This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

14
15

Pro-Patriarchy (socialmatter.net)

[deleted] が 投稿

全 37 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Atavisionary 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (36子コメント)

Women aren't as smart as men on average, and among the smartest there are much fewer women than men. However, that doesn't mean the rare female capable of leadership won't appear. Statistically they will, just at a greatly reduced rate.

I don't believe in universal suffrage. I definitely don't believe in female suffrage. IF rebulicanism was to work at all, it would have to be severely limited to only a relatively informed minority of the population. Even then, evidence suggests limited suffrage always expands to universal. If this is a rule rather than a particular result, then republics could never work whatsoever. Under the hypothetical where limited suffrage actually worked effectively, I would have no problem with a given woman running for office. I wouldn't let her or any other woman vote, but they could run and rule if they were worthy. A small minority probably would be effective rulers.

[–]The_Def_Of_Is_Is 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (19子コメント)

I'm pretty cynical, so I definitely sympathize with the bashing of universal suffrage. However, I'm curious, if you admit exceptional females exist, wouldn't it be better to exclude the unsatisfactory of both genders instead of a literal Patriarchy?

[–]Atavisionary 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (18子コメント)

No, women are too socialist. Even the smart ones. They don't build or earn much themselves, even the smart ones, so they don't have any problem redistributing wealth produced by men.

[–]Kill_Your_Ego 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Women also show an in group preference. Women will support other women simply because of a tribal feeling of gender. Men do not do this. Men show an out group preference for attractive women. This is the natural state of humans.

[–]The_Def_Of_Is_Is -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (16子コメント)

I'm not buying it. There will always be outliers at such a large scale. Wouldn't a meritocratic system be superior to any that relies on heuristics?

[–]Me-Ne-Frego 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Why bother with trying to find the anomalous one woman in a million just to let them vote?

[–]un_passant -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Women aren't as smart as men on average, and among the smartest there are much fewer women than men.

I would require a citation for «Women aren't as smart as men on average». My understanding was that the difference was not so much in average as in spread. Women have more average IQ, there are more men with both very high and very low IQ.

[–]Atavisionary 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Lazy huh? You could always try doing a simple google search. You are in luck because I have a post on this.

http://atavisionary.com/how-standardized-testing-undervalues-men/

[–]un_passant -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Indeed, I've been lazy. Wikipedia to the rescue, shows that there indeed is a sex difference in average IQ, but a very small one (less than 4 or 5 pt, with a std dev of 15…).

Wrt variance, I was right : «Males tend to show greater variability on many traits including tests of cognitive abilities,[33][34] though this may differ between countries.[35][36][37] A 2005 study by Ian Deary, Paul Irwing, Geoff Der, and Timothy Bates, focusing on the ASVAB showed a significantly higher variance in male scores, resulting in more than twice as many men as women scoring in the top 2%. The study also found a very small (d' ≈ 0.07, less than 7%, of a standard deviation) average male advantage in g.[17] A 2006 study by Rosalind Arden and Robert Plomin focused on children aged 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 and stated that there was greater variance "among boys at every age except age two despite the girls’ mean advantage from ages two to seven. »

[–]Atavisionary 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wikipedia should not be trusted on anything that is near and dear to progressives. It is a place of cultural marxist villainy.

I am all very, very aware of cognitive differences between the sexes. In my post I took the trouble to research the problems with the very small average difference finding. Please read it, the difference is almost certainly larger than what tests specifically and consciously designed to minimize sex differences show.

If you wait a short time, my book which goes into much, much greater detail on this topic and has over 300 citations will be available. Sometime before the end of the year.

[–]un_passant -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Yay downvoters, how about educating yourself on a topic before (down)voting ? If you are feeling lazy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence will show I'm right.

[–][deleted] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Bahahaa! You are such a typical liberal without a shred of science or common sense to stand on.

Your wikipedia link proves nothing but your own laziness and serves as a feeble defense for the idea that men and women are "equal" mentally. We all know who edits wikipedia and hilariously, even that extensively edited entry STILL admits that women have lower intelligence than men even though men are significantly more likely to be born with a brain defect (autism, etc) and more likely to use drugs/alcohol. Its so impossible for you to debate our position that not even the most mainstream "open source" liberal site can manage to finagle the data enough to change the hard fact that men are smarter than women and that there are significant differences in the brains of each gender.

If you had learned a single thing by hanging out on the sub, it would be that we are all about HBD, and differences in gender happen to be a significant component of that.

To demonstrate how hopeless your argument is, I took the 3 seconds required to do a Google search and among the very first articles to appear was this Guardian piece. This goes to such great lengths to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion that women are less intelligent than men on average, but still delivers the undeniable truth:

"men's brains are, on average, between 10 and 15 per cent larger than women's."

"Male brains tend to have a slightly higher proportion of white matter, whereas those of females have a higher proportion of grey matter"

"The hippocampus, a structure involved in memory formation, is on average larger in men than in women, as is the amygdala, which is also involved in memory, as well as emotions."

This can't POSSIBLY mean there is a difference in intelligence!! IMPOSSIBLE that organs would have functions that can be measured and predicted based on comparison!!

http://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2013/oct/06/male-brain-versus-female-brain

[–]Atavisionary 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't forget the several links to peer-reviewed studies on the sidebar about gender differences.

[–]un_passant -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

We all know who edits wikipedia and hilariously, even that extensively edited entry STILL admits that women have lower intelligence than men

Do you claim that the wikipedia editors made up the papers that they cite ? Otherwise, your ad hominen is useless. As for women having lower intelligence than men, you need to catch up with current research .

"men's brains are, on average, between 10 and 15 per cent larger than women's."

You cannot refute evidence on direct measure of intelligence with circumstantial evidence (on brain size). This is basic logic, sorry.

[–][deleted] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Do you know what ad hominem means? Please look it up right now before you repeat this error.

Also interesting how blatantly you comment without reading the work people are discussing. In your history you have several comments that appear minutes after the original post. You're not even attempting to fake like you care enough to read what we are talking about.

I have a feeling that you have not even seriously read a single NRx writer and that you just go around egotistically commenting this typical liberal intellectual junk-food, then linking wikipedia entries that nobody cares about.

Unreal.

Maybe you could give one of these articles a try one day. Many of the writers are quite good and entertaining even if you don't agree with all there heretical ideas you can't discuss with other pseudo-intellectuals you have lattes with at your nearest racially conscious starbucks location.

[–]un_passant -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Do you know what ad hominem means? Please look it up right now before you repeat this error.

It means attacking the author of a statement (i.e. wikipedia editors) instead of the statement itself (i.e. what is written in the wikipedia entry).

I have a feeling that you have not even seriously read a single NRx writer

Or dismissing a poster (for not having read enough NRx writers) instead of his posts ;).

Maybe you could give one of these articles a try one day.

I've read some Moldbug and though about debunking some fallacies, but I'm lazy and knew nobody would dare to understand.

[–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody would dare to understand what, a lazy commenter who links to wikipedia and has an egotistical, arrogant tone? No, I guess nobody would dare (or care) to understand such a contemptuous person.

"I've read some Moldbug" DOUBT IT. You certainly did not read 99% of the things I've seen you comment on. Many of your comments have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, you are just needling other commenters in a kind of half-assed way.

It is really great to have you around. Someone could invent you as a bot, your comments are so predictably mediocre. Right now you're still defending a wikipedia article that doesn't even support your point. It is so bizarre to watch this.

[–][deleted] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Oh, and regarding your earlier erroneous comment "You cannot refute evidence on direct measure of intelligence with circumstantial evidence (on brain size). This is basic logic, sorry."

I forgot I was dealing with an uneducated individual. If you had done even the smallest inkling of research you would know that brain size is directly correlated to intelligence and the link is well documented, as smarter people undeniably have larger brains.

https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter

[–]un_passant -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Causality and correlation, you have them confused. Men have larger brains. Men used to have larger IQ (but the gap is closing [0]) so obviously you have (had) a correlation between size and IQ ! I expect the correlation to vanish with the closing of the IQ gap.

Basic Logic strikes again ! ☺

[0] http://openpsych.net/forum/attachment.php?aid=341

[–]Atavisionary 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Men have 10-15% larger brain volume, they have 10-15% greater neuronal density, and they have greater synaptic densities averaging about 33% greater synapse density but in certain areas it ranges up to 50% greater.

That you can honestly sit here and entertain the idea that a larger brain doesn't make a smarter brain is insane. You must be completely delusional. By your logic rats should score just as well as humans. Keep living in fantasy land.

Even the data from your study shows a slight male mean advantage at younger ages and shows older males doing better. 2-5 point IQ advantage for males in this data. He also found a larger deficit with adults, which is consistent with the fact that the male brain grows for a longer time into adulthood.

The only difference between this and any other study is the progressive political beliefs of the author. His data is fairly consistent with what has been previously found, it is just his interpretations that suck. Even if it was the data that disagreed with other findings, this one study wouldn't overturn everything they know about gender and intelligence.

To be fair, though I do think that sex mean differences do have an impact, I agree that they are less important than variance differences.

citations Allen J. S., Damasio H., Grabowski T. J., Bruss J., Zhang W. (2003) Sexual dimorphism and asymmetries in the gray-white composition of the human cerebrum. Neuroimage. 18(4):880–894.

Rabinowicz, T., Petetot, J. M., Gartside, P. S., Sheyn, D., Sheyn, T., De C., Gabrielle, M. (2002) Structure of the Cerebral Cortex in Men and Women. Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology: January 2002 - Volume 61 - Issue 1 - p 46–57

Packenberg, B., Gundersen, H. J. G. (1997). Neocortical neuron number in humans: Effect of sex and age. The Journal of comparative Neurobiology, 384, 312–320.

Alonso-Nanclares, L., Gonzalez-Soriano, J., Rodriguez, J.R., DeFelipe, J. (2008) Gender differences in human cortical synaptic density. PNAS. September 23, 2008 vol. 105 no. 38

[–][deleted] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haha. No confusion at all. Men are born (on average) with larger brains and more mental capability. They continue to have larger brains and higher mental ability their entire lives, which is the major reason why men have so many more scientific and intellectual achievements.

Result of this is that so few female scientists/intellectuals emerge that the few who manage to be marginally successful end up being notable. This trend has existed all through history. Leftists (like you) who try to explain this away end up claiming Beauvoir was a "female philosopher" and exaggerating all these pathetic characters or marginally successful people in order to justify the fact that all of human history and science stands against you. And BTW, Beauvoir was a joke who is only known because she screwed Camus. If she hadn't managed to put up with him, you would never have heard her name.

After looking over your comments and observing your hopeless defense of a lost cause, I'm beginning to wonder if you're projecting here and you actually deeply doubt your leftist-liberal- atheist worldview and the only reason you visit here is to demonstrate your holiness to yourself by dishing out a few halfhearted comments o.O!

You do not understand biology, but you enjoy arrogantly posing as if you do.