Men Rule!

[Gangrell]

Originally posted by IAmThumper: But anyway... Men are smarter than women! HaHa!!

Woohoo! One point for our team!

I don't really care who's smarter than who, I always thought it was women anyway but who seriously cares? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You can't say men or women are smarter anyway, it only depends on that person's capacity to learn.

[ 10-03-2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Gangrell ]

[Link]

The whole debate of 'men are better than women' and vice versa is based upon the fact that every humans (or a group of humans) wants to be known as the 'best' albeit in a relatively small subject. Smarter, stronger, quicker, or even best at a game of racketball. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Zuvio]

Originally posted by Link: The whole debate of 'men are better than women' and vice versa is based upon the fact that every humans (or a group of humans) wants to be known as the 'best' albeit in a relatively small subject. Smarter, stronger, quicker, or even best at a game of racketball. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Agreed! So in the light of the previously said: Reds are better then blondes/brunettes!!!

[IAmThumper]

I'm sorry I shouldn't post just before going to bed especially when I'm teasing people. Zuvio I wasn't using the murder to back up anything. I couldn't sleep so I decided to check out some news articles and happened across the Mercedes murder case and then later on across the men are smarter than women story so I decided to post on IW.
Anyway if we are talking about averages the article didn't say (not that I remember anyway). Personally I think on average women are smarter or at least at most things that are truly important. But I was just teasing people with whole men are smarter thing.
The Y chromosone is shrinking. So? Can any of us truely now what this means. Does it mean that men are getting trimmer? He he he.
About the Mercedes case though don't you find it incredible that a woman committed a horrible act and gets nothing but support from society!? She almost won her case imo and she is rewarded by her actions by the courts being given custody of the daughter of the man she killed!
Anyway got to go! going out for supper! LOL

[Kaltia]

...I'm amazed what some people will believe without questioning.

[IAmThumper]

I too am amazed what people will believe without questioning. I'm annoyed what people will disbelieve out of ignorance (don't want it to be true). If someone wants something to be true they'll find a way to validate it. If they don't want something to be true they'll say "what do they know" and forget all about it.
It takes a brave person to look something in the face he doesn't like and accept it. The real question is is he being brave or naive?

[Zuvio]

The Mercedes Murder may very well be some sort of cover-up by the government. And here is another conspiracy, which includes government-involvement while non is suspected nor warranted: The ChildStar Murder. About the 6-year old beauty queen, who was allegedly sexually abused and then murdered by her parents. For full story check elsewhere, I'm too disgusted to repeat it here. And my main point of anger and frustration is: despite the fact that no evidence what so-ever was presented to prove that the parents murdered that girl, the masses would condemn the parents just because of what they heard on the news. At first they were called suspects, then prime suspects. People started to talk, telling each other a horrified truth of what they believed happened. And before you know it, they were already trialed and executed by the public. To make things worse: Geraldo Riviera had on his talkshow a play, which represented a courtroom in which a jury would speak the verdict of the parents being guilty as charged of the murder of their own daughter, while none of this was even proven!!

Anyway, there was this detective who found lots of small evidence, which didn't do anything but lead the trail AWAY from the parents, and the local police departement and the government simply ignored all that evidence, for no apparent reason whatsoever. They even went as far as to ordering that detective to DESTROY all his evidence, instead of offering it to the grand jury!

[Encard]

Originally posted by IAmThumper: I too am amazed what people will believe without questioning. I'm annoyed what people will disbelieve out of ignorance (don't want it to be true). If someone wants something to be true they'll find a way to validate it. If they don't want something to be true they'll say "what do they know" and forget all about it. It takes a brave person to look something in the face he doesn't like and accept it. The real question is is he being brave or naive?

Indeed.

I'm a tad bit curious as to why people are dismissing this out of hand, and more than a tad bit irritated. I've noticed a number of people saying this isn't true without giving any kind of basis, any counter-arguments or studies with differing results. Maybe this study gave an incorrect result, but so far, unless I've missed one, it's the only actual research-type information given has been by Hierophant. And, after reading it, I don't remember seeing anything relating to IQ in that. So, could one of the people saying it's not true please give something to back up that claim?

Anyways, continuing. IQ is a measure of a person's intelligence (well, more specifically, the comparison of their mental age to their chronological age); in other words, of how smart they are. IQ is not a measure of how a person uses that intelligence. I can't see any basis behind saying that high IQ doesn't have much to do with how smart you are because in some situations other skills are better to train than intelligence, as I believe Gnarf did, or that someone who doesn't put his mind to good use or uses it in immoral ways is not smart. In the first case, I can't see any connection between skill training genetic predisposition toward a higher IQ, and for the latter case to be correct the definition of intelligence would have to changed quite sharply.

So... What is there to be offended about? As Melusine said, if you're smart, then you're smart. Saying that an average person of any group is less likely to have a certain quality, or to have a certain quality strongly, does mean that any given person of that group is somehow lessened. In this case, saying that men generally have a slightly higher IQ than women doesn't mean that all womens' IQs are suddenly going to be lowered. it just means that women with high IQs are slightly more rare than men with high IQs. Now, this may or may not be true, but at the moment I don't see any information on this thread leading me to doubt it.

In any case, cheery-o.

[Dreamer128]

Originally posted by IAmThumper: I just read this A woman runs over her husband multiple times (in her Mercedes), killing him, with her step daughter in the car (begging her not to kill her dad) and then gets custody of said step daughter.

Was it a male judge? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Encard: quote: Originally posted by IAmThumper: I too am amazed what people will believe without questioning. I'm annoyed what people will disbelieve out of ignorance (don't want it to be true). If someone wants something to be true they'll find a way to validate it. If they don't want something to be true they'll say "what do they know" and forget all about it. It takes a brave person to look something in the face he doesn't like and accept it. The real question is is he being brave or naive?

Indeed.

I'm a tad bit curious as to why people are dismissing this out of hand, and more than a tad bit irritated. I've noticed a number of people saying this isn't true without giving any kind of basis, any counter-arguments or studies with differing results. Maybe this study gave an incorrect result, but so far, unless I've missed one, it's the only actual research-type information given has been by Hierophant. And, after reading it, I don't remember seeing anything relating to IQ in that. So, could one of the people saying it's not true please give something to back up that claim?
[/QUOTE]Actually, people are merely being good scientists. Anyone who accepts faithfully a news report of a scientific study uncritically is being rather foolish, and very unscientific. You don't necessarily need counter-evidence to reasonably hold the position that this report of this study will not be taken as factual without more evidence - that's not ignorance, that's science. There is no link in the article to the actual study, as it was written up in a journal, and there are no details whatsoever of the design in the article, so we can make absolutely no claims about its accuracy. In order to do that, we need to know who the participants were, how many there were, when they were tested, how they were tested, how many times they were tested, what they were tested with, what the reliability and validity of the test instrument was, what controls were used, what the actual difference in IQ scores found was, what the significance level was, what the confidence interval for the means for each group was, what the standard error was, what journal was it published in, and so on and so forth. Even in light of all that evidence, a good scientist knows that in order to make a strong case, you need replication. You can't even get a foot in the door of one of the good journals these days without a replication built into your study, let alone someone else doing one in a different study.

Originally posted by Encard: In this case, saying that men generally have a slightly higher IQ than women doesn't mean that all womens' IQs are suddenly going to be lowered. it just means that women with high IQs are slightly more rare than men with high IQs.

Actually it doesn't mean that at all (necessarily). Without knowing the distributions of IQ scores for men and women, we can't make any sort of claim about how many men and women have high and low IQs on the basis of the mean for each group.

Originally posted by Thoran: The total difference in both cases is small enough (a couple points) that it could easily be attributable to experimental error.

Yes, though that depends on what the statistical significance and the standard error were. Even a small difference can be a real difference if the variance within the groups is small enough. Although really, the statistical significance in this type of study isn't the important thing. The study is saying the boys are smarter than girls at some point in their lives - if the difference is small, even if it is statistically significant that doesn't equate to being a meaningful difference. Especially for IQ tests were you can only really give a range of scores your IQ would fall into given the reasonably variable test-retest reliability, a difference of a couple of points between two groups is probably a meaningless, despite statistically sigificant, difference.