|
Post by marysunshine on Jul 27, 2005 10:10:05 GMT 10
I think practically everyone in this thread uses themselves as a yardstick for how they think every other person should behave. It rather changes the dynamics of an argument when it goes from general differences between man and woman to being about the specfic individual.
Once again it's all about validating your own choices. Kind of a disappointing conclusion to such a thread.
|
|
|
Post by tqisfoo on Jul 27, 2005 11:05:27 GMT 10
I think practically everyone in this thread uses themselves as a yardstick for how they think every other person should behave. Well it's kinda one of the unavoidable side-effects of being human. Everybody does that to some degree or another.
|
|
Meg
New Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Meg on Jul 27, 2005 11:30:52 GMT 10
Apart from writing which is basically a form of communication, where women excel, men have the ability to think in abstract terms more so than women. Spatial conceptualisation I believe is the term. List one or more of the areas where clearly men are superior. I think a lot of confusion has come about with the way the topic has been worded. The title asks us 'why are men more creative?' That assumes that men are more creative overall, even though Sirius concedes women excell in writing. But then we are asked to list one or more areas where men are superior. Most of us have been addressing the first part of the question. Overall you would have to take into account all areas of creativity and not just those that have achieved public recognition. Sirus has told us that men excel with activities that require spatial ability and are more likely to be geniuses. But that still doesn't mean that OVERALL men are more creative and isn't that what the question assumes?
|
|
|
Post by sirius on Jul 27, 2005 14:43:49 GMT 10
All such questions are necessarily vague as they lack background. I am compliling data for a subject on the number of male geniuses compared to females. As I didn't want to use the word genius, I simplified it, but my creativity was only directed at the big achievers in history. I have 301 such geniuses and their IQ levels and I will paste a few as the site allows a dozen or so at a given time. Here we go.
|
|
|
Post by sirius on Jul 27, 2005 14:57:57 GMT 10
Too tall an order isn't it. So if the woman gave it all up, how would she cope? If I truly loved her and trusted the fact that I was not after her money/success and I knew she loved me I would marry her despite her money/success. I would not ask her to give up a thing. Actually my beloveds PARENTS are very wealthy. A thing that I agonised over. In the end they found me acceptable and now dote on me. They are humble people of Slovak origins that made good in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by sirius on Jul 27, 2005 15:31:19 GMT 10
Cervantes Lavoisier Jenner Copernicus DeFoe Lincoln Faraday Fielding Linnaeus Raphael Harvey Locke Rembrandt Ben Johnson Swift Luther Haydn Madison Goldsmith Bach LaFontaine
........................................................................................ Here are a few that fit the mold my mind was in at the time.
|
|
|
Post by holly on Jul 27, 2005 17:11:08 GMT 10
Oh Valka you are still the cattle prod I see. Hummmmmmph.
|
|
Meg
New Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Meg on Jul 27, 2005 17:55:29 GMT 10
IQQQ All such questions are necessarily vague as they lack background. I am compliling data for a subject on the number of male geniuses compared to females. As I didn't want to use the word genius, I simplified it, but my creativity was only directed at the big achievers in history. I have 301 such geniuses and their IQ levels and I will paste a few as the site allows a dozen or so at a given time. Here we go. Genius and creativity aren't the same. You can be creative without being a genius. You can be a genius without being particularly creative. (I say particularly because all humans are creative to some degree). How would you know a person's IQ without them doing an IQ test? It would only be a guess, wouldn't it? I imagine you would have to do a comparison with living humans who share the same level of achievement or understanding of the subject. Art would be extremely difficult as it is subjective. And how would a historical comparison between female and male geniuses have any validity? Very few female geniuses would have had any opportunity to use it in a way that leads to any achievement that is publicly recognised. Achievement is also linked to other qualities too. Genius on it's own is no good. Mensa, by it's own admission, has members of genius IQ that have achieved very little. Charles Darwin, according to one source I read, has been estimated to score just above average in a IQ test if he had been tested. Sometimes people are referred to as creative geniuses. Does this mean they would score a genius level IQ? Or does it mean they would score an average IQ and a high score for creativity, if there were such a test. Lots of variables. What are you trying to demonstrate, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by ifyouseekay on Jul 27, 2005 17:57:25 GMT 10
All such questions are necessarily vague as they lack background. I am compliling data for a subject on the number of male geniuses compared to females. As I didn't want to use the word genius, I simplified it, but my creativity was only directed at the big achievers in history. I have 301 such geniuses and their IQ levels and I will paste a few as the site allows a dozen or so at a given time. Here we go. boring! ;D
|
|
|
Post by dhm on Jul 27, 2005 18:27:20 GMT 10
IQQQ All such questions are necessarily vague as they lack background. I am compliling data for a subject on the number of male geniuses compared to females. As I didn't want to use the word genius, I simplified it, but my creativity was only directed at the big achievers in history. I have 301 such geniuses and their IQ levels and I will paste a few as the site allows a dozen or so at a given time. Here we go. Genius and creativity aren't the same. You can be creative without being a genius. You can be a genius without being particularly creative. (I say particularly because all humans are creative to some degree). How would you know a person's IQ without them doing an IQ test? It would only be a guess, wouldn't it? I imagine you would have to do a comparison with living humans who share the same level of achievement or understanding of the subject. Art would be extremely difficult as it is subjective. And how would a historical comparison between female and male geniuses have any validity? Very few female geniuses would have had any opportunity to use it in a way that leads to any achievement that is publicly recognised. Achievement is also linked to other qualities too. Genius on it's own is no good. Mensa, by it's own admission, has members of genius IQ that have achieved very little. Charles Darwin, according to one source I read, has been estimated to score just above average in a IQ test if he had been tested. Sometimes people are referred to as creative geniuses. Does this mean they would score a genius level IQ? Or does it mean they would score an average IQ and a high score for creativity, if there were such a test. Lots of variables. What are you trying to demonstrate, exactly? All excellent points Meg . Sirus what about the fact that many high acheivers are not superior in IQ while others are superior but fail to act on it? You are right that men are generally better spatially than women but ancedotal evidence (or historical figureheads) aside there are not significant differences in IQ across gender. Sorry. Different indivduals have different strengths though.
|
|
|
Post by marysunshine on Jul 27, 2005 18:27:33 GMT 10
I'm also very suspicious of I.Q. tests. Let's face it when we nominate achievers either in context of historical or recent times and we examine any subjective field - art and literature for example, it's more often than not a Western or Eastern standard. There is a worrying lack of 'primitive' cultural examples. That's always been a flaw in I.Q. tests and I'm still not convinced the numbers games and spatial questions eliminate a kind of ethnocentricity. Are 'we' more intelligent because we are more advantaged and have a certain education as a background? How many genius lists are we going to compile with African tribe members as a potential genius?
That being said I enjoy any list of creativity that gives the arts their due instead of the sciences alone.
|
|
|
Post by sirius on Jul 27, 2005 20:55:02 GMT 10
Goethe (Gerta) had a Flynn adjusted IQ of 202.
I have the data you don't.
Frankly I have had enough of all your puerile defenses.
If only you knew how dumb you all are.
Goodbye.
|
|
Meg
New Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Meg on Jul 27, 2005 21:46:24 GMT 10
Goethe (Gerta) had a Flynn adjusted IQ of 202. I have the data you don't. Frankly I have had enough of all your puerile defenses. If only you knew how dumb you all are. Goodbye. ;D Awwwwwww are you upset, Sirius? Didn't we bow down before the great Sirius like we're supposed to? But you are right, we are dumb. We're dumb because we put up with your patronising shit for so long. Of course, if our arguments had no validity you could have stayed around to give us the benefit of your wisdom. Now we'll just have to assume you left because you had no counter-arguments. Running away is one way of winning the argument, I suppose. Puerile, if you ask me. Make sure you don't come back this time. Y'hear?
|
|
|
Post by marysunshine on Jul 27, 2005 22:09:33 GMT 10
I wouldn't take it personally, Meg. I (for example) have always known I have a decent level of intelligence and education, thanks to God, good genes and an education system in a couple of fairly wealthy countries. No one could ever convince me I'm dumb. Actually I think sirius just would have like us to come up with a simple little list of geniuses and the thread went all over the place - though I found it curious. Of course it's more likely he's moved on and needed a nice little dramatic 'closure' to the board.
|
|
Meg
New Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Meg on Jul 27, 2005 22:23:59 GMT 10
That makes a lot of sense, Mary. The thread would have had more structure if Sirius had worded his question clearly. As it was, we didn't know where he was trying to lead us. If he just wanted a list of male geniuses we could have given to him. If only he hadn't called it "Why are men more creative?'. It's that what led the discussion astray. What I find perplexing is that historical and social evidence were rejected in favour of the specialised/whole brain theory. But then we find out that he's using historical figures in a female/male comparison on geniuses. I wish he'd make up his mind.
|
|