GENIUS FORUMS

jupiviv wrote:I don't see the point in saying that a lack of scientific journals about the things Kelly talks about means that there is no evidence. There is a lack of scientific journals on the subject of apples being different from SCUD missiles. That doesn't mean that there is no evidence for that fact. Things have no truth contained in themselves, so you have to affirm the truth of something yourself for it to be true. If you choose not to do so, then no amount of evidence can force you to. Taking a horse close to water, and so on.

Carmel:
Right Jups, so do you believe in UFO's, aliens, fairies, conspiracy theories and Bigfoot without proper evidence? Logical people require evidence. Kelly or your mere opinion is irrelevant to the issue of IQ and academic scores.

Just so we don't lose sight of the purpose of this discussion, the aim is to examine the evidence of sexual differences objectively and find reasonable explanations for them. If those differences are marked and generalisable, then they are obviously playing some role in behaviour, and therefore also psychology. That's the hypothesis.

Carmel wrote:Kelly: Otherwise, you wouldn't need me to pull out the obvious references to the influence on the educational system by a feminist-driven ideology, from the page....

Carmel: You're changing your claim here. Your original claim was that "research" on the education system was driven by feminism which you have yet to prove.

Well, the educational system is influenced by research on education - one would think - so it's all much of a muchness to me.

...and your "hunch" is wrong. I read much of that tripe you posted. My hunch is that you posted that in lieu of evidence because you don't actually have any that is from a viable science journal for your counter claims (about I.Q. and academic scores, you know, in case you forgot).

I never made a claim on that basis, because, so far as I know, most intelligence tests show general similarity (accepting males' IQ scores are, on average, 3-5% more than females'), except for a couple of things like spatial ability, abstract reasoning, and the like. But that 5% may be indeed very significant:

On measurements of various aptitude tests, the differences between the sexes in average scores on these tests can be as much as 25 percent. A difference of as little as 5 percent has been found to have marked impact on the occupations or activities at which men or women will, on average, excel.

--- Anne Moir & David Jessel, Brain Sex, 1992

To get back to my actual main point, there is a wealth of scientific literature on differences between the sexes. I don't think anyone in their right mind would deny that. But of course, a lot of people do... and consequently, it should be obvious that educational systems would be designed to reflect popular thought on how to teach people. For references, check out the page. If you haven't read the books or checked their bibliographies, how can you say they are all invalid?

...

Carmel wrote:That's exactly what I thought, Kelly. You have no viable evidence or data to verify your claims. I know, because I've researched this subject before and none exists which supports your specific counter claims (specifically IQ and academic scores)

Oh, dear. Looks like it's time for some tedium. ---[edit: The following doesn't support the claim of higher IQ or general aptitude scores, since I didn't make that specific claim, but namae may have done. The following is about how educational results can be skewed by poor teaching methods, which, in turn, can result from not understanding that sexual differences influence how a child or adolescent or adult learns.]---

-

* Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Projection of Education Statistics To 2011, Chapter 4, "Earned Degrees Conferred." The department projects that in May-June 2011, 568,000 men will be awarded bachelor's degrees compared with 824,000 women. That works out to 59.2 percent of degrees being awarded to women. You can access this report online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/proj01/chapter4.asp.

-

New Zealand’s Ministry of Education commissioned a major study of the gender gap, published in 2000 under the catchy title, “Explaining and addressing gender differences in the New Zealand compulsory school sector.” According to a recent report in the New Zealand Herald, “the gender gap favoring girls in literacy is [now] larger in New Zealand than almost every other OECD country.” See Jennifer Buckingham’s column for the New Zealand Herald, “Let’s make a start to fix boy troubles,” November 26 2003.

-

Several major U.S. colleges and universities, such as New York University and the University of North Carolina, already report that their student body is more than 60 percent female.*

* These examples come from Michelle Conlin's cover story for Business Week magazine, May 26, 2003, "The New Gender Gap," pp.74-84.

-

United Kingdom: The gender gap has been a major focus of media attention and government concern in the UK for more than ten years. In August 2000, the British Minister for Education proposed an en masse conversion of coeducational schools to single-sex schools (in the public sector) as a way to correct the gender gap. For more on this proposal, see David Charter’s article, “Single-sex classes proposed to help boys,” The Times (London), August 21, 2000. Other articles documenting the gender gap in the UK include Craig Kenney’s story for the Times Educational Supplement, July 6 2001, “Boys will be boys: the lad culture has negative effect on creative writing,” and also Tim Miles article for The Evening Standard, “A-Levels show girls well ahead of boys: results spark call to change laddish culture,” August 16 2001, p. 16.

-

* See the study conducted by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, "The Hidden Crisis in the High School Dropout Problems of Young Adults in the U.S.: Recent Trends in Overall School Dropout Rates and Gender Differences in Dropout Behaviour." The study can be downloaded at http://www.businessroundtable.org/document.cfm/914 [Link broken]. Recent reports have shown that some school districts "fudge" their graduation rates, for example, by coding dropouts as having transferred to other school districts or to a GED program. Such programs don't count as dropouts. The New York Times published a series of three articles in 2003 on this phenomenon. See Tamar Lewin and Jennifer Medina, "To Cut Failure Rate, Schools Shed Students," New York Times, July 31, 2003, p. A1; and also Tamar Lewin and Jennifer Medina, "High School Under Scrutiny for Giving Up on Its Students," New York Times, August 1, 2003; and also Tamar Lewin, "Education: The Pushouts," New York Times, August 3, 2003, sec.4, p.2. See also Diana Jean Schemo's article "Houston Punishes Former Principal in Undercount of Dropouts," New York Times, August 30, 2003 p. A11.

-

...Most girls prefer fiction: short stories and novels. Boys are more likely to choose nonfiction: descriptions of real events — battles or adventures — or illustrated accounts of the way things work, like spaceships, bombs, or volcanoes.*

* See, for example, A. Simpson, "Fictions and Facts: An Investigation of the Reading Practices of Girls and Boys," English Education, 28:268-79, 1991. An extensive review of this topic may be found in the book edited by Myra Barrs and Sue Pidgeon, Reading the Difference: Gender and Reading in Elementary Classrooms (London: Centre for Language in Primary Education, 1994).

-

...many studies now have shown that when the main emphasis in kindergarten is on learning to read at the expense of other less structured and more developmentally appropriate activities, many boys tune out and turn off. Those boys develop negative feelings toward school that are likely to persist and color the child's entire academic career.*

* See Deborah Stipek and associates, "Good Beginnings: What Difference Does the Program Make in Preparing Young Children for School?" Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19:41-66, 1998. See also D. Burts and associates, "Observed Activities and Stress Behaviors of Children in Developmentally Appropriate and Inappropriate Kindergarten Classrooms," Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7:297-319, 1992.

-

etc. etc.

...

Carmel to namae wrote:
You haven't provided a single shred of evidence that men and women aren't equals. The empirical data implies otherwise, i.e modern neuroscience, cognitive tests, i.q. tests.

Just to be clear, there is a wealth of evidence showing neurological differences - i.e. that the brain is the most sexually dimorphic organ after the gonads. But in most cognitive and aptitude tests, the averages of men compared to the averages of women differ generally by only 3-5%.

But then there are a few areas in which the differences can be much more significant, such as, for men: physical abilities (throwing distance, grip strength, etc.), navigation based on absolute directions, distinguishing irrelevant or missing information, spatial cognition, and a few others; for women: verbal skills, short-term memory, navigation based on relative directions like landmarks, hearing certain kinds of high-frequency sounds, and a few others.

...

do you believe in UFO's, aliens, fairies, conspiracy theories and Bigfoot without proper evidence?

You're again claiming that official and academic scientific journals and studies are necessarily and the sole "proper evidence", which is not true, as I explained above.

EDIT: I did a 5 minute google search of SAT scores: SAT scores from 1972 to 2005. Interestingly, the female Verbal scores do not beat the male ones in a single year. The male maths scores are 39 points higher than the female ones on avg.

Pages 5 and 6 of that pdf also have some interesting extrapolations. If one were to adjust one group scores lower it would be simple to get fewer of them to take the test and ensure that representatives from that group were from the lower school ranks. Also make sure that a greater percentage of them were C and D students. Wait, that is what the male group did. And yet, the scores were still higher. Why?

Looking at page 13 (knowing more females took the test and the females that did take the test were in the top school ranks) the score ranges from 600-800 are predominantly male. If 54% of the test takers are women then in the top four categories men are over represented by 41,051 or 10.5%.

Something more on maths:

Mathematicians of random countries - Scotland: 2/53 female, or 4%.

Netherlands - 0 female.

Kelly,
For the sake of this discussion, I'll accept most of what you just posted as it seems more reasonable than Sax and generally congruent with what I've read, particularly the 3%-5% difference, mostly at the top ranges of IQ, but also at the low end of the spectrum. The highs are higher and the lows are lower. (Sommers).

So really, it seems to me that entire crux of the argument rests only in the top approx .4-.5 of men. It simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of men and women. There are some slight differences in cognitive abilities i.e men have a slight edge in spatial and analytic tasks, women have a slight edge in verbal abilities, but none of this proves that men are superior to women, on average. This is certainly not the conclusion that I would draw from any of this, if you disagree, that's fine, but I'm not going to challenge your opinion, because it is merely that...an opinion.

Jup,

A 39 point difference on a SAT score is negligible. You have to calculate percent differences. Ironically, your math skills could use a bit of refining. I'll address that later...or not because...meh. I'm bored with you guys and this topic, in general.

Carmel wrote:For the sake of this discussion, I'll accept most of what you just posted as it seems more reasonable than Sax

In the opening of the page, Sax writes:

After waiting a few years for somebody else to write a book about girls and boys based on actual scientific research, I finally decided to write one myself. But I made myself a promise. Every time I make any statement about how girls and boys are different, I will also state the evidence on which my statement is based. Every statement I make about sex differences will be supported by good science published in peer-reviewed journals.

There is more at stake here than the old question of nature versus nurture. The failure to recognize and respect sex differences in child development has done substantial harm over the past thirty years — such will be my claim throughout this book....

In other words, Sax basically wrote a "layperson-friendly" rephrasing of the scientific reports. He has mentioned in his letters to Liberman that Doubleday Publishing didn't want it to be full of medical extracts, so that a lot of data and discussion had to be left out. So your interpretation that he is a pseudo-scientist is really not an accurate assessment of the simplified approach he was forced to take.

and generally congruent with what I've read, particularly the 3%-5% difference, mostly at the top ranges of IQ, but also at the low end of the spectrum. The highs are higher and the lows are lower. (Sommers).

So really, it seems to me that entire crux of the argument rests only in the top approx .4-.5 of men.

This is a false reading of the conclusion. The scores are on average 3-5% higher than women's, not the quantity of men. All men's scores are averaged and all women's. The interesting thing that a small minority of males score very highly - and almost no women - is not something to be overlooked. Top performers will undoubtedly achieve far more helpful, ground-breaking, and accurate research. So one cannot count their achievements as quantified individuals, but rather the quality of their productivity.

It simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of men and women.

No. You're dead wrong on this.

There are some slight differences in cognitive abilities i.e men have a slight edge in spatial and analytic tasks, women have a slight edge in verbal abilities, but none of this proves that men are superior to women, on average. This is certainly not the conclusion that I would draw from any of this, if you disagree, that's fine, but I'm not going to challenge your opinion, because it is merely that...an opinion.

I have never argued that men are intrinsically superior to women.

As men generally do better, and also a minority of men do much, much better in some areas - and much, much worse - there is an overall superiority in most of the apitutde tests. Trying to squash that fact, and blur the distinctions, is unhelpful and therefore isn't ultimately even self-serving. Unless mediocrity is one's end goal.

.

Kelly,

The .4 to .5 is a viable number. You didn't factor in the low end and there are more at the low end than at the top. The percentage of people with an IQ of 140 or above is .5%.

Think about the effects of being a top performer, Carmel. The efficiency and increased high-quality productivity. There's no way that one top performer is equal to ten low performers. One top performer won't even equal 1000 low performers. There's no comparison.

...

Carmel wrote:A 39 point difference on a SAT score is negligible.

You see, this is why I hate statistics. They can be interpreted to mean anything - 8% of people know that.

Have you noticed that this is the *average* score difference?

You have to calculate percent differences.

Calculate them yourself if you have to. The fraction of 1 is enough for me.

Ironically, your math skills could use a bit of refining.

FAIL.

(If you can understand the fail in all of the pics in that video in one un-paused viewing, I will withdraw my insult.)

Jup,

You're wrong about statistics. When used responsibly, they do provide valid information.

For example, in the case of the SAT's if you calculate the average diff in math scores between the 2 genders then divide that into the total points, you will get an approx. 5% difference between the gender's score. Anyone with basic math skills should be able to extrapolate these numbers in their head relativity quickly.

The 5% difference is fairly congruent with other cognitive test results regarding brain gender differences.

Incidentally, I haven't clicked your link yet, not sure what it is, a math test presumably? See, what you're doing here is trying to make this a personal, ego based discussion. This is an objective discussion about gender differences, not our individual math skills, but if you or anyone else happen to make a math error or try to manipulate data, I will likely catch it, as I have a strong aptitude for math.

Re-edit: typo, oh and jup, I just clicked your link. You demean yourself when you engage in childish ad homs and furthermore, this behaviour is incongruent with someone who claims to be "enlightened".

[quote="Kelly Jones"]Think about the effects of being a top performer, Carmel. The efficiency and increased high-quality productivity. There's no way that one top performer is equal to ten low performers. One top performer won't even equal 1000 low performers. There's no comparison.

Carmel:

...case in point, What's this bunch of nebulous garbage? This is a good example of how not to use numbers.

Carmel wrote:For example, in the case of the SAT's if you calculate the average diff in math scores between the 2 genders then divide that into the total points, you will get an approx. 5% difference between the gender's score.

So you're saying that the 5% percent difference is insignificant, and the reason why you told me to calculate the percentage is because 5% seems less "significant" than 39 points. This is a classic example of an un-mathematical mind. 5% can be an very significant difference, as it is in this case, because it is the AVERAGE(please get that into your head) difference in scores for 33 years between men and women taking SAT. That is a huge number of individual maths scores, which means that even a small difference in percentage between these two groups would make a large number of men have much higher scores than women on average, and an even larger number have considerably higher scores, if we are to go on the data available on the distribution of intelligence in the population(male variability vs. female concentration in the avg. zone). Note also, that there was an 8% difference in the no. of men and women taking the test in 2005, and this figure has been reached in an ascending order since 1972.

I'm not even going into the possibility of that 5% being a crucial constant comprised of a few problems which females typically may fail to answer, which would be another reason for the 5% figure being extremely significant.

Basically, your whole point is that the 39 point difference becomes valid when it is converted into 5% and is rendered "insignificant." Your understanding of mathematics and logic - FAIL.

By the way, here are two more detailed articles on sex differences:

Sex differences in math aptitude.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm - Article proving that gender-based math aptitude differences are constant all over the world(except Iceland, where girls exhibited anomalous performances), independent of both race and culture.

I just clicked your link. You demean yourself when you engage in childish ad homs and furthermore, this behaviour is incongruent with someone who claims to be "enlightened".

That was not an ad hom, but a statement of fact. I'm guessing that you said my math ability was poor because I gave approximated figures...? Or was it the 5% thing? In either case, that was just lame, and would qualify as an ad hominem. I refer you to that link again.

omg i pwnd u lololol!1!!1!

jupiviv:

So you're saying that the 5% percent difference is insignificant, and the reason why you told me to calculate the percentage is because 5% seems less "significant" than 39 points.

Carmel:
You missed the point entirely, not surprisingly. wow, just wow.

jupiviv:
This is a classic example of an un-mathematical mind. 5% can be an very significant difference, as it is in this case, because it is the AVERAGE(please get that into your head)

Carmel:
I'm the one who initiated the term "average" in my post. You gave me an isolated, meaningless numer. If you actually read my post and comprehended it, you wouldn't be typing AVERAGE in all caps. The caps make you look desperate, incidentally.

jupiviv:
difference in scores for 33 years between men and women taking SAT. That is a huge number of individual maths scores, which means that even a small difference in percentage between these two groups would make a large number of men have much higher scores than women on average, and an even larger number have considerably higher scores, if we are to go on the data available on the distribution of intelligence in the population(male variability vs. female concentration in the avg. zone). Note also, that there was an 8% difference in the no. of men and women taking the test in 2005, and this figure has been reached in an ascending order since 1972.

Carmel:
It's not a signifcant difference and what you're failing to account for is that these averages don't include the people at the lowest end of the spectrum. There are more men at this end, so these numbers don't represent the whole population, only those who are college bound.

jupiviv:
I'm not even going into the possibility of that 5% being a crucial constant comprised of a few problems which females typically may fail to answer, which would be another reason for the 5% figure being extremely significant.

Carmel:
You need to take a rudimentary statistics course.

jupiviv:
Basically, your whole point is that the 39 point difference becomes valid when it is converted into 5% and is rendered "insignificant." Your understanding of mathematics and logic - FAIL.

Carmel:
Here is more evidence that you don't understand math and statistics. The failure is yours...I'm literally embarrassed for you right now. The all caps still make you look desperate, btw.

jupiviv:
That was not an ad hom, but a statement of fact. I'm guessing that you said my math ability was poor because I gave approximated figures...? Or was it the 5% thing? In either case, that was just lame, and would qualify as an ad hominem. I refer you to that link again.

Carmel:
In part because you don't seem to understand very elementary concepts about stats. "39 points" without the relation to other numbers is utterly meaningless. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, one who claims to value logic.

jupiviv:
omg i pwnd u lololol!1!!1![/quote]

Carmel:
Are you twelve? Grown ups don't say things like that. It's extraordinarily adolescent, more specifically, it's boyish. The "lololol!!1!" makes you look desperate, btw.

Carmel wrote:Kelly: Think about the effects of being a top performer, Carmel. The efficiency and increased high-quality productivity. There's no way that one top performer is equal to ten low performers. One top performer won't even equal 1000 low performers. There's no comparison.

Carmel: ...case in point, What's this bunch of nebulous garbage? This is a good example of how not to use numbers.

It counters your argument perfectly. It shows abilities in achieving that not only the bottom performer cannot replicate, but what everyone else cannot replicate. Do you now see why one top performer won't even equal 1000 low performers?

From Jupta's link to La Griffe essay: [*]

Fields Medalists

The talent required to do mathematics at the level of a Fields Medalist is extraordinary. The pool of competitors spans the adult population of the world not yet turned 40 on January 1 of the year Medals are awarded -- approximately 2 billion. (Again, the precise number is not important.) On average, there are three Fields winners per award year, so that the ratio of competitors to slots, N /NS is approximately 7 x 108. From this we estimate the minimum mathematical ability of Fields Medalists to be an incredible 5.8 SD greater than the male population mean. Approximately 1.3 percent of the Medalists will be women. Since the prize is conferred quadrennially, we expect a female Fields Medalist to emerge approximately once every 103 years, that is, every 4/[3(0.013)] years. None has yet surfaced.

But even if one brings the level down to 15 year olds' usual capacities, the ratio of boys to girls achieving high scores (in the top 15%) is still weighted towards boys outnumbering girls:

the gender gap in mathematics has been stable for at least half a century; that sex differences in ability-distribution means and variance ratio are independent of race, culture and geography;

...

[edit: Changed from "Lawrence Summers" to "La Griffe"]

There is no discernable content here and your poor grammatical structure makes much of what you say essentially meaningless. Is English your second language? Apparently, you don't understand what "standard deviation" means. If, perchance, you've never taken a basic statistics course, this would be understandable. I could explain it to you if you'd like.

Grammar hasn't been my forte, but perhaps you gained that impression from an unfinished sentence?
I don't know about SD? Explain it to me please.

Carmel:
Good for those in the top .4% of men, but the other 99.6% of men really ought to quit hanging onto other men's intelligence . It won't change their mediocrity and averageness...ever.

Carmel wrote:Kelly,
For the sake of this discussion, I'll accept most of what you just posted as it seems more reasonable than Sax and generally congruent with what I've read, particularly the 3%-5% difference, mostly at the top ranges of IQ, but also at the low end of the spectrum. The highs are higher and the lows are lower. (Sommers).So really, it seems to me that entire crux of the argument rests only in the top approx .4-.5 of men. It simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of men and women.

It doesn't work like that.
Assume a normal distribution for both men and women with the following attributes.
avg for men 105, avg for women 100, SD for men 15 SD for women 10

So what for men is merely above 2SD, is above 3SD for women.
Then at IQ 120(1SD for men, 2SD for women) you can find the ratio of men vs women by using the figure here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

which comes to about, 13.6 to 2.1, about 6.5:1.It increases for higher IQ.

I used simple figures, the measured figure is about 9:1 over 145.

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2010/04/mans-dominion.html

Read up on Lawrence Summers, speaking on men's greater variance let him in hot water, same so for the professor's paper quote above.That's why you always hear of that single digit percentage figure and nothing else.

If you want population numbers, read johnknight's comments here, at the end.

http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Are-Women ... for/22106/

There are some slight differences in cognitive abilities i.e men have a slight edge in spatial and analytic tasks, women have a slight edge in verbal abilities, but none of this proves that men are superior to women, on average. This is certainly not the conclusion that I would draw from any of this, if you disagree, that's fine, but I'm not going to challenge your opinion, because it is merely that...an opinion.

Superiority of men arises from the simple concept that men want women, women need men.

I was going to quote La Griffe du Lion, but it already has been.
Oh well, the statisticians here should take a look at it and see if he knows his distributions and standard deviations.

PS - Lawrence Summers essay?

PPS - arguing about SAT scores is silly, a dumbed down test will just show which one is less dumber.Dumb it down enough and you have equality.

dejavu,

Just because this place is public and welcomes all thinkers, doesn't mean it can be treated as a public library where neurotic, time-wasting winos pass their hours. If you want to be here, then at least observe the decencies. For a start, tuck your dong back in, and move your gabbling into the Worldly Matters forum. Dan has been more than patient, but you have shown very little that deserves the right to post freely here. I think Dan has every reason to ban you, at present. Everything you post is a dramatic irony, giving others nothing except a negative indication of what a thinker is.

Thanks for your cooperation.


Kelly

...

dejavu wrote:

Superiority of men arises from the simple concept that men want women, women need men.

I just imagined your face! Sorry about that! Not an insult! I tried my best! There is no simple concept. There is only a simple dream as a brother of mine once wrote. :D

How wanting and needing go both ways pale face.

yeah you are a funny guy, I imagined your vagina! Not an insult! I tried my best! :D :D :D

Kelly:
It counters your argument perfectly. It shows abilities in achieving that not only the bottom performer cannot replicate, but what everyone else cannot replicate.

Carmel:
yes, absolutely, "everyone else" includes the vast majority of men also.(over 99.6%) None of this applies to the "average Joe" or even the men with "superior" intelligence.

Kelly:
Do you now see why one top performer won't even equal 1000 low performers?

Carmel:
If you're referring to something such as high level physics, then I would agree that men at the extreme uppermost levels have the advantage . I have never disputed this point, but frankly Kelly, this is just trivia to me. Most of what's been discussed in this thread is just fragmented information and isn't adding any value to my life in terms of "wisdom" or any deeper truths.

No, dejavu. I'm not going to pat you on the head and say you're a cute, loveable little rotter. You need to take responsibility for your own situation. Lift your game dramatically, and start earning the right to post here, or shift your posts into the Worldly Matters forum. Pronto.

I'm here specifically for this thread. I think it is a high quality one, except for having to rely on statistics to present what is blatantly obvious, and apart from your indecent attempts to railroad everything into La La land.

..

Carmel when you are done with my earlier replies to you, you can teach me grammar over here:

http://namaenanka.blogspot.com/

I'm not kidding.

Carmel wrote:Kelly: It counters your argument perfectly. It shows abilities in achieving that not only the bottom performer cannot replicate, but what everyone else cannot replicate.

Carmel: yes, absolutely, "everyone else" includes the vast majority of men also.(over 99.6%) None of this applies to the "average Joe" or even the men with "superior" intelligence.

No, again. You are still being obstinately blind to the fact that the average of all men's scores in maths is always higher than the average of all women's. This isn't a separate phenomenon to that of 15-year-olds' maths level five and six (the highest two levels) being achieved more by boys than girls, or to that of the Field Prize winners never having been female. It's definitely all in the same sphere, namely, genetic. Check out the "Nature vs. Nurture" table in the last link I posted. So this means we have found something that applies to every male and every female.

Kelly: Do you now see why one top performer won't even equal 1000 low performers?

Carmel: If you're referring to something such as high level physics, then I would agree that men at the extreme uppermost levels have the advantage . I have never disputed this point, but frankly Kelly, this is just trivia to me. Most of what's been discussed in this thread is just fragmented information and isn't adding any value to my life in terms of "wisdom" or any deeper truths.

Any top performer in any discipline, has the advantage of understanding. The principle underlying all the apparently "fragmented" information is very obvious to me. There is a clear difference in mental skills between men and women, where all males generally average out to be more skilled at logical thought. And the most logical are male. This has very significant and valuable repercussions for wisdom, namely, that the masculine mind has a greater potential for truth-consciousness.

If you cannot see the principles here, then it's your own problem.

...

dejavu, I'm hard put distinguishing you from an out-of-work samba instructor posting cheesy letterbox junk mail. You're scrap paper, at best. You're not contributing anything of worth on your own merits.

...