pocohantas:


Hahaha. Leave me o.
I'm looking for a rich man

do you want one in United States or the one in Borno. I may be able to help here. I run a networking agency with a great pool of rich handsome gentlemen.

majekdom2:
do you want one in United States or the one in Borno. I may be able to help here. I run a networking agency with a great pool of rich handsome gentlemen.

Are you serious? Oya forward me your top 10 Bachelors.

pocohantas:


Are you serious? Oya forward me your top 10 Bachelors.

This is how they will love-vendor you to a naija sex ring

oyb:


This is how they will love-vendor you to a naija sex ring

No o. He will come back to Naija and marry me.
Biko, I take God beg you...no make me fear

pocohantas:


Are you serious? Oya forward me your top 10 Bachelors.

you need to be profiled first, you know what to do.

GiantParrot:

What are your thoughts on how this socialization took its form in the first place?

Do you think this socialization was more or less uniform across the many different independent cultures in human history that had clear gender differences and roles?


Would you say gender is also a manmade construct in the case of monkeys, lions and the many different animals that show distinct gender differences?

Are you familiar with the bell curve as it relates to trait/attribute distributions among the genders?


An extraordinary supposition you have made here. Can you present any extraordinary evidence to give this some credibility?

The issue of gender is a social or man-made construct; that is, human beings assigned those different roles which women and men do. Sex is different from Gender: the former (sex) is biological, while the later is socially constructed.

Gender amongst animals is a different issue - we are talking about human beings here, not gender roles amongst animals. Animals do not have the organized economic and socio-political institutions we have, neither do they possess high intelligence as (many) human beings do. Animals do not have religion and other cultural norms/traditions used in justifying and perpetuating patriarchy. By the way, are you aware that it is the lioness (female) that often do the hunting or "work," while the lion (male) usually just sit around and later go to join in the feasting when the animal is killed?

As for the "Bell Curve" theory, it is just another work of scientific RACISM like others before it and holds no water neither a reliable source in understanding gender roles, difference in "IQ development," crime rate amongst different races, e.t.c. It is a racist and patriarchal work with the mask of science!

My other earlier comments have already shown to you some examples of women that excelled or did what many men could not do. Find out the rest, they are many.

crackhaus:

I don't know why it's usually amoral things these feminists and feminist-apologists like to applaud. If it's not a divorceé remarrying, it will be the successful single mother who has proven she can succeed without a man.

They will never see the accomplished woman who has stayed married for years and raised and kept her family while making a name for herself still, as a reference point...it's always the ones that have some kind of broken life story that are put on a pedestal.

I taya for this wave of feminists bruh, no be lie.

BOOOOOORING!

lilliesboy:

The issue of gender is a social or man-made construct; that is, human beings assigned those different roles which women and men do. Sex is different from Gender: the former (sex) is biological, while the later is socially constructed.

Thanks for responding. I believe this particular response was supposed to address my first two questions about the origins of this socialization you referred to - the socialization that created gender roles, and whether it was uniform across independent cultures in human history. I honestly don't see that the questions were answered as I remain uninformed about your thoughts on how the roles came to be. Maybe I'm not yet good at gleaning meaning from your writing style.

Gender amongst animals is a different issue - we are talking about human beings here, not gender roles amongst animals. Animals do not have the organized economic and socio-political institutions we have, neither do they possess high intelligence as (many) human beings do. Animals do not have religion and other cultural norms/traditions used in justifying and perpetuating patriarchy. By the way, are you aware that it is the lioness (female) that often do the hunting or "work," while the lion (male) usually just sit around and later go to join in the feasting when the animal is killed?

Are you saying gender roles in interactions among other animals of the same species are not relevant? The roles are only meaningful in a relatively complex social system? I wonder why you would think so considering that it is far easier to test a hypothesis using simple cases than complex cases. I am well informed about the lions. Your example about the lioness suggests that one of her roles is hunting for the pride. Another role of the lioness is nurturing the cubs. Perhaps the male Lion in the pride has his own role too, like protecting the pride? Could this mean that gender roles in lions arose from an appreciation of practical realities that led each lion of either sex in a pride to act according to their strengths? The male lion cannot nurse the cubs because he has no milk so he obviously can't assume the role of nurturing. But he is strong, and he knows that his pride can die off if left unprotected against other male lions, so he assumes the role of protector. The partriarchy clearly exists among lions as well. Although the female lions typically bring the hunt, the male lion almost always eats first while every other member of the pride waits till he's done eating. I'm not here to say the male lion's behaviour is exemplary, only that this indicates a clear dominance hierarchy in the pride.

As for the "Bell Curve" theory, it is just another work of scientific RACISM like others before it and holds no water neither a reliable source in understanding gender roles, difference in "IQ development," crime rate amongst different races, e.t.c. It is a racist and patriarchal work with the mask of science!

The beauty of science is that every finding is open to refutation by rational arguments and compelling evidence. The bell curve, more commonly known as the normal or gaussian distribution among statisticians is a product of empirical observations. The beauty about empiricism is that anyone anywhere is free to carry out his own experiments and surveys and use them in a rational fashion to support or refute previously held conclusions. The bell curve is not racism. The bell curve is extremely useful in diverse fields. In digital signal processing, a sub-field of electrical engineering, the bell curve is used to model the noise spectrum in communication systems. This is factored into the design of the digital filters that make your modern telecommunications systems so effective at transmitting huge amounts of information over long distances at incredible speeds, without compromising the transmitted information. Performance on standardized tests - IQ tests, SAT, GMAT, GRE, etc consistently reveal a bell shaped distribution. Nobody can refute that to this day. You could look at it like the internet. The internet has very many positive uses. That a person somewhere uses the internet for fraud does not make the internet a bad invention. Similarly, the fact that a racist uses the bell curve to justify his racism does not make the bell curve bad. It does not erode the many positive uses of the bell curve.

My other earlier comments have already shown to you some examples of women that excelled or did what many men could not do. Find out the rest, they are many.

Your earlier comments did exactly just that. They showed examples of some women that excelled at what many men could not do. They however do not support the extraordinary claim that if you gave both sexes relatively equal chances to compete, you could find that the females will excel more than males in most cases. Such claim would require extraordinary evidence. It turns out that the modern West gives men and women relatively equal chances to compete, and some even go out of their way to disadvantage men. Yet in places like Scandinavia, the more the government tried to give women a better competitive edge, the more women chose occupations that were traditionally feminine, and the gender gap in STEM fields persisted or even widened. You may want to check out the Nordic gender equality paradox. This was a study that influenced the government to stop providing funding for the gender studies department. Gender studies people are known for claiming without evidence that group differences in social behaviour between males and females are definitely not influenced by biology, but by the environment.

GiantParrot:


Your earlier comments did exactly just that. They showed examples of some women that excelled at what many men could not do. They however do not support the extraordinary claim that if you gave both sexes relatively equal chances to compete, you could find that the females will excel more than males in most cases. Such claim would require extraordinary evidence.

Agreed.

It turns out that the modern West gives men and women relatively equal chances to compete, and some even go out of their way to disadvantage men. Yet in places like Scandinavia, the more the government tried to give women a better competitive edge, the more women chose occupations that were traditionally feminine, and the gender gap in STEM fields persisted or even widened. You may want to check out the Nordic gender equality paradox. This was a study that influenced the government to stop providing funding for the gender studies department. Gender studies people are known for claiming without evidence that group differences in social behaviour between males and females are definitely not influenced by biology, but by the environment.

It takes generations for some policies, especially those targeting cultural norms, to come into effect and have a full scale impact.
The Civil Rights Movement in the US is a perfect example. Whether it is racism or sexism, it takes a lot of time to change the collective mentality shaped by such. Likewise, laws in the West targeting more subtle forms of sexism, are relatively new. It will be the little girl of today who will grow to be the woman tomorrow who is not restricted or even shaped by the ideals of yesterday. Cheers!

Mindfulness:


It takes generations for some policies, especially those targeting cultural norms, to come into effect and have a full scale impact.
The Civil Rights Movement in the US is a perfect example. Whether it is racism or sexism, it takes a lot of time to change the collective mentality shaped by such. Likewise, laws in the West targeting more subtle forms of sexism, are relatively new. It will be the little girl of today who will grow to be the woman tomorrow who is not restricted or even shaped by the ideals of yesterday. Cheers!

I think you are making very logical points. It is definitely sound to say that since a social structure that institutionalises sexism is responsible for the general differences in male-female choices and outcomes, then eliminating those sexist factors should reduce the gender gaps over time.

But, what if the premise is faulty? What if sexism is not the only reason behind gender gaps? And here is another even more potentially annoying question: what if sexism is not the main contributory factor to gender gaps? Such a situation, if true, would mean that the predicted equality in outcomes for the genders over time will not materialize by eliminating sexism alone.

It may interest you to know that studies have consistently shown that among countries worldwide, the more advanced and gender equal a country is, the sharper the group differences in gender outcomes. For example, the gender gap in STEM is much higher in Scandinavian countries than in developing Asian countries. You can check the evidences in the links at the bottom. How can it be that sexism is the primary reason behind the differences when some of these differences are consistently narrower in the more sexist countries, and consistently wider in the advanced countries? This piece of evidence is probably the most uncomfortable reality for feminists and other allied gender equality groups.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09tier.html

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/do-women-really-have-it-better-in-sweden/article15552596/

https://www.google.com.ng/amp/www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/%3famp=1

GiantParrot:


I think you are making very logical points. It is definitely sound to say that since a social structure that institutionalises sexism is responsible for the general differences in male-female choices and outcomes, then eliminating those sexist factors should reduce the gender gaps over time.

But, what if the premise is faulty? What if sexism is not the only reason behind gender gaps? And here is another even more potentially annoying question: what if sexism is not the main contributory factor to gender gaps? Such a situation, if true, would mean that the predicted equality in outcomes for the genders over time will not materialize by eliminating sexism alone.

The goal is not to eliminate anything but to add to possibilities and opportunities. It is about choice.

It may interest you to know that studies have consistently shown that among countries worldwide, the more advanced and gender equal a country is, the sharper the group differences in gender outcomes. For example, the gender gap in STEM is much higher in Scandinavian countries than in developing Asian countries. You can check the evidences in the links at the bottom. How can it be that sexism is the primary reason behind the differences when some of these differences are consistently narrower in the more sexist countries, and consistently wider in the advanced countries? This piece of evidence is probably the most uncomfortable reality for feminists and other allied gender equality groups.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/science/09tier.html

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/opinion/do-women-really-have-it-better-in-sweden/article15552596/

https://www.google.com.ng/amp/www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/%3famp=1

I do not feel any discomfort about this comparison. First, because STEM is not the beginning and end of the world, and more importantly because feminism is about choice. So if majority of women choose to be housewives or politicians or both, as long as it is their choice, devoid of any societal pressures, I am perfectly ok with it.

Regardless, I wonder how Asian men compare to other men when it comes to STEM. I recall reading somewhere that Asians excel in STEM in universities everywhere. I am not sure if it is due to biological or environmental factors, I would argue it is always a combination of diverse factors. Whatever the case may be, in an ideal world people would do what they love doing.

Mindfulness:


The goal is not to eliminate anything but to add to possibilities and opportunities. It is about choice.

Okay. I would like to see that discrimination on the basis of gender is eliminated though. For example, No girl or boy who has the capacity and interest to do well in STEM should be discouraged from pursuing it. There are yet too many problems that need scientific solutions and I believe that the higher the numbers of passionate and capable people doing work on these problems, the better the chances of arriving at solutions to the benefit of the world. The bolded is completely in agreement with my beliefs. Now that I think about it, you're probably trying to say that the goal is not to eliminate differences in outcomes by gender. If this is the case, that will be your own personal goal. Certainly not the goal of a mainstream feminist like the Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg.

I do not feel any discomfort about this comparison. First, because STEM is not the beginning and end of the world, and more importantly because feminism is about choice. So if majority of women choose to be housewives or politicians or both, as long as it is their choice, devoid of any societal pressures, I am perfectly ok with it.

Cool. But beyond STEM, there are other comparisons like CEO ratio by gender, ratio of startup founders by gender, etc that appear to disturb many feminists. You could say that the wing of feminism you identify with is about personal choice. Mainstream feminism is more about the choices favoured by elite women.

Regardless, I wonder how Asian men compare to other men when it comes to STEM. I recall reading somewhere that Asians excel in STEM in universities everywhere. I am not sure if it is due to biological or environmental factors, I would argue it is always a combination of diverse factors. Whatever the case may be, in an ideal world people would do what they love doing.

I believe Asian and White males are the predominant groups in STEM. It's possible that the higher average IQs of these groups is a key factor for their high representation in STEM fields. Their standardized test score performances in quantitative reasoning are much better on average than those of other racial groups; and STEM programs, barring the biological departments, favour strong quantitative performances.

GiantParrot:

Okay. I would like to see that discrimination on the basis of gender is eliminated though. For example, No girl or boy who has the capacity and interest to do well in STEM should be discouraged from pursuing it. There are yet too many problems that need scientific solutions and I believe that the higher the numbers of passionate and capable people doing work on these problems, the better the chances of arriving at solutions to the benefit of the world. The bolded is completely in agreement with my beliefs. Now that I think about it, you're probably trying to say that the goal is not to eliminate differences in outcomes by gender. If this is the case, that will be your own personal goal. Certainly not the goal of a mainstream feminist like the Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg.

Whatever any self-proclaimed feminist or anti-feminist may say, feminism is about choice. ALWAYS!

Cool. But beyond STEM, there are other comparisons like CEO ratio by gender, ratio of startup founders by gender, etc that appear to disturb many feminists. You could say that the wing of feminism you identify with is about personal choice. Mainstream feminism is more about the choices favoured by elite women.

This is because women are perceived to be at a disadvantage, not because 'elite women' (this word is thrown around a lot these days) have a problem with women choosing otherwise.

I believe Asian and White males are the predominant groups in STEM. It's possible that the higher average IQs of these groups is a key factor for their high representation in STEM fields. Their standardized test score performances in quantitative reasoning are much better on average than those of other racial groups; and STEM programs, barring the biological departments, favour strong quantitative performances.

Possible is not proven. Environment may be the deciding factor as well and seems to be since the Chinese progress, for instance, is not in any way related to major genetical changes but certainly to educational policies.

PISA 2009 (Programme for International Student Assessment)
Chinese students outperform all other students in Maths, Literacy and Sciences.
Indian students are ranked second last.

Are all of them not from Asia?

Mindfulness:


Whatever any self-proclaimed feminist or anti-feminist may say, feminism is about choice. ALWAYS!

Okay. I don't think the dart girls will agree with you though.

This is because women are perceived to be at a disadvantage, not because 'elite women' (this word is thrown around a lot these days) have a problem with women choosing otherwise.

Women have been having higher college graduation rates than men in America since the 1990s. I wonder why this disadvantaged perception persists. It's hard to think of laws that are advantageous to men at the expense of women. It is not difficult to point out preferential policies in favour of women. Yet we find women groups still demanding more.

Possible is not proven. Environment may be the deciding factor as well and seems to be since the Chinese progress, for instance, is not in any way related to major genetical changes but certainly to educational policies.

PISA 2009 (Programme for International Student Assessment)
Chinese students outperform all other students in Maths, Literacy and Sciences.
Indian students are ranked second last.

Are all of them not from Asia?

Ok. I did not mention something earlier. Standardized tests performance is positively correlated with IQ. You have a couple of high IQ societies that accept high standardized test scores in lieu of scores from traditional IQ tests.
I mentioned that STEM programs favour high standardized test scores, especially the quantitative reasoning aspect of the test. The groups with the higher scores will automatically be more represented in STEM programs. Whites and Asian males have significantly higher standardized test scores compared to other racial groups. IQ is surely then a contributing factor to the racial distribution in STEM. Is IQ the only factor? I dont know that. There's information about the average IQs of different professions. The IQ average for STEM professions have been found to be greater than one standard deviation above the average IQ of the general population. Perhaps the environment has a role to play. I can neither prove nor disprove that.

On that PISA ranking that reveal differences between India and China, I'm sure you would also find different population samples within China that can reveal very different performances. It would be beside the point. A high average value does not mean there can be no differences within the group. These intra-group differences can be placed in proper perspective with good appreciation of the bell curve. In addition, when the word Asians comes up in IQ discussions, the typical assumption is that the subject is far east asians. I should have mentioned that earlier. The Chinese and Indians have different ancestries.

Mindfulness:


BOOOOOORING!

What is boring?

That there are accomplished women who have successfully balanced marriage/family with career, or that I mentioned it and it pisses you off?

Mindfulness:


Whatever any self-proclaimed feminist or anti-feminist may say, feminism is about choice. ALWAYS!

Hiccup!

This narrative must be your way of trying to wriggle out of the storm that young man has locked you in.

We thought feminism was about gender equality and women's rights. ALWAYS!
Perhaps someone forgot to think there are some women who just prefer their men being the boss while they tend dutifully to all his needs...yet feminism which was supposed to be about a woman's right to make choices suddenly developed a problem with the women who chose that life.

It's both funny and amazing, it's amazingly funny...funnily amazing.

bukatyne:


How is their royal system patriachial?

Oh Buka, Lol.
Isn't it common sense that it is? (no insult intended)

Or is your unnecessary doubt being fed by the fact a Queen (woman) sits on the throne?
Well, this does nothing to negate the patriarchy seeing as she did not fall from the sky to become queen.

If she had had a brother when her father died, there would have been no Queen Elizabeth II today for you to use as a yardstick to argue against patriarchy.

crackhaus:

Hiccup!

This narrative must be your way of trying to wriggle out of the storm that young man has locked you in.

We thought feminism was about gender equality and women's rights. ALWAYS!
Perhaps someone forgot to think there are some women who just prefer their men being the boss while they tend dutifully to all his needs...yet feminism which was supposed to be about a woman's right to make choices suddenly developed a problem with the women who chose that life.

It's both funny and amazing, it's amazingly funny...funnily amazing.

To have a choice, you have to have equal rights so that you have the freedom to choose. The women's suffrage movement was fighting for equal rights, the right to vote, the right to choose. Simples but too complicated for you just like birth control.

crackhaus:

What is boring?

That there are accomplished women who have successfully balanced marriage/family with career, or that I mentioned it and it pisses you off?

The part in bold. Go and re-read.
I am not pissed but even if I were, I would not be as pissed as you are about Maggy Markle.

Hillarious! Keep it going. I certainly am entertained.

GiantParrot:

Okay. I don't think the dart girls will agree with you though.
Women have been having higher college graduation rates than men in America since the 1990s. I wonder why this disadvantaged perception persists. It's hard to think of laws that are advantageous to men at the expense of women. It is not difficult to point out preferential policies in favour of women. Yet we find women groups still demanding more.

Who was talking about laws?

Ok. I did not mention something earlier. Standardized tests performance is positively correlated with IQ. You have a couple of high IQ societies that accept high standardized test scores in lieu of scores from traditional IQ tests.
I mentioned that STEM programs favour high standardized test scores, especially the quantitative reasoning aspect of the test. The groups with the higher scores will automatically be more represented in STEM programs. Whites and Asian males have significantly higher standardized test scores compared to other racial groups. IQ is surely then a contributing factor to the racial distribution in STEM. Is IQ the only factor? I dont know that. There's information about the average IQs of different professions. The IQ average for STEM professions have been found to be greater than one standard deviation above the average IQ of the general population. Perhaps the environment has a role to play. I can neither prove nor disprove that.

Again! Even if the tests are positively correlated with IQ, they do not explain how these differences in IQ came about. In countries where education was made compulsory a long time ago, people will score better. Good education, among other factors, will produce a smarter population. Logical, isn't it?

On that PISA ranking that reveal differences between India and China, I'm sure you would also find different population samples within China that can reveal very different performances. It would be beside the point. A high average value does not mean there can be no differences within the group. These intra-group differences can be placed in proper perspective with good appreciation of the bell curve. In addition, when the word Asians comes up in IQ discussions, the typical assumption is that the subject is far east asians. I should have mentioned that earlier. The Chinese and Indians have different ancestries.

You missed the point. On average, Chinese students perform better because China has been investing in education and made it compulsory a long time ago whereas India is only catching up. High or low literacy rates are the result of educational policies and not the biological make-up of a people.

Mindfulness:


To have a choice, you have to have equal rights so that you have the freedom to choose. The women's suffrage movement was fighting for equal rights, the right to vote, the right to choose. Simples but too complicated for you just like birth control.

Mindfulness:


The part in bold. Go and re-read.
I am not pissed but even if I were, I would not be as pissed as you are about Maggy Markle.

Hillarious! Keep it going. I certainly am entertained.

I've no patience for your usual dancing in circles girl. I already knew about choice as it pertains to women's rights, if you had assimilated properly you would have discerned from that comment that I was making a mockery of how feminists these days have a problem with women who don't subscribe to their ideology...a CHOICE they made.

But of course, let's talk about birth control again after three months since you don't like how the conversation came to an abrupt end the last time...still because I had no patience for you.

You still didn't tell me what was boring about the sentence you put in bold, which is what I asked in the first place. Focus please, as hard as it may seem.

Mindfulness:


Who was talking about laws?

Okay. Why are women perceived to be discriminated against in the West?

Again! Even if the tests are positively correlated with IQ, they do not explain how these differences in IQ came about. In countries where education was made compulsory a long time ago, people will score better. Good education, among other factors, will produce a smarter population. Logical, isn't it?

Yes, good education should play a better role in educational performances all else being equal. For lifelong outcomes however, educational policies do not carry as much weight as IQ. IQ has the highest correlation with success than any other factor. An all too common trait among high IQ individuals is that they auto-didact, making the education policies in their locations less relevant to them compared to the average person. The age of information where knowledge is easily available online further increases their advantages. And in case you're wondering, older studies estimated that genetics is responsible for 50-77% of a person's IQ. Recent studies claim that IQ is 80-86% inherited.

You missed the point. On average, Chinese students perform better because China has been investing in education and made it compulsory a long time ago whereas India is only catching up. High or low literacy rates are the result of educational policies and not the biological make-up of a people.

Ok. Fair enough. Educational policies are an important factor. Is it the most important factor? I wonder how you would explain the performance gap between China and the Western Countries though. Is China investing more than the West in education?
I have noticed that you've tried to reduce this discussion to performance on literacy and education. The original discussion was about STEM. And the crux of my argument is that a high IQ is required for success in STEM hence the higher representation of White and Asian males in STEM. The average IQ for STEM practitioners is greater than a full standard deviation right of the average person's IQ, and the consensus in the science community today is that biology is by far the most significant contributor to IQ.

crackhaus:

I've no patience for your usual dancing in circles girl. I already knew about choice as it pertains to women's rights, if you had assimilated properly you would have discerned from that comment that I was making a mockery of how feminists these days have a problem with women who don't subscribe to their ideology...a CHOICE they made.

Wait ...
They made a choice to have a problem with the ideology which has allowed them to have a choice?

But of course, let's talk about birth control again after three months since you don't like how the conversation came to an abrupt end the last time...still because I had no patience for you.

Patience or not, you have and will always have to surrender.

You still don't tell me what was boring about the sentence you put in bold, which is what I asked in the first place. Focus please, as hard as it may seem.

The ordinary is boring. Most (wo-)men are expected to get married, have kids, make some money, go to church every Sunday. This is the usual order of things, how people like you want everyone to live their lives. Marry, build a house, have kids, plant a tree .... BOOORING! No edge to it, same place, same faces, same order of things for everyone. Petty bourgeois. Yawns!

GiantParrot:


Okay. Why are women perceived to be discriminated against in the West?

Employers are reluctant to hire females in child bearing age to occupy top positions as they expect them to take some time out to raise kids, something most men do not (have to) do. Men in power abuse women (#metoomovement). Se.xual violence is still often blamed on the victim. Literally all commercials for household chemicals show women, not men as women are expected to run the home. A married woman with two kids works double as much as her male counterpart who can solely focus on his career, studies showed.

These examples may seem trivial compared to what females experience in less developed countries but less development in one place is no excuse and certainly no consolation to accept the status quo. Luckily, some countries have enabled men to take paternity leave as well to play a more active role in their families.

Yes, good education should play a better role in educational performances all else being equal. For lifelong outcomes however, educational policies do not carry as much weight as IQ. IQ has the highest correlation with success than any other factor. An all too common trait among high IQ individuals is that they auto-didact, making the education policies in their locations less relevant to them compared to the average person. The age of information where knowledge is easily available online further increases their advantages. And in case you're wondering, older studies estimated that genetics is responsible for 50-77% of a person's IQ. Recent studies claim that IQ is 80-86% inherited.

Again, you have in no way proven that Africans are inherently dumber than their White counterparts. If I take a boy/girl from a Nigerian village and provide it with the best education possible, he will outsmart many of his white counterparts. If I take a white boy/girl and make it work from morning to evening to provide for a family in an Indian village, he will score less in any IQ test.

Ok. Fair enough. Educational policies are an important factor. Is it the most important factor? I wonder how you would explain the performance gap between China and the Western Countries though. Is China investing more than the West in education?

The Chinese are drilling their students. Also, Chinese students are hard working as education is their only way out of poverty. Most Western students have not experienced poverty and have been taking education for granted.

I have noticed that you've tried to reduce this discussion to performance on literacy and education. The original discussion was about STEM. And the crux of my argument is that a high IQ is required for success in STEM hence the higher representation of White and Asian males in STEM. The average IQ for STEM practitioners is greater than a full standard deviation right of the average person's IQ, and the consensus in the science community today is that biology is by far the most significant contributor to IQ.

No, it isn't. Most scientists would be outraged with your claim that race is a factor in IQ. It would be considered racist and you would have to take a shit storm of immense proportions.

Mindfulness:


Employers are reluctant to hire females in child bearing age to occupy top positions as they expect them to take some time out to raise kids, something most men do not (have to) do.

Okay. Does this mean the employers go ahead to act on this reluctance you refer to? Sounds like women have a lot of anti-discrimination suits to win. They only need to provide the evidence. We have seen men provide evidence that they suffered discrimination at work, and won in court. Women should be able to do the same. This world cannot function on speculation.
http://www.newsweek.com/man-wins-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-after-woman-gets-promotion-he-wanted-853795?amp=1 The man in the link did not come out to whine. He took his evidence to court. People will try to discriminate. The world is not fair. That's why laws and courts exist for people to prove that they have been wronged.

Also, women could do more to prevent discrimination by forming their own companies and ensuring fairness to women. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, Tesla, SpaceX are all new companies. A profit-seeking venture capitalist will invest in a business that has a clear case for success. The gender of the founder is irrelevant. A person who lives in a society where discrimination is illegal can succeed by their own merits. Awkward looking unattractive nerds are doing damn well.

Men in power abuse women (#metoomovement).
Se.xual violence is still often blamed on the victim.

Again. The laws and courts are available for people to prove their case. Use the tools that have been made available to you. There's no perfect world. Sexual violence go both ways. There are numerous ways in which individual men are discriminated against. I have no interest in listing them because those men live in a society where discrimination is illegal. Let them seek redress. I wonder how our ancestors who survived the grave difficulties of prehistoric times fathered the weak thinskinned whiners of today. People who are yet to take full advantage of the numerous avenues for redress want more. More what exactly? People should do all in their power to take advantage of the opportunities they have.

Literally all commercials for household chemicals show women, not men as women are expected to run the home.

Okay. So women lack the agency to ignore those commercials? You know that women can as well sponsor commercials depicting men doing household work. Guess what? Men are likely to demonstrate their agency by ignoring such commercials should they surface.

A married woman with two kids works double as much as her male counterpart who can solely focus on his career, studies showed.

It's only reasonable in a world with finite resources. Why should you expect differently? That is what the world is. The only way to create a perfect world for women is to discriminate against men and sieze their freewill. Good luck achieving that. Women who want to focus on career have the option of not having kids. No one is forcing anyone to have kids.

These examples may seem trivial compared to what females experience in less developed countries but less development in one place is no excuse and certainly no consolation to accept the status quo.

They are trivial and seem to suggest women lack agency. Men will find it difficult to take women seriously as women continue to ask for more and more special accommodations. And remember that the one with the power to give special accommodations also has the power to take them away. Competitive men will not take another man who asks for special accommodations seriously. Bullying is rife in the dog eat dog corporate world. The strong survive in spite of the bullying. As long as resources remain finite, people will compete. As long as people compete, feelings will be hurt.

Luckily, some countries have enabled men to take paternity leave as well to play a more active role in their families.

And men are still refusing to take the full paternity leave. because they have the agency to make the decisions.

Again, you have in no way proven that Africans are inherently dumber than their White counterparts. If I take a boy/girl from a Nigerian village and provide it with the best education possible, he will outsmart many of his white counterparts. If I take a white boy/girl and make it work from morning to evening to provide for a family in an Indian village, he will score less in any IQ test.

Well, I am going to drop this argument. You clearly have little or no appreciation of statistics and its implications that's why you're referring to individual cases when discussing group characteristics. And I reckon that I do not have what it takes to make you appreciate it.

No, it isn't. Most scientists would be outraged with your claim that race is a factor in IQ. It would be considered racist and you would have to take a shit storm of immense proportions.

Social scientists and the virtue signaling elite and their minions will be outraged. Outrage is not a proof of truth. Outrage is more often caused by discomfort with truth. What your outrage crowd won't do is present compelling evidence to the the clinical psychologists and neuroscientists that study these matters. As a black man I have every reason to be emotionally outraged by the findings of the bell curve. But logic and the statistics are clear. The scientific methods employed are clear. When you find one study with compelling evidence refuting the bell curve distribution of IQ among different races, I'll be more than happy to see it and publicize it to the world.

GiantParrot:

Okay. Does this mean the employers go ahead to act on this reluctance you refer to? Sounds like women have a lot of anti-discrimination suits to win. They only need to provide the evidence. We have seen men provide evidence that they suffered discrimination at work, and won in court. Women should be able to do the same. This world cannot function on speculation.
http://www.newsweek.com/man-wins-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-after-woman-gets-promotion-he-wanted-853795?amp=1 The man in the link did not come out to whine. He took his evidence to court. People will try to discriminate. The world is not fair. That's why laws and courts exist for people to prove that they have been wronged.

Also, women could do more to prevent discrimination by forming their own companies and ensuring fairness to women. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, Tesla, SpaceX are all new companies. A profit-seeking venture capitalist will invest in a business that has a clear case for success. The gender of the founder is irrelevant. A person who lives in a society where discrimination is illegal can succeed by their own merits. Awkward looking unattractive nerds are doing damn well.

Like I told you, laws have already been passed to prevent employers to ask prospective female employees about their family plans. Progress has been made and progress will continue to be made.

Again. The laws and courts are available for people to prove their case. Use the tools that have been made available to you. There's no perfect world. Sexual violence go both ways. There are numerous ways in which individual men are discriminated against. I have no interest in listing them because those men live in a society where discrimination is illegal. Let them seek redress. I wonder how our ancestors who survived the grave difficulties of prehistoric times fathered the weak thinskinned whiners of today. People who are yet to take full advantage of the numerous avenues for redress want more. More what exactly? People should do all in their power to take advantage of the opportunities they have.

I reckon you do not know how expensive it is to prove your case in court. You make it sound so easy. It is easy, in theory.
I know men experience numerous ways in which they are discriminated against. The Black Lives Matter Movement is a perfect example of that. Black men are being shot like cattle by the police. There are numerous videos of police violence online and available to courts and yet many policemen go scot-free even after shooting a man in his car who has his little daughter sitting in the back seat and his wife in the front seat. So much for justice and opportunity.

Okay. So women lack the agency to ignore those commercials? You know that women can as well sponsor commercials depicting men doing household work. Guess what? Men are likely to demonstrate their agency by ignoring such commercials should they surface.

Women can sponsor commercials? Am I supposed to pay for OMO's or Ariel's or Sunlight's commercials now so that they show man doing the laundry?

It's only reasonable in a world with finite resources. Why should you expect differently? That is what the world is. The only way to create a perfect world for women is to discriminate against men and sieze their freewill. Good luck achieving that. Women who want to focus on career have the option of not having kids. No one is forcing anyone to have kids.

GBAM!
So you are asking a woman to choose between children and career? Why can't they have both like most men do? See, this is why feminism is still valid and important. You have just helped make me my point. Thank you very much.

They are trivial and seem to suggest women lack agency. Men will find it difficult to take women seriously as women continue to ask for more and more special accommodations. And remember that the one with the power to give special accommodations also has the power to take them away. Competitive men will not take another man who asks for special accommodations seriously. Bullying is rife in the dog eat dog corporate world. The strong survive in spite of the bullying. As long as resources remain finite, people will compete. As long as people compete, feelings will be hurt.

And men are still refusing to take the full paternity leave. because they have the agency to make the decisions.

Actually, many men have taken paternity leave since the bill has been passed. A change is taking place, this is how we women have made use of our opportunities. And we will continue speaking truth to power no matter if you disparage it as whining. We will speak and we will act. We have seen changes take place and we will see more of them, whether you like it or not.

Well, I am going to drop this argument. You clearly have little or no appreciation of statistics and its implications that's why you're referring to individual cases when discussing group characteristics. And I reckon that I do not have what it takes to make you appreciate it.

I have a lot of appreciation for statistics but I can differentiate between outcome, cause and effect.

Social scientists and the virtue signaling elite and their minions will be outraged. Outrage is not a proof of truth. Outrage is more often caused by discomfort with truth. What your outrage crowd won't do is present compelling evidence to the the clinical psychologists and neuroscientists that study these matters. As a black man I have every reason to be emotionally outraged by the findings of the bell curve. But logic and the statistics are clear. The scientific methods employed are clear. When you find one study with compelling evidence refuting the bell curve distribution of IQ among different races, I'll be more than happy to see it and publicize it to the world.

AGAIN!
The bull curve makes no statement on how these differences came about. That's the point. I can't make it any easier for you.

These discussions have become very exhausting. Long term hierarchies everywhere in the world of living things form as a result of competitive advantage. Darwinism teaches us this much. In case it wasnt clear ealier, pregnancy and family related focus are competitive disadvantages. Ambitious people always have something to give up to achieve their ambition. If people become so nice as to bend over backwards for others, they can create an illusion that appeals to the masses. It doesn't change the underlying nature of things. The people who thrive at the extremes of competition will never ask for special accommodations. That is a weakness that makes them unsuitable for competition at that level.

Mindfulness:

AGAIN!
The bull curve makes no statement on how these differences came about. That's the point. I can't make it any easier for you.

The bell curve by itself surely did not make statements on causes. The bell curve is not the only scientific literature on intelligence. It merely shows the statistical distribution of intelligence. You made the most common mistake newbies to statistics make by trying to make inferences for individual cases in a statistics related discussion on groups. Nobody who understands statistics makes such mistakes. It is as basic for statisticians as it is for Catholics that know that the Papal office is in the Vatican.

Here's one evidence of genetics as the greatest contributor to IQ. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

At this point I'll have to leave this discussion. I realize we are not even operating from the same premises, and we'll never converge at similar conclusions. But remember this, nature is not nice. Nature is hierarchical. Competence and ambition are the keys to the top of any dominance hierarchy.

GiantParrot:
These discussions have become very exhausting. Long term hierarchies everywhere in the world of living things form as a result of competitive advantage. Darwinism teaches us this much. In case it wasnt clear ealier, pregnancy and family related focus are competitive disadvantages. Ambitious people always have something to give up to achieve their ambition. If people become so nice as to bend over backwards for others, they can create an illusion that appeals to the masses. It doesn't change the underlying nature of things. The people who thrive at the extremes of competition will never ask for special accommodations. That is a weakness that makes them unsuitable for competition at that level.

Equal opportunity is not any special accommodation but fairness,and if anyone has been enjoying special accommodations then it is the male gender. These special accommodations have been granted to you by religion, written by men, making women your servants so that you could have your cake and eat it.

The bell curve by itself surely did not make statements on causes. The bell curve is not the only scientific literature on intelligence. It merely shows the statistical distribution of intelligence. You made the most common mistake newbies to statistics make by trying to make inferences for individual cases in a statistics related discussion on groups. Nobody who understands statistics makes such mistakes. It is as basic for statisticians as it is for Catholics that know that the Papal office is in the Vatican.

I have used individual examples for clarification. You have used statistics in a misleading way. It took me hours to explain it to you. But eventually you admit that the bell curve in no way states that Africans are genetically dumber.

Here's one evidence of genetics as the greatest contributor to IQ. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

You shot yourself in the foot. The article explains individual differences, not differences between races. And even in the first paragraphs, the article mentions environmental factors having an impact on intelligence.

At this point I'll have to leave this discussion. I realize we are not even operating from the same premises, and we'll never converge at similar conclusions. But remember this, nature is not nice. Nature is hierarchical. Competence and ambition are the keys to the top of any dominance hierarchy.

I don't care. Keep arguing for your limitations according to which you are dumber than your white counterparts. Good luck with that.

Mindfulness:


Equal opportunity is not any special accommodation but fairness,and if anyone has been enjoying special accommodations then it is the male gender. These special have been granted to you by religion, written by men, making women your servants so that you could have your cake and eat it.

Thought experiment. At the beginning of our species, did nature give everyone equal opportunity? How then did some come to dominate others? You mentioned religion. So women lacked the agency to refuse religion? Women decided to wilfully accept something that puts them at a disadvantage? What does that say about women?

I have used individual examples for clarification. You have used statistics in a misleading way. It took me hours to explain it to you. But eventually you admit that the bell curve in no way states that Africans are genetically dumber.

I challenge you to quote where I used statistics in a misleading way. The fact that you still think you can use an example of two hypothetical individuals receiving different education as a point for clarification in a discussion on statistics of group differences still shows your lack of understanding of statistics. And it is so funny that you think you explained anything sensible to me.

You shot yourself in the foot. The article explains individual differences, not differences between races. And even in the first paragraphs, the article mentions environmental factors having an impact on intelligence.

What do you mean that the article explains individual differences? Didn't you see the thousands of test subjects? Quote where the article mentioned individual differences.

Now I even further realize that you have little appreciation of aristotlelian logic. I'll give you an example.

Premise 1: There is a clear difference in the distribution of height among different populations demographics. The data shows that blacks are generally taller than Chinese based on representative samples of thousands of blacks and chinese.

Premise 2: Height is 80% attributable to the genes and 20% attributable to other factors like nutrition.

Conclusion1: The general difference in height between black people and Chinese people is primarily due to genetics.

Conclusion 2: If I see many black people and a Chinese people today, it should not be surprising to find that most of the taller people are blacks.

Premise 3: people who play basketball are generally tall.

Conclusion 3: If I attend a basket ball game, it should be no surprise that there are more black players than chinese players.

Invalid individualistic conclusion 4: If I see a black and chinese person today, the black guy will definitely be taller than the Chinese guy.

Now, here is what someone with the intellectual capacity of Mindfulness will say: I went out today and saw a Chinese person who was taller than a black person so premise 1 is wrong. Such comment shows lack of understanding because premise 1 does not say All black people are taller than all chinese people. Premise 1 says there are more tall black people than there are tall Chinese people. By the law of averages, you will surely find Chinese people that are taller than the average.

If you have any facility for analogies, you'll be able to translate this easy example to the discussion on IQ.

I don't care. Keep arguing for your limitations according to which you are dumber than your white counterparts. Good luck with that.

Again, you're definitely clueless about statistics by referring to the individual "you".

Read my post carefully. I challenged you to make quotes from the article and our previous posts to prove certain claims you made. I am waiting.

GiantParrot:

Thought experiment. At the beginning of our species, did nature give everyone equal opportunity? How then did some come to dominate others? You mentioned religion. So women lacked the agency to refuse religion? Women decided to wilfully accept something that puts them at a disadvantage? What does that say about women?

At the beginning of our species, did nature give the disabled wheelchairs? Why would we use them? Nature made them unable to move. They should suck it up, right?

I challenge you to quote where I used statistics in a misleading way. The fact that you still think you can use an example of two hypothetical individuals receiving different education as a point for clarification in a discussion on statistics of group differences still shows your lack of understanding of statistics. And it is so funny that you think you explained anything sensible to me.

You have used the bell curve to claim that Blacks are genetically dumber.

What do you mean that the article explains individual differences? Didn't you see the thousands of test subjects? Quote where the article mentioned individual differences.

Quote the passage where it says that Asians/Whites are genetically smarter.

Now I even further realize that you have little appreciation of aristotlelian logic. I'll give you an example.

Premise 1: There is a clear difference in the distribution of height among different populations demographics. The data shows that blacks are generally taller than Chinese based on representative samples of thousands of blacks and chinese.

Premise 2: Height is 80% attributable to the genes and 20% attributable to other factors like nutrition.

Conclusion1: The general difference in height between black people and Chinese people is primarily due to genetics.

Conclusion 2: If I see many black people and a Chinese people today, it should not be surprising to find that most of the taller people are blacks.

Premise 3: people who play basketball are generally tall.

Conclusion 3: If I attend a basket ball game, it should be no surprise that there are more black players than chinese players.

Invalid individualistic conclusion 4: If I see a black and chinese person today, the black guy will definitely be taller than the Chinese guy.

Now, here is what someone with the intellectual capacity of Mindfulness will say: I went out today and saw a Chinese person who was taller than a black person so premise 1 is wrong. Such comment shows lack of understanding because premise 1 does not say All black people are taller than all chinese people. Premise 1 says there are more tall black people than there are tall Chinese people. By the law of averages, you will surely find Chinese people that are taller than the average.

There are physical attributes that you can change and others which you cannot. You can exercise your muscles to be more muscular but you can never change your eye-color.

If you have any facility for analogies, you'll be able to translate this easy example to the discussion on IQ.

I already have but I thought you were tired.

Again, you're definitely clueless about statistics by referring to the individual "you".

Ok, you are an expert and you have proven that Whites are smarter than you. Congratulations!

Read my post carefully. I challenged you to make quotes from the article and our previous posts to prove certain claims you made. I am waiting.

No, it's on you to quote from the article to prove that Whites/Asians are genetically smarter than Africans as you said. Good luck!

Mindfulness:


At the beginning of our species, did nature give the disabled wheelchairs? Why would we use them? Nature made them unable to move. They should suck it up, right?

And now she tries to make a point using references to inherent disabilities in certain people in a discussion about women's agency. Are you trying to suggest that women inherently lack the capacity to compete with men just like disabled people inherently lack the capacity to compete with the abled in the natural state of things? So just the way we make special accommodations for disabled people to improve their lives, we should act similarly towards women? I was so not expecting that from you. Even I find it difficult to look at women with the eyes of victims of nature.

You have used the bell curve to claim that Blacks are genetically dumber.


Quote the passage where it says that Asians/Whites are genetically smarter.

Funny you. The bell curve is used in science to show group differences. I referenced it and said that the IQ distributions for different races are different hence the different racial representations in STEM as STEM requires higher than average IQs. At this point, there had been no mention of genetics. You then went on to say the environment (education) could be responsible. I responded that education could play a role, but it's not as important as IQ. I then followed by saying IQ is mostly determined by genetics. At this point, I had not provided the evidence. You protested further, and I showed you a link that claimed that IQ has a 75% contribution from genetics.

I still don't get what your issues are. Why do I have to show you from that particular link that whites/asians as a group have higher IQs than blacks as a group when the link was not concerned with group differences in IQ, but with genetic contributions to IQ? That is like holding on to premise 2 alone in my height example and asking me to prove racial differences in height from a premise that is concerned with genetics. It is the combination of premises 1 and 2 in the height example that yields the conclusion that blacks as a group are generally taller than Asians as a group primarily because of genetics. Not the individual premises themselves. Similarly, the bell curve evidence in the IQ argument is analogous to premise 1 of the example on height, and the link on IQ's relation to genetics is analogous to premise 2 of the height example. Logical inference from these two pieces of evidence indicates that genetics is the primary reason behind the racial IQ differences. It's so simple I'm wondering why I have to spell this out in this manner.

There are physical attributes that you can change and others which you cannot. You can exercise your muscles to be more muscular but you can never change your eye-color.

It's not clear what value this brings to your arguments.

Ok, you are an expert and you have proven that Whites are smarter than you. Congratulations!

This makes me chuckle. Surely there are Whites who are smarter than me. There are Asians who are smarter than me. There are Blacks who are smarter than me. The evidence indicates that there are more Whites and Asians who are smarter than me, than there are Blacks who are smarter than me. I feel no iota of shame for this. Just like I feel no shame that there are Whites who are taller than me, there are Blacks who are taller than me, and there are Asians who are taller than me. The evidence indicates that there are more Whites and Blacks who are taller than me than there are Asians who are taller than me.

No, it's on you to quote from the article to prove that Whites/Asians are genetically smarter than Africans as you said. Good luck!

Your aversion towards presenting evidence to support your claims when challenged is not lost on me.

Mindfulness:


Wait ...
They made a choice to have a problem with the ideology which has allowed them to have a choice?

You seem dyslexic, I swear down..

Patience or not, you have and will always have to surrender.

If that will make you sleep better at night, of course I'll surrender. Consider it proof of my desire in helping you with your sleeping disorder.

The ordinary is boring. Most (wo-)men are expected to get married, have kids, make some money, go to church every Sunday. This is the usual order of things, how people like you want everyone to live their lives. Marry, build a house, have kids, plant a tree .... BOOORING! No edge to it, same place, same faces, same order of things for everyone. Petty bourgeois. Yawns!

See this has always been why having a conversation with you should never get past three responses. You keep inventing things out of the dark innards of your pretty bum.

What I want was never a part of my comment.
What I did was show how women who are either unmarried or single mothers, baby mamas or divorced and remarried multiple times, are being used as examples in pushing the 'strong' woman message of feminism, when the same message could be preached using women who are married and stayed married while building successful careers as well as raising a family.

And all you could come up with as a response is tell me that the woman used in the latter example has an ordinary (boring) life.. ... so her example shouldn't be used as a message in feminism.
The alternative therefore, which is a more exciting way of life (single mothers, baby mamas, and divorceés) is totally appropriate and is a very suitable example of what being strong as a woman with rights and choices is and should be all about.

This is what you decided to pass accross this beautiful Sunday as sense?