GENIUS FORUMS

s_e wrote:The reason for not editing posts after they are responded too is like a government writing its own history. It is a function of accountability, which you are conveniently avoiding.

Nice deflection from Elizabeth's point, Tharan. I think in your case it would be wise for anyone engaging with you to realize that whatever you are saying about them, is a statement on your own behavior. Where is your accountability Tharan and why are you avoiding it?

What the hell are you talking about? I don't edit my posts in order to wash away the evidence, you do.

Elizabeth,

Cory: Sure, but that would have meant that there would have been 'girls clubs' as well. While the boys were off to do their thing, the girls got together to do theirs.

Elizabeth: Not necessarily. Many were isolated, cooking and cleaning in houses with children, while men had the opportunity to go out. Please read the thread I started "Were women bright to play dumb?"

Likewise, many men were working quite hard as well, elizabeth -usually at tasks which were responsible for the evolution of their brains differing physiological structure. For instance, hunting would have been done by males, and hunting would have demanded a great deal of analyses, conceptual communication, stragedy, and afterwards, storytelling and entertainment inspired by their accomplishments.

Women didnt neccesarily play dumb, but rather, taking care of children was something someone had to do, and naturally, because they were physically less suited for the task of hunting, woman took the responsibility of childcare full time, and with that: cooking and cleaning.

Men hunted and then later developed business skills.

Gradually, the brains between man and women became more and more distinct over time.

Elizabeth wrote:

CP: I would answer by asking you: “why, historically, have there been no major female philosophers or scientists?”

EI: Please check your data.

The following is a telling statistic, in my opinion:

--

Sir John Maddox, editor of Nature magazine from 1966-73 and 1980-95, was
asked to compile a list of the 10 greatest scientists of the 20th
century - defined in terms of making the most significant breakthroughs or
the greatest impact upon their particular field of research. His pick:

1. Albert Einstein
2. Ernest Rutherford
3. Emil Fischer
4. Paul Dirac
5. Werner Heisenberg
6. Linus Pauling
7. Richard Feynman
8. Francis Crick
9. Hermann Muller
10. MacFarlane Burnet

He also provided a list of the next best 10 (ranked in no particular order):

Neils Bohr
Erwin Schrodinger
Charles Sherrington
Louis Leakey
Fred Hoyle
Steven Weinberg
Edwin Hubble
Wolfgang Pauli
Jules Poincare
Harry Hess

Note that there is not a single woman named in either of these two lists.

Other names that John Maddox considered, but eventually discarded, include:
Howard Florey, Robert Robertson, Peter Mitchell, Alan Turing, Otto Hahn,
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Robert Edwards, Stanley Cohen, Fred Sanger,
Kamerlingh Onnes, Arnold Sommerfield, Arthur Compton, San Goudsmit, George
Uhlenbeck, Carl Anderson, Ernest Chadwick, Hans Bethe, Eugene Wigner, and
Edward Teller. Again, there is not a single woman in this group.


--

In my view, this illustrates very clearly that while women are capable of being competent scientists and can even make some significant breakthroughs if they happen to be in the right place and the right time, they are currently unable to rise to the level of genius required to really expand the frontiers of science. And when you consider that scientific genius is actually a far weaker and more diluted form of genius than philosophical genius, it also illustrates just how far away women are from enlightenment.


-

The large majority of those contributors were from a generation that normally did not support women going into science. It will contribute significantly to the final numbers.

As an anecdotal, even now, I'll bet their weren't more than a handful of women that graduated with me in Computer Science. Lots of nerd guys and a few ugly women. On the other hand, there are MANY women in the Biological Sciences, which I experienced first hand at my previous position in Laboratory Medicine at the University. I might even wager there are more women becoming non-surgical medical doctors than men. Conversely, I'll also wager that there are double or triple the number of men who specialize in surgery.

*edit*
BTW, Alan Turing should be MUCH higher in that list.

I agree that the "boy's club era" made a big impact on the numbers of females contributing at that time, but the "boy's club" also subtracted from the recognition of those who did contribute.

Science:
Marie Curie
Alice Hamilton
Wangari Maathai
Grace Hopper
Here's a bigger list, those were just some of the top ones IMO.
a list of female scientists

Philosophy:
Hypatia of Alexandria
Ayn Rand
and a list of about 70 others:
a list of female philosophers


"No major female philosophers or scientists?" - Hardly.

Ayn Rand is currently my favorite of that list of philosophers.

And Nikola Tesla should have been at the top of the list of top scientists - he wasn't even on the list, either.

All that list you posted is telling of is the opinion of Sir John Maddox.

Corey wrote:

taking care of children was something someone had to do, and naturally, because they were physically less suited for the task of hunting, woman took the responsibility of childcare full time, and with that: cooking and cleaning.

Well, in the hunter-gatherer stage of evolution, women did the gathering.

Men, on the other hand, were far less suited for the task of breast-feeding...

Elizabeth wrote:

And Nikola Tesla should have been at the top of the list of top scientists - he wasn't even on the list, either.

I don't know much about him. Did he change or overturn any of the fundamental conceptual paradigms of science in the way that those listed did?

What was the wisest thing he ever did, in your view?

All that list you posted is telling of is the opinion of Sir John Maddox.

Well, he is a highly respected scientist and his list didn't provoke any real controversy within the scientific community.

Are you saying there were women who changed or overturned fundamental conceptual paradigms of science during the course of the 20th century? If so, who were they?

-

Elizabeth wrote:

Well, in the hunter-gatherer stage of evolution, women did the gathering.

Men, on the other hand, were far less suited for the task of breast-feeding...

Yes, the physical features of a female determined her responsibilies and thus behavior, and the males physical features determined his.

Each had their physical endowments, and these endowments determined the trajectory.

Man was suited for hunting, and thus conceptualizing, conceptual communication, taking risks, analyses, single mindedness, agression, adventureness - all of these became his traits.

Woman was suited for child rearing and the more simple task of gathering. She became very sympathetic, tolerant, patient, submissive, good at diffusing emotions, conflict resolution, and she became good at determining good character in a man (since her life depended on it)

Tharan,

The large majority of those contributors were from a generation that normally did not support women going into science. It will contribute significantly to the final numbers.

Oh well, the pressure is on them to produce the goods this century. They will have no more excuses this time if they fail. They can't keep blaming men forever, although I'm sure they'll try.

I see that already there is concern in society that even though girls perform better than boys at math during school and university, very few girls go on to become prominant mathematicians and hardly any of them make significant contributions in the field. It's not a good sign.

-

David wrote:

Are you saying there were women who changed or overturned fundamental conceptual paradigms of science during the course of the 20th century? If so, who were they?

I already gave you the list, specifying the top ones. I even gave good links.

Nikola Tesla is going to take a much longer post than I have time to make tonight, but I'll get back to him. The short answer to what I think his biggest contribution was would be AC current. Other people might think some of his other contributions were more important, I'll get back to that. Meanwhile, you can research if you want.

Here's a link:
Nikola Tesla

Elizabeth,

Science:
Marie Curie
Alice Hamilton
Wangari Maathai
Grace Hopper
Here's a bigger list, those were just some of the top ones IMO.
a list of female scientists

Philosophy:
Hypatia of Alexandria
Ayn Rand
and a list of about 70 others:
a list of female philosophers


"No major female philosophers or scientists?" - Hardly.

Ayn Rand is currently my favorite of that list of philosophers.

Others have graced the forum in the past and provided similar lists. It hasn't made much of an impact on us because the calibre of the women listed is always quite low.

For example, Marie Curie was simply an average scientist happening to be in the right place at the right time. She didn't create anything out of her own genius and she didn't challenge any of the major scientific paradigms in any way.

As for Ayn Rand, I can't even call her a "philosopher". She dismissed the worth of philosophy right from the outset and embarked instead on a kind of romantic, social crusade to turn the world into a capitalist heaven. I find her thinking to be extremely shallow and heavily steeped in eroticism and romance. (She was in love of with the concept of the strong, self-reliant man, with her standing by his side. All of her "philosophizing" came from this.)

As for the list of 70 philosophers, there are far too many listed for us to deal with all at once. Why don't you give us an example of two or three of the wisest ones and we can take it from there.

-

Others have graced the forum in the past and provided similar lists. It hasn't made much of an impact on us because the calibre of the women listed is always quite low.

It is urgent to the pathological narcissist, who knows unconsciously that he is susceptible to extreme mortification (the sense of “death” by shame), that this delusion of omnipotence be sustained. Manic defenses help sustain the delusion, but in addition, followers must be seduced and controlled so that the loathsome dependence can be externalized, located in others and thereby made controllable.

The leader can then express his unconscious self-loathing through his “compassion” (often thinly disguised contempt) for his followers’ weakness. Manically proclaiming his own perfection, the leader creates a program of “purification” for the follower. By enlisting the follower to hold the shame that he projects and evacuates from his own psyche, the cult leader rids himself of all shame, becoming, in effect, “shameless.” He defines his shamelessness as enlightenment, liberation, or self-actualization.

It becomes important to the cult leader, for the maintenance of his state of shamelessness on which his psychic equilibrium depends, that there be no competition, that he alone, and no one else in the group, feels shameless. So while apparently inviting others to attain his state of perfection (shamelessness) by following him, the cult leader is actually constantly involved in inducing shame in his followers, thereby maintaining his dominance and control.”

Source: Enlightenment? What Enlightenment?!

[Edited to correct BBCode.]

A joke...

Q: Why do female sages have no followers?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A: Restraining orders.

[Edited to correct BBCode.]

David wrote:

Others have graced the forum in the past and provided similar lists. It hasn't made much of an impact on us because the calibre of the women listed is always quite low.

It seems that you have already made up your mind.

and:

As for the list of 70 philosophers, there are far too many listed for us to deal with all at once. Why don't you give us an example of two or three of the wisest ones and we can take it from there.

and:

Elizabeth wrote:

Quote:
And Nikola Tesla should have been at the top of the list of top scientists - he wasn't even on the list, either.

I don't know much about him. Did he change or overturn any of the fundamental conceptual paradigms of science in the way that those listed did?

You have more disposable time than I do. You are intelligent enough to be able to do research if you want to. I provided links. An intelligent person would not let you influence her to absorb undue amounts of her time.

You may find Nikola Tesla interesting because he was a man, but I'm getting the impression that it would be a useless waste of additional time to hash out with you the contributions of females.

I have made the contributions I feel that I can for the moment to this board. During my short time here, I have met open-minded individuals, closed minded individuals, and people of mixed minds (open in some areas, but closed in others). I have enjoyed the exercises in ferreting out illogic. I am grateful for some new outlooks that I have gleaned from people here, and am likely to return later. For now, I believe the greatest contributions I can make to the world are in other places. I will "see" you later.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Note that there is not a single woman named in either of these two lists.

I did a quick scan through those names and they all appear to be whites too. How would you explain that David?

There seem to be several non-European names on the list - for example, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Kamerlingh Onnes, and San Goudsmit. But as you allude to, they are very much in the minority.

I dare say it is probably because, up until now, science has largely been a European activity. However, I can't see any real reason why it should always remain this way. By all accounts, the Indians, Chinese, Japanese and Latin Americans, for example, have been doing good science of late. So it is slowly becoming a global activity.

The only real question marks are the African races. But it is difficult at this stage to know if this is because of cultural or genetic reasons. It may well be a combination of both.

-

David Quinn wrote:

The only real question marks are the African races, But it is difficult at this stage to know if this is because of cultural or genetic reasons.

Something I was thinking of as of late: Suppose the African races are genetically inferior, it appears nature is correcting the problem because more and more white women are attracted to black men so I suppose the offspring would have less and less of the defects.

Here is a nutty solution: Let’s ship all of our vain overly emotional white women over to Africa: A little present for our African buddies - joke.

Charles Darwin claimed the African tribes were genetically inferior to Europeans.

Women are attracted to what is bad, they are not attracted to wise men. They enjoy being emotionally titillated by men who are adapted to pure feminine entertainment.

While I was in Cuba, many of the Cuban black women thought I was attractive, but because I was so cold, quiet, and lacking emotion they kept urging me to “be myself”. In other words they wanted me to entertain them by singing, dancing and basically behaving like a complete retard like all of the other black men.

I remember my two female white teachers mocked me the entire trip because I couldnt keep up with the blacks. It was quite sad, I overheard a conversation where both of them were considering cheating on their husbands because they were so charmed by the black's feminine entertainment.

I played the shy routine, but even back then in high school I suspected something wasn’t right, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.

It is difficult to be a rational objective scientist when you're "super feminine"

However I'm not suggesting all blacks are "super feminine", I have met quite a few calm, calculative ones, but the vast majority are overly emotional. And more so than the whites.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:I dare say it is probably because, up until now, science has largely been a European activity. However, I can't see any real reason why it should always remain this way.

Likewise up until now science has largely been a male activity.

(By the way, Kamerlingh Onnes is white, and "San Goudsmit" is actually Sam Goudsmit and is also white.)

Women are attracted to what is bad, they are not attracted to wise men. They enjoy being emotionally titillated by men who are adapted to pure feminine entertainment.

I can't help but wonder what kind of people you, David, and Kevin hang with. What a grandiose and biased statement to make: "Women are attracted to what is bad." You remind me of a fellow I once knew who was attracted to women who tend to be portrayed as "bombshells" by the media -- think "Baywatch Babes". If he could secure one of these women for himself he would win (supposed) immeasurable status for himself within society, yet he couldn't do so because he didn't possess the same (supposed) worth via the big wallet, car, home, career that would make him attractive to one of these Baywatch Babes.

Instead of realizing that he held the lynchpin to his own misery (Lose the attraction to plasticized bombshells, bud) he consistently portrayed women as being of this shallow, physically oriented type and rejected them all on the basis of his limited, biased and narrow-minded interactions with them. Needless to say, the guy has never had a healthy relationship with any woman and instead spends his time commiserating with other men who operate from the same dynamic.

I've seen women do the exact same thing when they dress themselves to highlight their sexual wares and then complain that all men are only looking for one thing. If they would step out of the game, they would see it as a game that they have written.

Spiritual Emergency wrote:

I've seen women do the exact same thing when they dress themselves to highlight their sexual wares and then complain that all men are only looking for one thing. If they would step out of the game, they would see it as a game that they have written.

From my experience SE, most women constantly want you to stimulate them with immature emotions or relate to them through identitying with something that is childish. And the ones who are intellectuals have too many attachments to go all the way as philosophers.

I have a few women in my life and the most intelligent one is doing her PHD is biology. She is quite gifted intellectually in that she can write brilliant papers and she gets hundreds on her calculus exams, but she doesn’t have the courage to be alone and to think for herself. She needs authority, and he derives a lot of emotional stimulus from being caught up in the petty university drama’s between students and professors.

Her entire identity/sense of meaning/purpose is derived from something that is incredibly superficial. So when she wants to share by establishing an emotional connection with me, I cannot relate.

She suspects that I have attention deficient disorder because she will go on ten minute rants about her day, but I will retain nothing. She probably believes I am a moron, but her words are like dog feces for my consciousness.

That is the primary problem with women, they want an emotional connection from me and they don’t have the capacity to see their motivations and desires as superficial and petty.

The truth is that at this stage of evolution most don’t have the goods to be gods. The QRS are correct.

S_E what country do you live in? Women in America, at least, by and large are attracted to the "bad" boy. Primarily because, women enjoy nothing more than being in the company of someone who shares their love of making fun of other people. Speaking from personal experience, women love to acknowledge when another person sits lower on the "appearance" pecking order. They love to know that someone else is lower than they, and further, that a male is willing to affirm her position in society, contra the position of some "loser".

Maybe it's New York, but I suspect it to be a universal syndrome that women need affirmation of their position in the pecking order. And just as the skiddish female who grabs her boyfriend tightly and laughs hysterically at the topside of the ferris wheel- she loves nothing more than to look down from the heights onto anyone she can.

It is precisely because she does not trust her judgement, or rather fears too much to be alone in her judgement, that she enlists and even grades her lover thereby.

SE wrote:

Somebody: Women are attracted to what is bad, they are not attracted to wise men. They enjoy being emotionally titillated by men who are adapted to pure feminine entertainment.

SE: I can't help but wonder what kind of people you, David, and Kevin hang with.

I don't recall ever writing those lines. Your are confusing me with someone else.

But as Bryan and CP mention, it is hardly a controversial observation. For example, it is well known among young men that being a "nice guy" with women gets you absolutely nowhere. If you're lucky, you might get to become a shoulder to cry on when the "assholes" they date instead dump, betray or hurt them. But if you want a sexual relationship with them yourselves, then forget it. You fall way back in the pecking order and all you can hope for is some of the spillage.

Men also quickly realize that what women are attracted to in men is their potential earning power, their social status, their willingness elbow people out the way and climb the greasy pole, their ability to create exciting and envious lifestyles, etc. The nice guys know this is the only way they will ever attract a mate, and so most of them plunge headlong into a life-long, mind-numbing, soul-destroying career. All because women are essentially attracted to what is evil in a man, and not what is good.

-

Jason,

DQ: I dare say it is probably because, up until now, science has largely been a European activity. However, I can't see any real reason why it should always remain this way.

J: Likewise up until now science has largely been a male activity.

Well, let's hope you're right. As I said to Tharan, the pressure is on women to perform this century. They'll have no excuses this time should they fail.

Women love to blame men for their failures, but at what point in the future will this blaming start to sound hollow to you? How long are you willing to give them the benefit of the doubt?

-

David Quinn wrote:

Men also quickly realize that what women are attracted to in men is their potential earning power, their social status, their willingness elbow people out the way and climb the greasy pole, their ability to create exciting and envious lifestyles, etc. The nice guys know this is the only way they will ever attract a mate, and so most of them plunge headlong into a life-long, mind-numbing, soul-destroying career. All because women are essentially attracted to what is evil in a man, and not what is good.

Nice guys? Nice guys?? A man who sells his soul for an (near complete) unconscious mate (“woman”) is a “nice” guy?

Wow.

What do you call a man who sells his soul for a nice guy?

.