|
| 13 Jul 2015 01:05 AM |
I'm going to bring up a super controversial point and I will probably be accused of "flamebait" and this thread will be deleted.
This is sadly a knee-jerk emotional response. Sit down, tie in your seat belt, and let's think logically for a few seconds here. Like a Vulcan. No emotion, just logic.
Look at the Olympics. The winners of the Olympics tend to be very similar races. The ones who are the fasted sprinters almost always come from Africa, but actually within the same general area. Or, we can look at the sciences, and we can find that most of the most well known scientists are men.
Now, I'm not implying anything here. So don't assume anything. I am just throwing some facts out I will get into more detail in.
So, the Olympics is segregated by men and women. Why? Because everyone knows men and women have different physical builds on average, so it would be unfair to pit men against women and vice versa in purely physical sports.
My question is, if there's clearly a physical difference between men and women on average, then why shouldn't there be a difference in races? Could it be true that some races are simply better fit for sports than others?
But let's take this even further.
What we're talking about here are extremes. The "freaks". The people who play the Olympics or are top scientists are the most abnormal people out there. They're at the far end of the bell-curve. Any slight differences in gender or race would get amplified at this scale.
Sure, if you take a random white guy and a random black guy, they can probably run at roughly the same speed. But let's say there's a slight difference in genetics so the black guy can run, on average, ever so slightly faster, and you amplify this up so you pick only the best of the best of both races to run a race. You should find that the black guys at the end of the bell curve, the best ones, are far better than the better white ones.
And this is exactly what we find in the Olympics. The best people at the sprint are almost always Africans.
But, again, let's take this further.
If races are physically different, and genders are physically different, then can they also both be intellectually different?
Again, by this I mean, if you take the average male and female, they will probably be roughly the same intelligence. But if you take the people at the end of the bell curve, the most intelligent, the "freaks", the geniuses, these people.
If you take them, you would find that there's significantly more of them.
Such as, today, science favors women. There's a huge bias in favor of women to try to get them into science. Many organizations will hire you simply for being a woman, and many colleges will give you full rides for simply being a woman who wants to go into science.
Yet, despite all this, women still make up only 20% of the science.
Sure, much of this may be due to culture. But could we at least lay the possibility on the table, I'm not saying it's true, I don't know if it's true, I have no evidence, but it's possible, that some of that difference may be caused by inherent differences in genders.
Interest in science for women is incredibly tiny, and the more we increase difficulty, from bachelor's to master's to doctor's, the smaller that number gets.
Maybe it's possible that women are just inherently, on average, slightly less good at science, and so when you take the extremes of men and women, both men and women with insanely high IQs, you naturally find that more of them just so happen to be men. They both are equally smart, but there's just more men here.
In fact, if we think about it, this _should_ happen one way or the other. It's incredibly unlikely that men and women are 100% equal in this regard. And even a slight difference, of like 0.001% average intellect, would scale up quite drastically when you take people from the extremes, at the end of the bell curve.
If, let's say, you wanted people with an IQ of 200. If women's average are even 0.001% less than men's, and you took randomly 1,000,000 people with the IQ of 200, chances are, 500010 of those people will be men and 499990 would be women. Even slight changes can add up, and the more people we get, the larger the difference.
Now, I'm not aiming to prove anything here. I just like to post controversial posts to get people thinking about things they haven't thought of before. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
| |
|
| 13 Jul 2015 01:09 AM |
| Another piece of evidence that gender roles aren't all that bad. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| 13 Jul 2015 01:11 AM |
@Minty
Gender roles aren't bad. Forcing them onto people is bad.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with you expecting men not to wear dresses. But if a man wears a dress and you either verbally or physically attack him for it, or socially ostracize him, then it is bad. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
Hearsay
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 22890 |
|
|
| 13 Jul 2015 01:16 AM |
| if you're trying to generalize intelligence based off of gender ratio in stem fields your point is already moot |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
md524997
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Nov 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8243 |
|
|
| 13 Jul 2015 01:17 AM |
| "The Gender Equality Paradox" also discusses about this. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| 13 Jul 2015 01:18 AM |
@Hearsay
I don't think you bothered reading a word of what I said. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| 13 Jul 2015 01:35 AM |
I think this is an interesting topic. You should provide sources for these facts, so people like me can be sure you aren't making them up. Also, (assuming that the fact that only 20% of scientists are women is true,) I don't think it makes sense to say it could be because "woman... on average, might be less good at science" because science is a method, not a skill, even young children (as long as they have a complete understanding of it) can use the scientific method. I suspect women are, on average, just less interested in science then men, either because of "culture" or possibly they think about the world in a different way then men because of slight differences in the brain. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|