treating patients.

http://time.com/4975232/women-surgeon-surgery/

[StarCitizen]

Nope, Men have already been proven to be more intelligent than women. Studies using pre-pubescent boys are not being intellectually honest with their interpretation of the results.

Bigger brains definitely has an effect on intelligence. Men also have more gray matter. But most importantly:

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx

[Mingle]

Also, from the first link I posted (arguing males are smarter):


The possibility of testosterone and other androgens as a cause of sex differences in psychology has been a subject of study. Adult women who were exposed to unusually high levels of androgens in the womb due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia score significantly higher on tests of spatial ability.[110] Many studies find positive correlations between testosterone levels in healthy males and measures of spatial ability.[111] However, the relationship is complex.[112][113]


The ability to apply analytical analysis (as opposed to making intuitive decisions, i.e. System 1 and System 2 thinking) is related to, but different from IQ. On the cognitive reflection test,[115] which consists of "trick questions" where the intuitive answer is wrong, women scored on average 1.03, while men scored 1.47. Bosch-Domènecha and colleagues (2014) further found not only did men outscore women on the CRT, but that greater exposure to prenatal androgens (via a lower 2D:4D ratio) is significantly correlated with a higher score on the cognitive reflection test regardless of sex.[116] Several other studies have replicated these results and have found that men typically score higher than women on the CRT.[117][118][119][120]

[StarCitizen]

Women are better surgeons than men:



http://time.com/4975232/women-surgeon-surgery/

Just by looking at the abstract of that study i can tell its flawed, they compared 774 female surgeons to 2540 male surgeons. And the article even mentions that this is likely the result of comparing the cream of the crop of female surgeons towards the average male surgeon.

[Mingle]

Just by looking at the abstract of that study i can tell its flawed, they compared 774 female surgeons to 2540 male surgeons. And the article even mentions that this is likely the result of comparing the cream of the crop of female surgeons towards the average male surgeon.

There are far more male surgeons so that's why more males were used.

They said that women might be better surgeons because it could be harder for women to become surgeons, not that the women were cherry picked. Although if it were easier for women to become surgeons, then that could affect the rate of surgery success among women. So that is a good point to consider when looking at studies like these.

[Mingle]

Nope, Men have already been proven to be more intelligent than women. Studies using pre-pubescent boys are not being intellectually honest with their interpretation of the results.

Bigger brains definitely has an effect on intelligence. Men also have more gray matter. But most importantly:

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx

Why do pre-pubescent boys get lower scores than girls? Do you have any links regarding scores being compared after puberty?

Men may have more gray matter, but women have thicker cortices.

The IQ differences could be because males have slightly more privilege in society. Whites used to have more privilege over Blacks, but within the past 30 years, Blacks have gained an extra 5 IQ points on Whites (starting at age 4 and then the IQ gap widens after that age). There are also some countries where women equal or surpass men in average IQ: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

[Queen B]

Νο.
Τhere are individuals that are superior to other individuals and that's it .
Of course, there are some traits that each gender has that make them more capable in one sector, and less in another, but not superior in general.

There are far more male surgeons so that's why more males were used.
They said that women might be better surgeons because it could be harder for women to become surgeons, not that the women were cherry picked.
I don't think it is harder for women to become surgeons. It is that most women don't chose to be surgeons.

I read in the past an article regarding women pilots and surgeons and why there aren't many and its not because they aren't capable.
These 2 professions are extremely demanding , with a crazy schedule.
If a woman decides to follow these professions, she will have no personal life ,and she will - most likely - not have a family either .

[Mingle]

Νο.
Τhere are individuals that are superior to other individuals and that's it .
Of course, there are some traits that each gender has that make them more capable in one sector, and less in another, but not superior in general.

This doesn't exclude individuality from the equation. We have already long acknowledged that men are physically superior (even though many individual women are stronger/faster than many men), so we can look at intelligence the same way. Of course the inherent physical disparity between men and women would be far greater than any intellectual disparity, but if it exists then it exists.


I don't think it is harder for women to become surgeons. It is that most women don't chose to be surgeons.

I read in the past an article regarding women pilots and surgeons and why there aren't many and its not because they aren't capable.
These 2 professions are extremely demanding , with a crazy schedule.
If a woman decides to follow these professions, she will have no personal life ,and she will - most likely - not have a family either .

I edited my response above. If it is harder for women to become surgeons, then that could explain the difference. If it is not harder for women to become surgeons, then that could imply women are more likely to be better surgeons based on their femaleness.

[StarCitizen]

There are far more male surgeons so that's why more males were used.

They said that women might be better surgeons because it could be harder for women to become surgeons, not that the women were cherry picked. Although if it were easier for women to become surgeons, then that could affect the rate of surgery success among women. So that is a good point to consider when looking at studies like these.

The point is that it makes no sense to compare such a higher number of men to the lower number of women, it skews the results. If they could not find more female surgeons, then they should have randomly selected the male surgeons at a lower more comparable number and compared them to the female surgeons.

[RN97]

I'll just adress some stuff I know and ignore the rest.
>girls do better than boys in school.
True, but misleading. It's due to women reaching puberty and developing sooner than boys. Basically the differences even out by the age of around 18-20 years old.
>No relation between brain size and intelligence
Likely this is very wrong. Some relation between the two factors certainly exist, but this is indeed controversial because of "muh racism"
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter
>Men are more likely to have cognitive impairment:
100% true. Men tend to not cluster around the average IQ, whilst women do. This means that more men have sub-70 IQ, as well as more men having an IQ above 160 compared to women. Chess is a game that requires a very high IQ and men excel at that game far more than women, it's not even close.

[StarCitizen]

Why do pre-pubescent boys get lower scores than girls? Do you have any links regarding scores being compared after puberty?

Men may have more gray matter, but women have thicker cortices.

The IQ differences could be because males have slightly more privilege in society. Whites used to have more privilege over Blacks, but within the past 30 years, Blacks have gained an extra 5 IQ points on Whites (starting at age 4 and then the IQ gap widens after that age). There are also some countries where women equal or surpass men in average IQ: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201207/men-women-and-iq-setting-the-record-straight

Thats easy, we all know boys develop slower and have puberty later compared to girls, and brain development is said to not be completely finished before age of 25 in boys. So of course comparing the genders in such early ages is misleading, since boys catch up and surpass women in intelligence when they are both done growing.

Men do have more gray matter, you can remove that "may" from your post. And nope, men do not have more IQ due to privilege, its due to biology. Women are in fact more privileged in western society and if you have time and money to do an IQ test you are unlikely to be an individual who is unprivileged to begin with. Regardless im pretty sure they took into account and corrected for socio-economic status when selecting the subjects for the comparison. Btw your new link there also did not take into account that comparing teenage boys with teenage girls is misleading, especially as young as 14 years of age, before many boys have even started puberty.

Men all over the world are more intelligent than women on average, its fact. Deal with it. And btw yeah its true that IQ/intelligence varies by race as well, with Sub saharan africans having the lowest intelligence on average.

[WhiteCuck]

Did women ever start any wars?
Did women enslave POC?
Did women ever keep men down with rape culture?

Clearly men are the inferior gender, I yearn for a world in which men don't exist.
*This doesn't apply to men of colour

[Finnish Swede]

So of course comparing the genders in such early ages is misleading, since boys catch up and surpass women in intelligence when they are both done growing.

In your dreams....

You are still growing long time?
''Done growing'' then you have reached age of 160years old?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Boys are for more likely to be placed in special education classes. I forget the ratio but it's a big difference. But girls are also underrepresented in gifted programs (unless the school thinks it's sexist to do so). The proportion of men on both ends of the Bell Curve is higher than that of women but the proportion of women in the middle of the Bell curve is higher than that of men.

http://www.mwilliams.info/images/gite01.jpg

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Did women ever start any wars?
Did women enslave POC?
Did women ever keep men down with rape culture?

Clearly men are the inferior gender, I yearn for a world in which men don't exist.
*This doesn't apply to men of colour

Women can't start wars, enslave, or rape cuz they have weak girly arms. They always look silly when they throw a ball.

[Magnolia]

It can't be taken like this. Is apple superior to pear?
Men and women are different, nobody can deny it. Traditionally the male's way of thinking is considered as superior. It is visible everywhere - even all test of intelligence are based on "the male's way of thinking" - are women absolutely tragic in IQ tests? - no... Anyway most people are average as it goes for IQ - these debates who is smarter or who is dumper are therefore useless.
I usually see wars "who is smarter/superior/inferior only on internet" - I will not say what I think about people who are into these debates too much...

So I'll make it shorter - men and women are different - their way of thinking is different - for both men and women would be great try to understand to these differences, it could help them a lot in communication.

[Sarmatian]

Comparing male/female brains directly will have no results because their cognitive capacity is essentially same.

Girls performing in education better have nothing to do with neuroscience. Normally girls are more agreeable as seeking social approval from authority. That makes them sit quietly and actually learn what's needed to get higher marks. Boys on the other hand are more rebellious and prefer to find their own ways to learn about the world very often expressing complete disregard towards educational system. At the end it gives them experience necessary to create new things.

However at the end for most of girls their cognitive ability means little. The main purpose of our frontal lobes is taking care of kids. Cognitive functions are mere side effect. Because of that as soon as girls enter reproductive age their hormones switching focus of their frontal lobes from intellectual things to their natural function - finding a partner and nurturing offspring. Science and motherhood aren't working well together. Your brain could only do one thing at the time.

[Magnolia]

I'll just adress some stuff I know and ignore the rest.
>girls do better than boys in school.
True, but misleading. It's due to women reaching puberty and developing sooner than boys. Basically the differences even out by the age of around 18-20 years old.
>No relation between brain size and intelligence
Likely this is very wrong. Some relation between the two factors certainly exist, but this is indeed controversial because of "muh racism"
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter
>Men are more likely to have cognitive impairment:
100% true. Men tend to not cluster around the average IQ, whilst women do. This means that more men have sub-70 IQ, as well as more men having an IQ above 160 compared to women. Chess is a game that requires a very high IQ and men excel at that game far more than women, it's not even close.

eg for that
lol no
Have you ever seen a Gaussian function?
https://blacklabellogic.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/iq-levels.jpg

Majority (68.2%) people are average = it means normal; you have no chance to recognize if a person has IQ 105 or 95; even differences between people who are slightly above average and under average are not significant as it goes for everyday communication, jobs they are able to do, etc.

As for genders yes more men are at the extremes but still majority of men are just average.
http://www.mwilliams.info/images/gite01.jpg
To have IQ above 160 is exceptional for both men and women; you said that like it was a standard.
Btw. women don't enjoy playing chess it is just another male's boring sport....

[Ylla]

...

[Massagetae]

Women are better surgeons than men:



http://time.com/4975232/women-surgeon-surgery/

This I doubt. When you get to that level your competing with the best.

[Finnish Swede]

Science and motherhood aren't working well together. Your brain could only do one thing at the time.


Are you being serious ?

Oh yes he is...as that is true with men :) Men are famous to have one track minds.

[Harkonnen]

Yes.

[Marmara]

I don't know and I don't care. Males and Females aren't rivals but pairs who should support each other.

[Armenian Bishop]

Women are better surgeons than men:

http://time.com/4975232/women-surgeon-surgery/

A woman's hands are for the most part smaller than a man's hands. Their superior fine motor skills might account for the advantage women have achieved as surgeons. The same thing applies to the advantage women enjoy in any sewing craftsmanship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_motor_skill

Fine motor skill (or dexterity) is the coordination of small muscles, in movements—usually involving the synchronization of hands and fingers—with the eyes. The complex levels of manual dexterity that humans exhibit can be attributed to and demonstrated in tasks controlled by the nervous system. Fine motor skills aid in the growth of intelligence and develop continuously throughout the stages of human development.

[Tauromachos]

I don't think they are superior to men.

I think they are basicly the same with men,but women tend to think and perceive different than men
and to approach problems in a different way.

[Sarmatian]

Oh yes he is...as that is true with men :) Men are famous to have one track minds.

Motherhood with men? You Finnish folk are really weird sometimes :p

[Mary]

1) Don't be ridiculous. Women are about as intelligent as small dogs. You can train dogs to do all sorts of tricks, but they're still animals performing a routine. They don't know what they're doing and they don't care.

2) A woman's thinking goes in a straight line and it's very easy to get side tracked and forget what you were doing.

3) For example a woman might start telling a story: "yesterday I went to work and..." then she gets side tracked and starts talking about something like "by the way I saw a TV show..." which has nothing to do with the story, and she might never finish the story because of this.

4) Before you start bitching: most people would perceive me as very intelligent, and I perform better than most men in tasks that require you to sit down and repeat something six times. I'm still retarded compared to an average man.

5) Because while you might have the discipline to sit down and do something six times, you don't have the same intellectual ability as a man. You don't have the same "smarts" you don't really understand anything.

[spik]

No, they’re more emotionally superior so are better in social sciences, etc...

[Aldaris]

There is enough evidence to say, that mean IQ of males and females respectively, is about the same, while the variance from that mean is much higher for men. I could easily provide some sources, but it is not hard to google them anyway.

[TEUTORIGOS]

Women are intellectually inferior philistines :

"The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men...

It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility...

It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.

Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind which is precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective. For this reason, ordinary women have no susceptibility for painting at all: for natura non facet saltum. And Huarte, in his book which has been famous for three hundred years, Examen de ingenios para las scienzias, contends that women do not possess the higher capacities. Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines; and because of the extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to share the position and title of their husbands they are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions. And further, it is because they are philistines that modern society, to which they give the tone and where they have sway, has become corrupted. As regards their position, one should be guided by Napoleon’s maxim, Les femmes n’ont pas de rang; and regarding them in other things, Chamfort says very truly: Elles sont faites pour commercer avec nos faiblesses avec notre folie, mais non avec notre raison. Il existe entre elles et les hommes des sympathies d’épiderme et très-peu de sympathies d’esprit d’âme et de caractère. They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian–Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please." --Arthur Schopenhauer

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/arthur-schopenhauer-4.jpg

[Methuselah]

Not really... But they are more emotionally intelligent, in general. Girls are more mature and ambitious than boys in the school (because of the social pressure etc), not intellectually superior.

[TEUTORIGOS]

I'm not making any conclusions myself but I will present whatever evidence I find and let you make a conclusion -

Brain size is irrelevant to intelligence, females have other features in their brains that could make them smarter:



Females > males in school:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

--------------------

Women with mild cognitive impairment progressed at a faster rate than men did:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352873715000190

--------------------

Cognitive function in the oldest old: women perform better than men:

http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/71/1/29

---------------------

Men are more likely to have cognitive impairment:

http://www.mdedge.com/neurologyreviews/article/73409/alzheimers-cognition/men-are-more-likely-have-mild-cognitive

-----------------------

Women have a smaller amygdala which plays a role in them being less sexual and violent (I guess making women more "self-controlling"):



https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/04/16/400075715/is-it-sexist-to-say-that-women-are-superior-to-men


That is bull crap it says visuospatial intelligence is not related or asymptotic to the g factor while IQ tests like the Raven progressive matrices are the the most pure measures of G. Also, greater visuospatial intelligence translates into males dominating the highest IQ sector of modern academia :STEM.

In academia there are two cultures the literary culture and STEM culture and there is active dislike between the two camps. What is the real dividing line between the two cultures? STEM people know math (visuospatial) while liberal arts lower IQ fools suck at math. Despite schools actively discrimating against boys with Ritalin and shit men still dominate the highest IQ academic subjects because women suck at math and science.

[TEUTORIGOS]

Math is arguably the most important permanent accomplishment of the human race. It is a purely logical international language of size, order and shape (visuospatial) ; it leaves no room for private sentiment of the individual or nation. Everyday human languages e.g. English are far more primitive and clogged with sentiment. There is nothing more permanent invented by man for when the Parthenon is dust math will still be with us.

There are no female Fields medal winners and the greats like Gauss, Newton, Euclid, Descartes, Euler etc... Have all been male.

Math and science are the most important things for the human race to progress and populate other planets. Women suck at math and science even Harvard Dean Larry Summers said women suck at math and science and got fired for being politically incorrect.

Women get more college degrees than men but men get more STEM degrees while women get more bull crap degrees. Quality over quantity.

Men are superior to women physically and mentally.

[Vlatko Vukovic]

All relevant scientists were masculine.. so...

Girls, no offence pls

[Gold-Shekel]

Women are for the most part mentally ill, manipulative, hysterical.

That's why God gave man two hands, so he can German suplex the bitch if she's being unbearable.

[TEUTORIGOS]

All relevant scientists were masculine.. so...

Girls, no offence pls

Famous women scientists like Marie Curie are jokes compared to scientists like Newton and Einstein etc... what is even more pathetic is Marie had help from her husband but liberals grasping at straws try to hype these few rare women scientists up.

[TEUTORIGOS]

All relevant scientists were masculine.. so...

Girls, no offence pls

White and Jewish males dominate the Parthenon of greats but if you include Asian, Indian and Arab men then it is TKO for women :

White Males: Cutting the Rope that Supports You
Posted on June 30, 2011 by Fred Reed

One constantly hears tedious squalling by the affirmative-action classes—chiefly blacks, women, and to a limited extent Hispanics—about evil white males, whom they want to evict from practically everywhere. The crusade is always described as moral. The pattern is to discover that, say, an engineering department consists almost entirely of white European males (WEMs). This is taken by everyone, including those who don’t believe it but want to save their political hides, as prima facie evidence of discrimination.

Head-hunting lawyers pile on. The federal government threatens to cut off contracts. The firm hires whoever is thought to be suffering discrimination, and regards them as an operating cost.

The Chinese, Japanese, and Airbus hire the best available talent. Hmmm….

Now, while bashing WEMs is doubtless orgasmic for the vengeance-deficient, I suggest that it will be disastrous for the country. The bitter truth, obvious to Americans who read history—perhaps three Americans—is that WEMs have been responsible for practically everything that keeps us out of the Third World. Yes, I know. Those in the affirmative-action classes reading this will think I am engaging in obnoxious crowing, racism, male chauvinism, or something involving the word “deconstruction.” No. I am engaging in economic prediction.

Reflect on the sciences and technology, where they arose, and who arose them (I say it’s English, dammit). From sub-Saharan Africa: nothing. Latin America: almost nothing. India, China, Southeast Asia: very little. Women: almost nothing. Science and technology have been, and largely still are, a game of white European males.

Perhaps this will change. Many peoples—Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese among others—have the intelligence to play. Women may flower. India and China rise. Many Asians work in American labs. If one day they equal or surpass WEMs, the world will be a better place for it. To date, however, Japan is the only non-European nation to amount to anything technologically.

The magnitude of the disparity between WEMs and the rest is easy to overlook in a country ignorant both of history and, usually, technology. Go to Peru, Mexico, or the high cold altiplano of Bolivia,. You will find late-model technology well used: cell phones, internet, computers. But all of it came from elsewhere, and from WEMs. It still does.

Consider mathematics, the basis of physics and therefore of chemistry, electronics, and, most importantly in the US, video games. The Greeks invented geometry: real, serious, theoretically aware math. They didn’t discover hyperbolic or ellipitc geometry, which would have to await Lobachevsky and Riemann, but they smelled problems with Euclid’s Fifth.

Males, sort of Greek-Arab-Indian, invented algebra, a monumental achievement but pretty much their last, and Indian males apparently came up with 0, neither obvious nor trivial (try long division in Roman numerals).

After that, it was a WEM racket. Newton and Leibniz more or less simultaneously invented calculus, with different notations but the same idea. Afterwards dozens of scintillating WEMs followed, only a few of them well-known: Galois (group theory), Gauss (practically everything), Fermat (of the famous and mysterious theorem), Laplace, Lagrange, Hamilton, Cantor, Boole, on and on. Without them, there would be no cell phones to cause death on the highways.

Pick your field: Engineering, aerodynamics, abstruse theory for computers (von Neumann, Minsky), even wacko stuff (Rupert Sheldrake). The atomic bomb and nuclear power were all invented by WEMs, largely Jewish. (The staff list at Los Alamos read like a Yeshiva yearbook.)

White European males probably are no smarter than all manner of Indians, Asians, Brazilians. Yet they somehow produce the science. American WEMs are biologically indistinguishable from those in Europe, yet until recently at any rate have produced more in the sciences.

Why? The best answer I can give is “culture.” WEMs, certainly the American variety, have lived (this is changing fast) in a society that has allowed and cherished freedom, merit, adventurousness, merit, independence, merit, and competition. And merit. This sounds like ray-rah senior-civics propaganda, but is actually true.

It shows. The internet is an invention of American WEMs. The transistor, of William Shockley and his group. Microsoft, of Bill Gates. Intel, of Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce. Apple, of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Dell Computer, of Michael Dell. Public-key encryption, of James Ellis, Clifford Cookis, and Malcom Williamson at GCHQ in England and later of Rivest, Shamir, and Adelman of RSA Security. The World Wide Web, of Tim Berners-Lee, a Brit at CERN. Google, of Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Yahoo, of Jerry Yang and David Filo. The list could go on for another yard or so. Can the US afford to discourage such men in the name of low-IQ, eighth-grade, Koom Bah Yah politics?

No. Yet a lot of choleric billingsgate goes into denouncing WEMs and trying, fairly successfully, to root them out of the universities. The public schools are hostile to boys, attend to the dull at the expense of the bright, view high intelligence as pregnant with elitism, and prefer form to substance. Science is said to be inherently racist. This does not augur well for the country’s future. The Chinese, I promise, do not strive for ever greater mediocrity.

I recently read an official of Siemens in America saying that it is hard to find American employees with the technical background to work in his company. In the United States? In like fashion, a woman who teaches in a major department of petro-geology complains that Nigerian—yes, Nigerian—students are better prepared mathematically than American.

This suggests, does it not, that America is living off the ghost of Christmas Past, and will shortly be using goods not just made in China, but designed in China, and then invented in China.

Things stir beyond the frontiers. If we are not to swirl down history’s drain while singing We Shall Overcome, perhaps we should begin again to pay attention to ability. It is one thing, and a good thing, to insist on equality of opportunity. Them as can cut the mustard should have access to mustard. But affirmative action, meaning the hiring of those who would not be hired on their merit, lowers competitiveness in a world that is not going to cut the US any slack. White European males have been far away and gone the world’s most bounteous fountains of the sciences. Maybe we should keep them, even encourage them. The deliberate enstupidation of the schools to favor the unable, to make those who can’t or won’t look as if they could or have, is auto-Kevoirkian governance.

If those who detest white European males can do better, they should. Show me. I am waiting. Meanwhile, let them eat goose who do not like golden eggs.


https://fredoneverything.org/white-males-broads-cut-the-rape-that-supports-them/

[Fractal]

Math is arguably the most important permanent accomplishment of the human race. It is a purely logical international language of size, order and shape (visuospatial) ; it leaves no room for private sentiment of the individual or nation. Everyday human languages e.g. English are far more primitive and clogged with sentiment. There is nothing more permanent invented by man for when the Parthenon is dust math will still be with us.

There are no female Fields medal winners and the greats like Gauss, Newton, Euclid, Descartes, Euler etc... Have all been male.

Math and science are the most important things for the human race to progress and populate other planets. Women suck at math and science even Harvard Dean Larry Summers said women suck at math and science and got fired for being politically incorrect.

Women get more college degrees than men but men get more STEM degrees while women get more bull crap degrees. Quality over quantity.

Men are superior to women physically and mentally.

I suppose females are more emotionally intelligent and mature faster than males

I agree about the STEM fields and male dominance.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c2/c24c6adf0c65e5505b92c892a73f22718c7b39655ce31d4211 edd6986efde77b.jpg

[Vlatko Vukovic]

White and Jewish males dominate the Parthenon of greats but if you include Asian, Indian and Arab men then it is TKO for women :

White Males: Cutting the Rope that Supports You
Posted on June 30, 2011 by Fred Reed

One constantly hears tedious squalling by the affirmative-action classes—chiefly blacks, women, and to a limited extent Hispanics—about evil white males, whom they want to evict from practically everywhere. The crusade is always described as moral. The pattern is to discover that, say, an engineering department consists almost entirely of white European males (WEMs). This is taken by everyone, including those who don’t believe it but want to save their political hides, as prima facie evidence of discrimination.

Head-hunting lawyers pile on. The federal government threatens to cut off contracts. The firm hires whoever is thought to be suffering discrimination, and regards them as an operating cost.

The Chinese, Japanese, and Airbus hire the best available talent. Hmmm….

Now, while bashing WEMs is doubtless orgasmic for the vengeance-deficient, I suggest that it will be disastrous for the country. The bitter truth, obvious to Americans who read history—perhaps three Americans—is that WEMs have been responsible for practically everything that keeps us out of the Third World. Yes, I know. Those in the affirmative-action classes reading this will think I am engaging in obnoxious crowing, racism, male chauvinism, or something involving the word “deconstruction.” No. I am engaging in economic prediction.

Reflect on the sciences and technology, where they arose, and who arose them (I say it’s English, dammit). From sub-Saharan Africa: nothing. Latin America: almost nothing. India, China, Southeast Asia: very little. Women: almost nothing. Science and technology have been, and largely still are, a game of white European males.

Perhaps this will change. Many peoples—Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese among others—have the intelligence to play. Women may flower. India and China rise. Many Asians work in American labs. If one day they equal or surpass WEMs, the world will be a better place for it. To date, however, Japan is the only non-European nation to amount to anything technologically.

The magnitude of the disparity between WEMs and the rest is easy to overlook in a country ignorant both of history and, usually, technology. Go to Peru, Mexico, or the high cold altiplano of Bolivia,. You will find late-model technology well used: cell phones, internet, computers. But all of it came from elsewhere, and from WEMs. It still does.

Consider mathematics, the basis of physics and therefore of chemistry, electronics, and, most importantly in the US, video games. The Greeks invented geometry: real, serious, theoretically aware math. They didn’t discover hyperbolic or ellipitc geometry, which would have to await Lobachevsky and Riemann, but they smelled problems with Euclid’s Fifth.

Males, sort of Greek-Arab-Indian, invented algebra, a monumental achievement but pretty much their last, and Indian males apparently came up with 0, neither obvious nor trivial (try long division in Roman numerals).

After that, it was a WEM racket. Newton and Leibniz more or less simultaneously invented calculus, with different notations but the same idea. Afterwards dozens of scintillating WEMs followed, only a few of them well-known: Galois (group theory), Gauss (practically everything), Fermat (of the famous and mysterious theorem), Laplace, Lagrange, Hamilton, Cantor, Boole, on and on. Without them, there would be no cell phones to cause death on the highways.

Pick your field: Engineering, aerodynamics, abstruse theory for computers (von Neumann, Minsky), even wacko stuff (Rupert Sheldrake). The atomic bomb and nuclear power were all invented by WEMs, largely Jewish. (The staff list at Los Alamos read like a Yeshiva yearbook.)

White European males probably are no smarter than all manner of Indians, Asians, Brazilians. Yet they somehow produce the science. American WEMs are biologically indistinguishable from those in Europe, yet until recently at any rate have produced more in the sciences.

Why? The best answer I can give is “culture.” WEMs, certainly the American variety, have lived (this is changing fast) in a society that has allowed and cherished freedom, merit, adventurousness, merit, independence, merit, and competition. And merit. This sounds like ray-rah senior-civics propaganda, but is actually true.

It shows. The internet is an invention of American WEMs. The transistor, of William Shockley and his group. Microsoft, of Bill Gates. Intel, of Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce. Apple, of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Dell Computer, of Michael Dell. Public-key encryption, of James Ellis, Clifford Cookis, and Malcom Williamson at GCHQ in England and later of Rivest, Shamir, and Adelman of RSA Security. The World Wide Web, of Tim Berners-Lee, a Brit at CERN. Google, of Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Yahoo, of Jerry Yang and David Filo. The list could go on for another yard or so. Can the US afford to discourage such men in the name of low-IQ, eighth-grade, Koom Bah Yah politics?

No. Yet a lot of choleric billingsgate goes into denouncing WEMs and trying, fairly successfully, to root them out of the universities. The public schools are hostile to boys, attend to the dull at the expense of the bright, view high intelligence as pregnant with elitism, and prefer form to substance. Science is said to be inherently racist. This does not augur well for the country’s future. The Chinese, I promise, do not strive for ever greater mediocrity.

I recently read an official of Siemens in America saying that it is hard to find American employees with the technical background to work in his company. In the United States? In like fashion, a woman who teaches in a major department of petro-geology complains that Nigerian—yes, Nigerian—students are better prepared mathematically than American.

This suggests, does it not, that America is living off the ghost of Christmas Past, and will shortly be using goods not just made in China, but designed in China, and then invented in China.

Things stir beyond the frontiers. If we are not to swirl down history’s drain while singing We Shall Overcome, perhaps we should begin again to pay attention to ability. It is one thing, and a good thing, to insist on equality of opportunity. Them as can cut the mustard should have access to mustard. But affirmative action, meaning the hiring of those who would not be hired on their merit, lowers competitiveness in a world that is not going to cut the US any slack. White European males have been far away and gone the world’s most bounteous fountains of the sciences. Maybe we should keep them, even encourage them. The deliberate enstupidation of the schools to favor the unable, to make those who can’t or won’t look as if they could or have, is auto-Kevoirkian governance.

If those who detest white European males can do better, they should. Show me. I am waiting. Meanwhile, let them eat goose who do not like golden eggs.


https://fredoneverything.org/white-males-broads-cut-the-rape-that-supports-them/

Yes, also they even now place a story that Tesla acutally had some significant help from his wife, which is joke.

[Aldaris]

I don't think they are superior to men.

I think they are basicly the same with men,but women tend to think and perceive different than men
and to approach problems in a different way.

Actually, their patterns of thinking are utterly alien for us, due to extremely different evolutionary pressures.

[TEUTORIGOS]

Actually, their patterns of thinking are utterly alien for us, due to extremely different evolutionary pressures.

Being successful with women counter-intuitive to alot of males because of media propaganda that men and women are equal. What this idiotic doctrine has done is serve as rationale for feminizing men and making them less aggressive in defending their freedom and families' freedom making more manipulatable by government buearocrats.

This is how you interact with the inferior alien female mind :

Connect with her emotions

Set yourself apart from other men and connect with a woman’s emotional landscape. Her mind is an alien world that requires deft navigation to reach your rendevous. Frolic in the surf of emotions rather than the arid desert of logic. Be playful. Employ all your senses. Describe in lush detail scenarios to set her heart afire. Give your feelings freedom to roam. ROAM. Yes, that is a good word. You’re not on a linear path with her. You are ROAMING all over, taking her on an adventure. In this world, there is no need to finish thoughts or draw conclusions. There is only need to EXPERIENCE. You’re grabbing her hand and running with her down an infinite, labyrinthine alleyway with no end, laughing and letting your fingers glide on the cobblestone walls along the way.

[spik]

Being successful with women counter-intuitive to alot of males because of media propaganda that men and women are equal. What this idiotic doctrine has done is serve as rationale for feminizing men and making them less aggressive in defending their freedom and families' freedom making more manipulatable by government buearocrats.

This is how you interact with the inferior alien female mind :

Connect with her emotions

Set yourself apart from other men and connect with a woman’s emotional landscape. Her mind is an alien world that requires deft navigation to reach your rendevous. Frolic in the surf of emotions rather than the arid desert of logic. Be playful. Employ all your senses. Describe in lush detail scenarios to set her heart afire. Give your feelings freedom to roam. ROAM. Yes, that is a good word. You’re not on a linear path with her. You are ROAMING all over, taking her on an adventure. In this world, there is no need to finish thoughts or draw conclusions. There is only need to EXPERIENCE. You’re grabbing her hand and running with her down an infinite, labyrinthine alleyway with no end, laughing and letting your fingers glide on the cobblestone walls along the way.

All that for Netflix and chill?

[Bobby Martnen]

There are more incredibly intelligent and incredibly stupid men. (i.e. more men at either extreme of the bell curve)

[Fractal]

All that for Netflix and chill?

This is what I imagine you to be.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LFLM03VqxS4/UJRMcASjjfI/AAAAAAAAAL4/OL8f82Z-E28/s1600/hug%2Ban%2Bengineerday.jpg

[spik]

This is what I imagine you to be.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LFLM03VqxS4/UJRMcASjjfI/AAAAAAAAAL4/OL8f82Z-E28/s1600/hug%2Ban%2Bengineerday.jpg

You’ve got quite an imagination trollboy.

[Zroota]

Females only do better in school because they are generally favoured by teachers. There has always been bias against boys in elementary schools.

Https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/elementary-school-bias-boys_n_2404898.html

Mind you, this is from a really leftist and pro-feminist news website (almost like CNN). So it really means something when they say have an article about sexism towards males.

[mieret]

I think that there's no doubt their brain must be more complex when they have the same performance on average while having a smaller brain, and maybe they even score higher on average
But it's also an universal truth that the higher you go on most outstanding performers' rankings the more ridicilous the men:women ratio gets

[Joso]

Yes, females are more inteligent because they are always more neothenic than men and neotheny is what make someone superior, also they don't have dick, so they can have double the blood in their heads that men have

[Hithaeglir]

Women are better surgeons than men:



http://time.com/4975232/women-surgeon-surgery/

Women in the medical field suffer from underconfidence and perfectionism which leads them to be 100 times more attentive with their surgical techniques and try to perfect everything.I suppose it's also the fact that we are more delicate with our grips.

There's a phrase about that "To be a surgeon you need to have a lion's heart and a lady's hand " :)

[Insuperable]

also they don't have dick, so they can have double the blood in their heads that men have

Bugger in my case.

[mieret]

Yes, females are more inteligent because they are always more neothenic than men and neotheny is what make someone superior, also they don't have dick, so they can have double the blood in their heads that men have

neoteny is what makes someone superior? what do you mean?