But boxing isn't a strength contest. Nor is fighting in general Fighting isn't only about strength, but strength is very much a part of fighting. If there is anything men are better at than women, on average, it would be fighting, because that is what led to human sexual dimorphism in the first place. That men are stronger than women is mainly due to the advantage strength gives you in a fight. Men have fought over women for thousands of years.
Who keeps modding you guys up? Am I just that wrong?
>However, I do somewhat agree with you, as you cannot prove your correlation true either
Okay, so what did you mean when you said "So if I show you one intelligent person who has no degree, or if I show you a stupid person with a Bachelors degree, that would be false...."
?
>You have no point because you take that humans are the best species
Where did I say that humans are the "best"? That has nothing to do with my point.
It is, as in nature, a matter of balancing the pros and cons of inbreeding and outbreeding. Natural selection by definition reduces genetic diversity. In a population where resources are limited, you cannot achieve unlimited genetic diversity. Eugenics, or selective breeding, are ways of managing adaptive or desirable traits when you do not have an unlimited selection of organisms to choose from, and unlimited food to feed them with. Humans did not evolve large brains by accident. It was the result of selective pressure which reduced genetic diversity by removing smaller-brained, less intelligent humans (and proto-humans).
So if I show you one intelligent person who has no degree, or if I show you a stupid person with a Bachelors degree, that would be false.... No. It would not prove the correlation false.
They, as most living creatures, can learn. Dogs are very capable of learning rather quickly. What you speak of is genetic knowledge, which is probably false. Yes, they can learn. Just not algebra, as I said...
The problem with non-human creatures is that their communication is severely reduced when dealing outside their biologies If you struggle with the dog analogy, how about an ant? Would you agree that a single ant is less intelligent than a human? If so, then is it because of its genes? Anyhow, even if you don't think an ant is "dumber", it certainly has a different kind of intelligence, no? That difference would be innate. Which is what my original point was.
Duh. Is not IQ tested via a test that measures what you have learned? Certainly, knowledge can increase IQ scores. But that is not to say that intelligence consists only of memorization. Presumably, people have different capacities for learning, and some can more efficiently manage information than others.
Furthermore, what is intelligence? Can you give me a single quality that signifies intelligence? Yes, g. Add the all the "different kinds of intelligences" together and see who has the most. That's one way of doing it. You made the statement: "Less educated does not, by any means, mean dumber", so I assumed you had some idea of what intelligence meant. So what is intelligence? Are you responding to the evidence by disputing the definition of the topic? Why should we attempt to define intelligence at all? Why not simply purge it from the dictionary?
Differences between species and differences between individual members of a species are entirely different things. I believe your argument is a straw man. It was an attempt to reduce the argument to a simpler form. There are genetic differences between species, and there are genetic differences between individuals. Have you ever heard of one species diverging into two separate species? What's happening there? Those individuals who were once part of same species are no longer so. Do you see where I'm going with this? Dogs and humans had common ancestors a long time ago. Genetic differences then accumulated, and we split. We would not have diverged, however, if there were not genetic differences between individual members of the common ancestor species. I was merely trying to point out that the mental differences between humans and dogs are genetic. You seem to think that genetic differences only appear when one crosses the species barrier.
For starters, there's little solid scientific evidence. Most of it, like the bell curve, is thinly veiled racism and elitism, not actual science. Even if, and that's a big if, there are innate differences, they would be insignificant next to sociological influences. Because, inevitably, science must always lead one to the conclusion that we are all the same.
Go read The Mismeasure of Man. Lessen your ignorance on the subject Have you read this or this?
It's interesting that you make that comparison, since my understanding of eugenics is that you would be keeping the eloi from breeding, rather than intentionally breeding them to eat. So it is quite the opposite, really.
Less educated does not, by any means, mean dumber Studies have shown a correlation between education level and IQ.
We are in no trouble unless people start saying that intelligence is innate Intelligence not innate? What capacity for intelligence does a dog have? Can it learn algebra? Is this difference between humans and dogs not innate? Why, then, can there not be innate differences in intelligence among humans? Do you think there are innate differences in athletic ability among humans? Or is it just a matter of "effort" or "culture"?
Half Sigma also showed that the smartest men in the GSS (approx. IQ >120) were also more likely to visit a prostitute. (Hardly indicative of cautiousness) This may suggest intelligent men are less able to find willing sex partners. Are smart men less attractive to women? Perhaps in some ways. For instance HS found that smart men were less likely to be athletic, and this paper shows, unathletic men and women have fewer sex partners. Athletic men, with more willing sexual partners are also less likely to visit a prostitute. Athletic activity gives men more masculine bodies, which are more attractive to women. A more masculine physique correlates with (PDF) an increased number of sex partners.
That's where all the dateless slashdot user jokes stem from, right? Geeks being unattractive?
It is VERY important to point out that these numbers are for all age groups. For the younger age groups (read: mating age) there are more males nationwide.
Where is your evidence? I don't believe you. There may be differences in the exact ratios, but the whr hypothesis has not been falsified. Show me a culture that likes women with broad shoulders and a beer gut, will you?
Monogamy was to reduce cruelty to women; despite the authors' claim that monogamy benefits women, because they could share a wealthy man, the reality is, this is not really a benefit. Monogamy is the result of male-male cooperation; it is observed amongst species that have higher degrees of male cooperation.
Sexual dimorphism (men are taller than women) has more to do with female choice, which can still be exhibited in a monogamist society It can exhibited in a monogamous society, but the reason it came about in the first place was mate competition. Otherwise females would have little reason to choose large, aggressive males.
Can you tell the difference between a male and a female chimp without being able to see the huge balls? There is sexual dimorphism among chimps, though it is different than that of humans. Chimps are NOT "the most violently [polygynous] species". Compare them to gorillas or orangutans, which have higher rates of sexual dimorphism and polygyny.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they do have ad-hoc networking...
I know you're being sarcastic, but there is oil in Iraq, and none on the moon...
I see stories from the BBC show up on /. all the time. I figured it was due to the BBC rss feed that firefox comes with.
Who keeps modding you guys up? Am I just that wrong?
>However, I do somewhat agree with you, as you cannot prove your correlation true either
Okay, so what did you mean when you said "So if I show you one intelligent person who has no degree, or if I show you a stupid person with a Bachelors degree, that would be false...." ?
>You have no point because you take that humans are the best species
Where did I say that humans are the "best"? That has nothing to do with my point.
It is, as in nature, a matter of balancing the pros and cons of inbreeding and outbreeding. Natural selection by definition reduces genetic diversity. In a population where resources are limited, you cannot achieve unlimited genetic diversity. Eugenics, or selective breeding, are ways of managing adaptive or desirable traits when you do not have an unlimited selection of organisms to choose from, and unlimited food to feed them with. Humans did not evolve large brains by accident. It was the result of selective pressure which reduced genetic diversity by removing smaller-brained, less intelligent humans (and proto-humans).
It's interesting that you make that comparison, since my understanding of eugenics is that you would be keeping the eloi from breeding, rather than intentionally breeding them to eat. So it is quite the opposite, really.
We must ask Cosmic AC how to reverse entropy.
Why assume that the teens are not having sex because they are smart, rather than because smart teens tend to be unattractive?
Forever? What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
You need an email address to sign up for myspace.
Exactly. It's a reference to the Chapelle show.
Lower average intelligence? I've not seen those studies. I would agree about the distribution.
It is VERY important to point out that these numbers are for all age groups. For the younger age groups (read: mating age) there are more males nationwide.
Where is your evidence? I don't believe you. There may be differences in the exact ratios, but the whr hypothesis has not been falsified. Show me a culture that likes women with broad shoulders and a beer gut, will you?
Are you saying that biological explanations for human behavior are due to the "neocon movement"?
this?
This would only work for dominant males.