| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2005 : 16:06:30
|
I haven't read all the replies, so apologies if this is redundant: i read something about this a long time ago. There's a theory about this and it suggests that women are more important for survival/reproduction of the species - than men. That is, one man can reproduce himself with many women, thus we need more women than men. Thus, evolution allows for more "experiments" with the male sex - for good and bad (or greater intellectual diversity as Erebus wrote, allthough i'm not sure if he meant the same). It doesn't matter if we loose some along the way. So, you will find more men with extreme IQ scores, and definitely more dumb ones. Our species can't afford to "fuck around" with women, so they tend to be more normal (also in terms of genetic diseases - the theory claims - but this is a complex issue filled with fraudulant claims about the genetic basis for disorders/diseases backed by companies selling you cures - big pharma. Really.).
There's another point i'd like to make regarding the use of IQ tests. They are not designed to pick out the smartest people. They are designed to give clues about what areas of thinking this or that person has difficulties with. It may be usefull to have this in mind when discussing IQ/tests.
Furthermore, Eysenck, who was a firm believer in the genetic basis of intelligence, and accused of racism as he interpreted differences in intelligence between differenr races/cultures as proof of this, made a turnaround after intelligence in south africa increased with 15 points in a 10-year period (if i remember this correctly.). He concluded that he either had been wrong, or that IQ-tests were inadequate as a measurement tool.
A final point; where I live - girls are outdoing boys in school. This is also being the trend at the universities, where the studies that require the best grades are dominated by female students (law, medicine, psychology). Some say this is because boys need more physical activities and can't absorb information in the current school system - it is too academic too early. It would be intersting to see if this would show up in IQ averages in 10 years time. |
Edited by - ivandivel on 08/30/2005 16:10:04 |
 |
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2005 : 16:17:34
|
| The first paragraph of ivan's reply is a group selectionist argument. It has been shown being pretty definitively that group selectionist arguments don't work. Evolution doesn't select upon the basis of the species (i.e. what's good for the species). It selects upon what is good for the individual. Selection would wipe away the occurence of dumb guys if dumb guys in fact reproduce less than smart guys. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2005 : 02:59:14
|
Ok, I'm not sure if I understand your point. I think the main hypothesis in the theory was that there is greater variability in the ways inheritence/genes are expressed in the male sex than in the female sex, and I believe it was presented as a fact (f.x IQ scores differ more among men than women - it was claimed). Thus selection would not wipe away dumb guys, because smart people may still get dumb boys. Maybe the theory behind it is wrong, but it was an attempt to explain some puzzling trends in research.
Your final point sounds dubious. First - you only need to be smart enough to reproduce yourself, and the fact is that most people have been doing that for quite some time now. Second, intelligence as measured by IQ tests may or may not measure the skills necessary for adaption and reproduction. For instance, it doesn't measure aggressive problem solving, which the US has been using with great success the last 50 years. Neither is it a good indicator of the persons social skills, which plays an important role in reproduction. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2005 : 09:12:41
|
There might be selection for a mechanism that produces more variation in intelligence, but it wouldn't be for the 'good of the species' or because the species needs females more than males. By your argument why wouldn't smart females be selected over dumb females?
And on the final point. I did say, "Selection would wipe away the occurence of dumb guys if dumb guys in fact reproduce less than smart guys." I didn't say I believe dumb guys reproduce less. |
Edited by - darwin on 08/31/2005 09:24:23 |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2005 : 10:27:51
|
Interesting. Think about the introduction of the birth control pill though. And the fact that there are more and more women in the workforce. Women now have the means to "test drive" a few men before they settle down with the one they choose. Instead of getting knocked up with the first guy they sleep with.
__________
Don't believe the hype. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2005 : 12:15:45
|
furthermore, on the nature/nurture side, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to raise children well and fill them with self esteem which may not boost intelligence, but is so important for success in their endeavors.
__________
Don't believe the hype. |
|
|
|
ivandivel
= Cult of Ray =
394 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 13:30:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
There might be selection for a mechanism that produces more variation in intelligence, but it wouldn't be for the 'good of the species' or because the species needs females more than males. By your argument why wouldn't smart females be selected over dumb females?
And on the final point. I did say, "Selection would wipe away the occurence of dumb guys if dumb guys in fact reproduce less than smart guys." I didn't say I believe dumb guys reproduce less.
I now see that i completly misunderstood your final statement. Sorry about that.
And, to make it absolutely clear: if i indicated or talked about selection, it was a mistake. The point was about how the allready "selected" genes were "expressed" (if that is the right word). So i still think that the hypothesis about greater variability could explain some gender differences, if there are any. Of course, if one is concerned about how this fits in with theories on evolution, one must assume that this "variability" is a selection mechanism. But not all mechanisms that once were usefull are usefull today. And so on.
Why aren't smart females selected over dumb? Maybe they are smarter. I certainly would not regard IQ as a representative measurement of human skills. It gives a good indication on certain (important) skills, but intelligence, who by one was defined as adaptive skills, is lots more.
|
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 16:16:32
|
quote:
This thread reminds me of the lingerie thread.
Well, when women have nice lingerie, they don't NEED intelligence!
This incredibly sexist post has been brought to you by the Jesus Christ Church of Chauvinist Pigs.
I was all out of luck, like a duck that died. I was all out of juice, like a moose denied. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Intelligence - Men vs. Women
