you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Men, on average but especially at the extreme highs which is what births civilizations, are vastly more mentally and physically capable.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

lol no, women are just never expected to do that. Plus building civilizations depends mostly on strength and power, especially in older times.

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Civilizations depend on intelligence and strength. Men excel at both. And the rest of it is the thousands of other genetic factors that go into forms of culture that transpire and whether that civilization will find ways to reward the conditions that allow it to survive. Women generally are inferior judges of protecting civilizations and should never have been given a "vote" over anything having to do with national security or prominent cultural inflictions. Feminized societies are more likely to devolve into anti-national, subversive societies that allow "barbarian in the gate". In the instances where tribes conquer other tribes, it's often more women who get to live and persist their lineage while more of the men are slaughtered.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Men do not excel at intelligence. Most are extremely stupid. So are most women, although more mature. All any of them care about, and the way you talk clearly indicates that you are one of them, is this stupid, utterly pointless, and outright evil of game of life. Who can be the most powerful, who can have the most sex, who can torture and slaughter the most people, who can have the most offspring. If you think this is good you are thoroughly brainwashed, because it is hellish.

/s/The_Matrix

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are brainwashed. You keep spouting bullshit fake "equality" narratives.

There are more men who have high IQs than there are women. This rate goes up exponentially the higher in IQ you go.

Hence, for example, almost no women can compete against men in chess. Only 1 woman is in the Top 100 and she's in the 90s ranks. Hence, every higher technological innovation is born from men and it's not because of oppression. Men have the brains capable of seeing metals and minderals in the rocks and then turning them into the computer you're now using, standing on the shoulders of giant brains, and very importantly the compulsion to follow through with those forms of labor to get there.

We may still be living in caves and trees without fire if human-hominoids were exclusively running on female brains.

That's life. I didn't create this world. I report on it.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Considering how few women even attempt things like chess those stats don't surprise me at all. They're not used to using their brains because they're never expected to. They can mooch off a man's labor and achievements and not get any judgement. Even if they have an interest, they're not used to solving problems or working hard to reach a goal, because men have always done it for them. Grown men with extremely overprotective parents have similar tendencies. It's a lack of independence.

The world record IQ was a woman's. I know there are a lot less girls who pursue "hard" subjects, but they cruise through it compared to me and most guys. Nature just gave the male the short end of the stick because it found it convenient to do so to further its evil game of life. /s/The_Matrix

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Marilyn vos Savant has a very high IQ but her "record" is a completely false joke. Only feminists and idiots believed that "record" is the highest.

More women don't "pursue" hard subjects because more more women lack the natural ability to do so.

The same way most women lack the natural ability of strength to do harder feats compared to men.

You might as well argue that short blind people can compete against top basketball players but they don't because they don't want to "pursue" it.

You're probably trolling.

Feminized brains spout your false rhetoric.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You have no evidence that male brains are more intelligent other than because you say so. If the social factors were removed, the known brain differences point to female brains being more intelligent. It makes sense in a pre-civilized world; you don't have to be smart to throw a spear at prey or an enemy, you just need muscle and good coordination. You do need a lot of brains to nurture children and protect them despite lacking physical strength. Our genes are still designed for that kind of world despite not living in it for ages.

I suppose the cause does not normally matter, so in general you're right, there are more smart men. I have personal issues regarding two edge cases where this is not true. My mind was completely destroyed as soon as I hit puberty, but someone exactly like me other than sex did not have this happen, at least not anywhere close to the same extent. Females have a wider range of abilities and perception, males are dedicated to some very specific tasks mainly in the physical domain. And I'm not someone whose only goal is to fulfill my biological role. Obviously that's a combination for disaster.

[–]Yin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're only lying to yourself if you think what I said is wrong. What you're spouting is delusional.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're only lying to yourself if you think what I said is wrong. What you're spouting is delusional.

You aren't wrong, there isnt much difference in average IQ, but the variance in male IQ is much higher, which means as you stated that it is exponentially more likely anyone in stratosphere range would be male.

All this push for females in STEM is utter woke bullshit, but I don't think focusing on gender is really relevant here. Statistically speaking there are bound to be Maria Von Sants, Marie Curies, and Ada Lovelaces occasionally. Why stop someone who is capable from making an academic contribution, geniuses are rare enough as it is without excluding some of them on the basis of something that isnt related to their ability

Remaining completely ambivalent to gender is how you get all the smartest people into a field, and will result in the optimal male dominated environment you want. We want males because they tend to be smarter, not because they are male.

You say we want men because they are more intelligent - implicit in this statement is that intelligence is what you are trying to control for, and gender is a sub-optimal heuristic for it. We can already measure IQ and ability on standardized tests, adding a second parameter of gender just gives you results that are sub-optimal compared to ability alone, when that is the thing you were attempting to control for in the first place