Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is genius almost exclusively male? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    I have always wondered this as well.

    On average women are more intelligent than men, they perform better in Sciences, Maths/Education in general they even come out on top in the highly unreliable IQ tests.

    But the giants of fields, the Mensa Elite, the current leading Physicist, Biologists, Mathematicians, Engineers are all(or hugely overwhelmingly) men.
    Let's be realistic, Mensa membership is a far better indicator for vanity and arguably gullibility than intelligence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    If you had even a modicum of deductive reasoning ability, you'd see that your claim clearly implies that those founders were favoured substantially because they had a penis.

    And it's been 'proven'? Let's see the proof then. Specifically in the area of startup technology firms, please. Show us that you're not just flailing wildly and coming up with smoke out of your ass.
    Again, you seem to be missing the blatant sarcasm in what I said. It wasn't meant as an all-encompassing answer, frankly because I find the initial premise of the thread to be ridiculous. Don't question my deductive reasoning if you're going to pick and choose which parts of my response to acknowledge.
    Naturally, I just happened to keep all of the statistics and experience I've accumulated over the years and put it into this handy folder, but...:eek: oh no! The folder's gone! Well, if I can't immediately produce irrefutable evidence of corporate sexism and a system of patriarchy across history which has kept women down, I just don't where to turn.

    I mean, there is the title of this actual thread :rolleyes:
    and the other threads like it.
    And the fact that this is even a conversation.

    Oh, and by the way: "If you had even a modicum of deductive reasoning ability". Don't be pathetic. If you have a point to make, make it but don't degrade the conversation by trying to insult someone you don't know in the slightest. I'm not interested in you or in spending time finding delightful ways of insulting your intelligence. If you have actual arguments, go ahead and make them and I'll have that conversation but patting yourself on the back and trying to make yourself feel intellectually superior on an online forum only makes you look bitter and arrogant. I'm not interested in aiding that process.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Hmmmm...that is something to think about....
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    I have always wondered this as well.

    On average women are more intelligent than men, they perform better in Sciences, Maths/Education in general they even come out on top in the highly unreliable IQ tests.

    But the giants of fields, the Mensa Elite, the current leading Physicist, Biologists, Mathematicians, Engineers are all(or hugely overwhelmingly) men.
    There's no real mystery here, pretty much every psychological study shows that men have a higher variation in cognitive ability than women do, so there are more men at the extremes (both top and bottom). That means that men are far more likely to be geniuses, but also far more likely to be idiots

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...91886906000420
    http://pps.sagepub.com/content/1/4/316.abstract
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60289606001115

    Now throw in the fact that men have higher levels of testosterone and its known that exogenous increases in testosterone increase risk-taking behaviour which is generally necessary for success, and the fact that society is structured in a way that gives more incentive to shoot for the top, and its not really surprising they dominate all fields.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.short
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...91886910003417
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99DeadBaboons)
    Again, you seem to be missing the blatant sarcasm in what I said. It wasn't meant as an all-encompassing answer, frankly because I find the initial premise of the thread to be ridiculous. Don't question my deductive reasoning if you're going to pick and choose which parts of my response to acknowledge.
    Naturally, I just happened to keep all of the statistics and experience I've accumulated over the years and put it into this handy folder, but...:eek: oh no! The folder's gone! Well, if I can't immediately produce irrefutable evidence of corporate sexism and a system of patriarchy across history which has kept women down, I just don't where to turn.

    I mean, there is the title of this actual thread :rolleyes:
    and the other threads like it.
    And the fact that this is even a conversation.

    Oh, and by the way: "If you had even a modicum of deductive reasoning ability". Don't be pathetic. If you have a point to make, make it but don't degrade the conversation by trying to insult someone you don't know in the slightest. I'm not interested in you or in spending time finding delightful ways of insulting your intelligence. If you have actual arguments, go ahead and make them and I'll have that conversation but patting yourself on the back and trying to make yourself feel intellectually superior on an online forum only makes you look bitter and arrogant. I'm not interested in aiding that process.
    I have no idea why you're trying to pretend that was sarcasm when in your first post in the thread, and in this very reply, you continue to beat the drum of patriarchal oppression. If you're going to backtrack, at least backtrack in a logical fashion - not this half-assed 'ah, but I was sarcastic in THIS bit, but this other bit which expresses almost exactly the same view I am dead serious about and will continue to post about, incidentally without any proof whatsoever to back up what I say'.

    I've already made my arguments about the meritocracy of technology startups. You're yet to address my arguments at all yourself apart from tying yourself in knots trying to decide if female startup founders are oppressed or not. Once you decide, let me know and outline your position clearly - then I'll be more than happy to engage in civil debate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laomedeia)
    There is a reason for the words "mankind" or "manmade". I would even put money on it that if a split-arse beat lance armstrong to be the first human on the moon, they would still classify it as a small step for man. Men may very well be better intellectually and at driving, but at everything else women are much better. Proof of this can be found in the porn industry, lesbian porn is far more popular than man-love stuff.
    Lance Armstrong to my knowledge has never been to the moon.

    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    OP is banned :rave:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Not surprised. :troll:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    I have no idea why you're trying to pretend that was sarcasm when in your first post in the thread, and in this very reply, you continue to beat the drum of patriarchal oppression. If you're going to backtrack, at least backtrack in a logical fashion - not this half-assed 'ah, but I was sarcastic in THIS bit, but this other bit which expresses almost exactly the same view I am dead serious about and will continue to post about, incidentally without any proof whatsoever to back up what I say'.

    I've already made my arguments about the meritocracy of technology startups. You're yet to address my arguments at all yourself apart from tying yourself in knots trying to decide if female startup founders are oppressed or not. Once you decide, let me know and outline your position clearly - then I'll be more than happy to engage in civil debate.
    I'm sorry, allow me to be more clear. When I said I was being sarcastic, I wasn't trying to suggest that I don't believe that women are oppressed by a patriarchy. I mean that I was giving a facetious answer which I didn't think anyone was going to interpret as a legitimate response. You're right, that's not the same as sarcasm and I apologise for not making my point clearer.
    I haven't addressed your argument about the meritocracy of technology start-ups because I wasn't being serious when I first responded to the point you quoted. I honestly thought that was clear at the time. It was a throwaway comment. I don't pretend to know much about the statistics for recent internet start-ups. I probably should have inserted one of these ":rolleyes:" to illustrate that my little question wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. It was just supposed to be a smartass comment.

    So here, clearly, are my views:

    • Historically, women have, until relatively recently, been overtly oppressed within society.
    • While legislation and rules have changed the status of women in society to one more equal to that of men, men were still the day-to-day enforcers within power structures, opening up women to covert discrimination and prejudice within all industries.

    My initial point wasn't originally about technology start-ups and I honestly, barely even registered that that was what the post was about when I made my second post.
    Personally, I don't think that you can point to one industry where there is apparently a meritocracy and say that it stands as a represent of men and women as a whole.
    • Section Leader
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Moved to Society
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 99DeadBaboons)
    I'm sorry, allow me to be more clear. When I said I was being sarcastic, I wasn't trying to suggest that I don't believe that women are oppressed by a patriarchy. I mean that I was giving a facetious answer which I didn't think anyone was going to interpret as a legitimate response. You're right, that's not the same as sarcasm and I apologise for not making my point clearer.
    I haven't addressed your argument about the meritocracy of technology start-ups because I wasn't being serious when I first responded to the point you quoted. I honestly thought that was clear at the time. It was a throwaway comment. I don't pretend to know much about the statistics for recent internet start-ups. I probably should have inserted one of these ":rolleyes:" to illustrate that my little question wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. It was just supposed to be a smartass comment.

    So here, clearly, are my views:

    • Historically, women have, until relatively recently, been overtly oppressed within society.
    • While legislation and rules have changed the status of women in society to one more equal to that of men, men were still the day-to-day enforcers within power structures, opening up women to covert discrimination and prejudice within all industries.

    My initial point wasn't originally about technology start-ups and I honestly, barely even registered that that was what the post was about when I made my second post.
    Personally, I don't think that you can point to one industry where there is apparently a meritocracy and say that it stands as a represent of men and women as a whole.
    Ah, I see. In the wider domain of life you believe that women still experience, in your words, covert discrimination and prejudice, and have only recently overcome oppression - hence their underrepresentation at the top in most fields. However for technology startups specifically, you accept that the above may not be as applicable and your quote wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

    I hope you can understand why with those two posts one after another, and phrased in the way they were, it was difficult for me to parse that the first post was being serious but the second one was being flippant.

    Anyway, I do agree with you that tech startups are a very specific field and that male dominance in that area does not necessarily entail male dominance in general. However, to address the actual question the OP asked in the title - whether genius is almost exclusively male - I'd point to poohat's excellent post a few posts up. It is well established that men and women have similar mean performances on a variety of cognitive tests - including maths - but that males have a higher variance, and are thus overrepresented at the top (and bottom). Typical figures suggest that at the top 1-2% of ability, men are overrepresented by a factor of 2:1; and the more elite a population you look at the, greater the overrepresentation of men. It's worth noting that academia, at least for the last 50 years, has certainly been a meritocratic field - to the point where women now make up 55-60% of university entrants - but they are still underrepresented at the pinnacle i.e. Nobel Prize winners. This is particularly of note considering that one of the fields, 'Physiology and Medicine', has for a few decades now had equal or more than equal representation of women.

    So if there exists a greater proportion of males at the top end of cognitive ability, as studies indicate, then it is not altogether surprising that in a range of cognitively demanding fields they are overrepresented at the top independent of considerations of patriarchy or oppression. Tie in the effect of testosterone on risk-seeking behaviour, again referenced in poohat's post, and a fairly comprehensive explanation for male outperformance in business in general is made.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    X
    (Original post by 99DeadBaboons)
    X
    Is it weird that watching this is kind of hot?

    Oh, it's been moved to society...

    **** it, I've already said my piece.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Men are not superior, and it is (for the most part) not due to oppression of women. It just so happens that while the average male is as intelligent as the average woman, the variance of male intelligence is greater, so there are slightly more stupid males and slightly more super intelligent males (than there are females), hence, this effect.

    It may also be to do with what interests society and biology encourage, but that is not oppression (obviously).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viva Emptiness)
    Is it weird that watching this is kind of hot?

    Oh, it's been moved to society...

    **** it, I've already said my piece.
    Thanks, I just LOLed in the middle of the library.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viva Emptiness)
    Is it weird that watching this is kind of hot?

    Oh, it's been moved to society...

    **** it, I've already said my piece.
    You just love our vigorous attempts at being cunning linguists, clearly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    poohat, Birkenhead and ClickItBack have hit the nail on the head.

    Patriarchy, my left buttock.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    White males, with east asians second, have invented virtually everything.

    So, maybe its not just a gender thing?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Huskaris)
    Every woman that manages to raise children is a true genius. After all, it is the toughest job in the whole world :rolleyes:
    According to Dubya...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    Ah, I see. In the wider domain of life you believe that women still experience, in your words, covert discrimination and prejudice, and have only recently overcome oppression - hence their underrepresentation at the top in most fields. However for technology startups specifically, you accept that the above may not be as applicable and your quote wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

    I hope you can understand why with those two posts one after another, and phrased in the way they were, it was difficult for me to parse that the first post was being serious but the second one was being flippant.

    Anyway, I do agree with you that tech startups are a very specific field and that male dominance in that area does not necessarily entail male dominance in general. However, to address the actual question the OP asked in the title - whether genius is almost exclusively male - I'd point to poohat's excellent post a few posts up. It is well established that men and women have similar mean performances on a variety of cognitive tests - including maths - but that males have a higher variance, and are thus overrepresented at the top (and bottom). Typical figures suggest that at the top 1-2% of ability, men are overrepresented by a factor of 2:1; and the more elite a population you look at the, greater the overrepresentation of men. It's worth noting that academia, at least for the last 50 years, has certainly been a meritocratic field - to the point where women now make up 55-60% of university entrants - but they are still underrepresented at the pinnacle i.e. Nobel Prize winners. This is particularly of note considering that one of the fields, 'Physiology and Medicine', has for a few decades now had equal or more than equal representation of women.

    So if there exists a greater proportion of males at the top end of cognitive ability, as studies indicate, then it is not altogether surprising that in a range of cognitively demanding fields they are overrepresented at the top independent of considerations of patriarchy or oppression. Tie in the effect of testosterone on risk-seeking behaviour, again referenced in poohat's post, and a fairly comprehensive explanation for male outperformance in business in general is made.
    I do, I admittedly wasn't representing myself too clearly from one post to another. I'm glad we cleared that part up.

    I've seen the statistics regarding IQs and, while it seems that males tend to perform more commonly in terms of very high intelligence, I don't think that it's enough to deem genius as "almost exclusively" male. I also accept your point that if this is the case, it may explain the apparent inbalance in male to female success in those areas, but I can't accept "independent of considerations of patriarchy or oppression" because... well, because we don't exactly have a control group for that. I fully accept what you're saying about men on average having more scores in the "very high" region but when everything from education, to testing to social norms are a part of the same society derived from blatant patriarchy, it isn't easy to see how clear cut those results might be. I'm not saying that things are skewered. I'm only saying I don't know.
    I would also argue that the testosterone- "risk taking" argument, while it may account for a certain amount of male success, that seems to be an argument more for male success alone rather than male genius. In fact, it implies that on average, if males are taking more risks, then surely some with lower IQs will manage to succeed. Given the original title of the thread, doesn't the risk-taking argument suggest that male success can't be tied exclusively to genius?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imtelling)
    White males, with east asians second, have invented virtually everything.

    So, maybe its not just a gender thing?
    Oh goodie... I'm glad we could degrade this further.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.