|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, 1 invisible),
770
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: About women attitudes
[Re: PHeMoX]
#101397
12/07/06 08:26
12/07/06 08:26
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Thanks
My opinion is about the same as Damocles's
The key points,are the following :
a ) in the "normal" range, there are certainly as many smart woman as men.
b )The probability to be a really great genius is higher for males
c ) less woman have interest in abstract mathematical sciences.
a) and b)
I had bridge ( the card game) lessons some years ago
The teacher, a woman, said
"Well boys do not expect too much from me, I am a woman "
Everybody laughed assuming she was joking, she was known as one of the best bridge players in my city
" I am speaking seriously " She said " A woman can be a very good player but a champion must be a man, it is a matter of fact"
c)
The question is why ?
Well , an obvious answer is , because they are less capable
but I think there is an other explanation which is very much related with maternity
A woman feel the responsability for her children ( or future children ) much more than a man , for obvious reason
Cosequently women are more focused on "concrete" stuff , they are more "serious" than men
A men mantain somthing childish in a corner of his brain
I suppose it happens also to you
I have a regular job 8 - 10 hours a day, nevertheless I like to spend some hours a week programming games even though I dont get any benefit
Just for my interest
My sister shakes her head, she simply can not conceive that I can do something for "nothing"
|
|
|
Re: About women attitudes
[Re: AlbertoT]
#101399
12/07/06 09:25
12/07/06 09:25
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
less woman have interest in abstract mathematical sciences.
...
c)
The question is why ?
Well , an obvious answer is , because they are less capable
No offence, but I think your reasoning is faulthy, not being interested in something is totally unrelated to the fact wether or not they would actually be good in something. Once you find out your good at something, then you will most likely enjoy doing whatever you're good at. Personally I think the era of women in science has only just begun, especially because the emancipation has only been started this recently. Therefore looking at how things are now, might not really be representative at all.
Besides that, I don't really see how you could come to the conclusion that they 'would therefore be incapable'.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: About women attitudes
[Re: PHeMoX]
#101400
12/07/06 11:10
12/07/06 11:10
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659
San Francisco
JetpackMonkey
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,659
San Francisco
|
 Marilyn vos Savant is smarter than you. IQ: 228 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_vos_SavantShe takes on this question in her weekly magazine column: Quote:
The concern unfolds in two questions: 1) Are women handicapped by their upbringing, social pressures, discrimination from men, and more—not just in science but also in other areas? 2) Or are women less bright than men?
Some Answers
The answer to the first question is too obvious for argument: Yes, and in my opinion, upbringing is the No. 1 cause—not discrimination, conscious or not, from men. Just as significant is the fact (not the problem) that many women are far more interested in their families than outside work, and society clearly approves. Top positions do require time, energy and dedication to goals that may even be selfish.The second question is the hot spot. The average IQ of females is equal to the average IQ of males. But averages can be misleading. In the case of intelligence tests, many more males score at the top and the bottom of the intelligence scale. This could account for the greater number of men in the sciences and—on the other end—in the prison population. So: Does the gender disparity in science give credence to the idea that men are more intelligent than women? My answer is “no,” and these are my reasons:
No evidence indicates that the sciences attract the brightest people. The unspoken assumption that science attracts the smartest people is the foundation upon which we have built the conclusion: “If the sciences are filled with men, men must be smarter, unless women have a good excuse for being absent.” I believe that science—like chess— attracts bright people, but only the ones with certain personality characteristics. Those traits might be more common in men. In the case of chess, the game was developed by males for intellectual sparring with other males. Maybe females simply don’t find the game as fascinating. And note that dictators—who aren’t any stronger than other men—are never women. Maybe females just don’t have whatever it takes to bulldoze their way to this dubious sort of “success.” No one thinks the paucity of women in the field of ruthless domination is because they aren’t smart enough! So why should anyone be shocked to find that most bright people—including women—would flee from the sight of a microscope?!To me, it is clear that the brightest people are spread over all sorts of other occupations. Motherhood is likely among them, and why not? I was a stay-at-home mom while my children were small, and I loved it.
Read the rest of her column here, it's fascinating:
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_07-17-2005/featured_0
Consider the story of Irene Hueter, famous Swiss mathematician, if you want to talk about social pressure:
"Dr. Hueter was born in Bern, Switzerland. Before entering high school, she was often discouraged to like math as a girl and was pushed in other directions in spite of mathematics being her strongest subject. In the seventh grade, girls at her school were forced to take a sewing class while all boys took geometry. While the school did not want to make an exception upon her request to take the geometry, she still managed to learn it from her male classmates. In exchange, she solved the problems that they got stuck on."
That was in the 1970's in liberal Switzerland no less.
|
|
|
Re: About women attitudes
[Re: PHeMoX]
#101401
12/07/06 11:35
12/07/06 11:35
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
[quote Besides that, I don't really see how you could come to the conclusion that they 'would therefore be incapable'. Cheers
No offence but I think that you post to much without even reading what people said., it is not the first time I noticed it...Well ,I must admit it is the same also for me , sometime 
If I write
An obvious answer is... but..
It is evident that I consider the latter explanation more reliable than the former
However I dont really understand how you can disagree on such evident claim
People tend to focus on activities which they are fit for
Artists complain about MED and WED while they are happy with C-script
The opposite for programmers
About the traditional arguments of discrimination, Ms Franklin and some others ,this was defintly true some years ago, but I dont think nowadays
I anticipated in my first post this kind of arguments
Look at politics
Ok ,it is still dominated by men but what about Condolees Rice, Hillary Clinton...and many others
How many Nobel prices for phisics have been assigned to women in the last 10 years ?
Discrimination ? baahh
|
|
|
Re: About women attitudes
[Re: AlbertoT]
#101404
12/07/06 13:27
12/07/06 13:27
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
How many Nobel prices for phisics have been assigned to women in the last 10 years ?
Discrimination ? baahh
Your view about the current state of emancipation of women in this world is unrealistic, it doesn't work like that yet.
Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton are part of a very small group of women that actually have something to say in this world.
Eventhough most of us agree it shouldn't be, there's still a lot of discrimination going on.
By the way, I did read your post very well, your socalled 'second' answer comes down to practically the same.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: About women attitudes
[Re: PHeMoX]
#101405
12/07/06 23:50
12/07/06 23:50
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,692
California, USA
bupaje
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,692
California, USA
|
I have read that there may be some structural and chemical differences between the male and female brains. There is still more study needed as scientists don't agree on the importance of any differences, even if they accept them; we were told in Psychology class, that the Corpus Callosum on females may be comparatively larger than that of males. This part of the brain aids in transferring data between right and left hemispheres. Our teacher says this may be an evolutionary development that allows the average male more intense narrower focus to aid his role as protector/hunter, and females as the gatherer, childbearer, etc has a broader focus aimed at juggling multiple tasks.
There may be other factors -like hormones- but my point is that we may be geared in such a way that each sex has a few extra ability points in some fields, or a little more interest in certain topics, based on our wiring. I don't think this means one is better than another, this is just like someone who has a natural talent for music and someone who has to work hard to develop musical ability. Our brains create neural pathways based on how we use them so a female interested in math/science -even if we assume the lesser ability or inclination thing is true- can develop greater ability through her application.
Ethnicity, culture and many other factors add or detract to these abilities.
For me women are 4 quarters, men are a dollar bill. Different physical attributes, equal value. As a married guy of 20 years I can tell you that while I am stronger and more capable than my wife in some areas, she far surpasses me in many many others.
|
|
|
|
