Males tend to be more adept at dynamic visual acuity, which involves the ability to detect slight movements in the field of vision. [...] Females also tend to excel at tasks involving manual dexterity and perceptual speed, such as visually identifying matching items.
Hey, thanks for the info. Well, that sure kills the GP's "Visual Acuity falls as a no contest for women. ". There's a contest, right there! I knew that couldn't be right...
From my art background, I can tell you one thing though: Women are (usually) better at colours, men at lines.
In fact, in the comic book industry, women are usually colorists, or doing the word bubbles. While men (admitedly, there's more of them to begin with) are more likely to be pencillers or inkers.
There's teasers, which entice with little info. They usually come out months before the movie is completed.
And there are trailers, which show too much.
I like teasers, and when I know I want to watch the movie, I avoid the trailers as best I can (plug my ears, close my eyes and go "lalala" if need be).
But I like to have lil' bits of "these movies are coming out soon", to keep me informed. What I hate is when they figure "if we bombard them enough with our ads, they'll HAVE to go see it! Oh, and let's make the ad a 2-minutes meddley of the entire movie, so that IF they see it, it'll be ruined".
We should, like, do something about that. Maybe they're disconnected enough from reality (and we know they are quite disconnected) that they don't know that their stupid marketing have the opposite effect than the one they want... but, they tend to ignore us, don't they?
I know I should withhold judgement on a scientific study until I've read the methedology and study, but come on - [...] Race-based intelligence studies? This sounds like a classic case of someone who ascribes to genetics what is caused by upbringing and social factors such as education.
I find those interresting. I wish there were more done, and that they were more detailed and included geographical data.
I'm wondering if the selective presure against intelligence that was applied for a few generations on the slave populations and their descedents had any effect that outlast the sociological factors that affect intelligence performance.
And that needs studies done over multiple generations, so that you can compare the data through various stages of social climates.
If we do manage to have a society where what you can do is really more of a factor than where you came from, and Africa can come out of it's seemingly neverending series of wars, famines, etc. It would be interresting to see if populations that didn't get lynched for displaying unwanted intelligence end up having a higher percentage of above-average smartypants.
Very politically incorrect, and with a hell of a lot of room for abuse, but interresting.
Or, just maybe it's because women are generally better at "reading" people from expressions than males, and assume they're just as skilled on it.
Aside from removing the supernatural element from his statement, this kinda adds credence to the "men are smarter because..." part of it.
IF they are better at reading people, they should be picking up on the baffelment, frustration, and annoyance generated by their assumption. Shouldn't they? Assuming what is contrary to mountains of evidence isn't very smart : )
Women are different than men. Their sensory perception and attention focus is as a group very different from men. Visual Acuity falls as a no contest for women.
That is the first I have ever heard of this. What do you base this on?
of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features -- used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation - Caucasian noun
Well, a huge block of unformatted text. That looks like someone who can talk about smarts! Fortunatly, the first line resolve the issue:
Intelligence? Intelligent at what? An apache helicopter is pretty intelligent at dishing out bullets.
It's not intelligent at dishing out bullets. It's designed to dish out bullets, and WHEN TOLD TO DO SO it mechanically performs a repetitive task.
That is about as far from intelligence as you can get. No reasonning, no choices, nothing but an automatic response to a signal. What other choice does the chopper has to it's pilot pressing the trigger? None? Right.
I suspect that when women get frustrated with men for "just not knowing" things, it is because they (the women) are used to being easily able to pick up these subtle hints themselves at a subconscious level, and therefore they take having that skill for granted and expect that everyone should be able to do it.
And yet, year after year, they don't pick up on the subtle cues that their subtle clues aren't picked up.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Benjamin Franklin
This is a holdover from the idea of the Great Chain of Being, which was a method by which scientists used to arrange everything on a scale, with snot and rocks at the bottom, then monkeys and black people, then finally white people, angels and God. Except the angels and God weren't around, so white people were in charge. 'Cause that's the way it was meant to be.
Do you see why talking about intelligence is different from talking about sickle-cell anemia?
Yes, but that's no reason to NOT talk about intelligence. The guy didn't say "wimmin ain't smart, they have no place in schools!", he said "hey look, I.Q. test show a sexual bias. I wonder what that's about..."
I'm so, so sick of people being retarded about "touchy" subjects. Just because someone else in the past was dishonest about this research is no reason to assume that everyone who looks at the issue is also dishonest. It's not the 50's anymore, people, try to keep up!
Flamebait or trollbait is a message posted to an Internet discussion group, such as a newsgroup or a mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame").
Not everything that gets flamed is flamebait.
This issue, like abortion, religion and others like that (...emacs vs. vi - oops, perhaps that doesn't go here) is so loaded that there is nobody there who is capable of serously and objectivly conducting an investigation of this.
There are FEW people capable of seriously and objectively investigating it, but far fewer who are willing to listen to them.
The bigger problem with this, the way I see it, is that before we even get to comparing men vs. women, we need to define what "intelligence" is and how to measure it.
FTFA:
There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees. At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.
I.Q. tests aren't perfect, far, far from it, I tend to say that they measure your ability to take an I.Q. test more than your intelligence, but it's something that can be measured, logged, and compared.
This study is interresting. It's not comforting, it's not in line with the current vogue of "everyone is the same" discourse, but that's no reason to NOT do the study, nor to refrain from publishing it.
If you want to debate the interpretation of the results, or the methodology, please, be my guest. But if you object to the study itself because it's subject is sensitive, by god, STFU&GBTW!
The popcorn only tastes good with the butter, and the butter makes you sick anyway.
Why do people insist on calling that inedible yellow oily sludge "butter"? I don't know what industrial process this is a byproduct of, but butter it ain't.
Remember when we used to hate all the damn previews?
No.
I only ever hated the sucky ones, the ones that show you too much, and the ones for movies I will never, ever in a million years, want to watch (those, off course, are the ones that get shown the most).
But I, and everyone I know, like previews. They're a nice buffer to getting there on time, and they make a great transition from "talk all you want, the movie ain't started yet" to "shut the hell up, this ain't your living room" time.
Too bad. Seems you're missing out on the Masterpiece that is Batman Begins. If you plan to see one other movie this year, make it Batman Begins! You will not be disappointed!
"Charlie and the chocolate factory" is also good. And it has way more midgets.
I have never once had a showing ruined by a phone ringing, someone's kid screaming, or someone else throwing food. I think you exaggerate the problem a bit much.
Where is this cinephile's eutopia? I nearly got in a fist fight with some guy last fall because he didn't like the looks I gave when he was taking callS (plural) during the movie! Apparently, it's perfectly acceptable to him to let his phone ring, and then talk for a while, THREE TIMES, but it's impolite to look at him doing it.
Not to mention idiots who think they're in their living rooms and who talk with each other... hell, once during one of the LOTR a woman in the row behind me took off her shoes and put her feet up on the seat next to my head! The smell! GAH!
Because it would be better with Tom Cruise? Lets face it if the movie sucks it doesn't matter who the actors are, good actors only serve to elevate a good movie to great, not redeem a crappy movie.
Well, first of all, I will not give money to Jackass or Jackass-like endaevours.
Secondly, he's not even an actor, he's just an idiot with a fanbase who relate to his lowest common denominator antics.
Finally, IF the "actor" playing one of the leads is a talentless idiot picked for his "star power", THEN you know that the movie sucks without having to see it to confirm, the choices they made is enough metadata to make the call.
I'm inclined to think that Jessica Simpson makes up for that.
Meh, horseface has a nice bod', but there's better, and more nubile, girls on the net: Not gonna pay to go see crap just because there's a nice (but covered) body in some of the shots.
The whole drug thing has also really kept going strong despite the "war on drugs" which generally keeps people either on the couch or in the fridge.
Wow, I hadn't thought of that. The war on drugs has an adverse effect on movie attendance!
I bet a lot of movies would benefit from a trippier audience, and think of what the stoner crowd would do to the snack sideline!
Ok Hollywood, you know what to do! Stop wasting lobbying efforts on the war against your consummers, and have the powers that be legalise "it"! Not only will the theaters fill up, but your stars won't spend so much time in courts! It's win-win!
Hollywooods' latest non-idea seems to be re-making 70s TV series and films...badly.
I was going to go see the Dukes of Hazard movie (hey, nostalgia + seeing the General Lee jump over stuff on a big screen, sounded like fun) until I realised that it was starring the guy from Jackass. And that Boss Hog was Burt Reynolds, and not a fat, bald, short guy.
And no, I don't plan on pirating it wither. Bleark.
Slashdot Mirror
Males tend to be more adept at dynamic visual acuity, which involves the ability to detect slight movements in the field of vision. [...] Females also tend to excel at tasks involving manual dexterity and perceptual speed, such as visually identifying matching items.
Hey, thanks for the info.
Well, that sure kills the GP's "Visual Acuity falls as a no contest for women. ". There's a contest, right there!
I knew that couldn't be right...
From my art background, I can tell you one thing though: Women are (usually) better at colours, men at lines.
In fact, in the comic book industry, women are usually colorists, or doing the word bubbles. While men (admitedly, there's more of them to begin with) are more likely to be pencillers or inkers.
There's teasers, which entice with little info.
They usually come out months before the movie is completed.
And there are trailers, which show too much.
I like teasers, and when I know I want to watch the movie, I avoid the trailers as best I can (plug my ears, close my eyes and go "lalala" if need be).
But I like to have lil' bits of "these movies are coming out soon", to keep me informed. What I hate is when they figure "if we bombard them enough with our ads, they'll HAVE to go see it! Oh, and let's make the ad a 2-minutes meddley of the entire movie, so that IF they see it, it'll be ruined".
We should, like, do something about that. Maybe they're disconnected enough from reality (and we know they are quite disconnected) that they don't know that their stupid marketing have the opposite effect than the one they want... but, they tend to ignore us, don't they?
1950s?! The great chain of being is a medieval concept.
I was referring to the days of yore: before the sexual revolution.
Ya know, women's lib., bra burning, that kind of stuff.
I know I should withhold judgement on a scientific study until I've read the methedology and study, but come on - [...] Race-based intelligence studies? This sounds like a classic case of someone who ascribes to genetics what is caused by upbringing and social factors such as education.
I find those interresting. I wish there were more done, and that they were more detailed and included geographical data.
I'm wondering if the selective presure against intelligence that was applied for a few generations on the slave populations and their descedents had any effect that outlast the sociological factors that affect intelligence performance.
And that needs studies done over multiple generations, so that you can compare the data through various stages of social climates.
If we do manage to have a society where what you can do is really more of a factor than where you came from, and Africa can come out of it's seemingly neverending series of wars, famines, etc. It would be interresting to see if populations that didn't get lynched for displaying unwanted intelligence end up having a higher percentage of above-average smartypants.
Very politically incorrect, and with a hell of a lot of room for abuse, but interresting.
nerds tend to be somewhat sexist
And jocks are equalitarian role models?
Let me correct your statement: Humans tend to be somewhat sexist.
There; better.
He said "most", not "all".
Naming one of the implied exceptions does not an insightfull comment make.
Or, just maybe it's because women are generally better at "reading" people from expressions than males, and assume they're just as skilled on it.
Aside from removing the supernatural element from his statement, this kinda adds credence to the "men are smarter because..." part of it.
IF they are better at reading people, they should be picking up on the baffelment, frustration, and annoyance generated by their assumption. Shouldn't they?
Assuming what is contrary to mountains of evidence isn't very smart : )
Women are different than men. Their sensory perception and attention focus is as a group very different from men. Visual Acuity falls as a no contest for women.
That is the first I have ever heard of this. What do you base this on?
Putting my Caucasian (are Finns caucasian?)
of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Europe, North Africa, and southwest Asia and classified according to physical features -- used especially in referring to persons of European descent having usually light skin pigmentation
- Caucasian noun
Show me the emotion that doesn't have a logical cause?(sic)
Unrequited love.
Well, a huge block of unformatted text. That looks like someone who can talk about smarts!
Fortunatly, the first line resolve the issue:
Intelligence? Intelligent at what? An apache helicopter is pretty intelligent at dishing out bullets.
It's not intelligent at dishing out bullets. It's designed to dish out bullets, and WHEN TOLD TO DO SO it mechanically performs a repetitive task.
That is about as far from intelligence as you can get. No reasonning, no choices, nothing but an automatic response to a signal. What other choice does the chopper has to it's pilot pressing the trigger? None? Right.
And yet, year after year, they don't pick up on the subtle cues that their subtle clues aren't picked up.
This is a holdover from the idea of the Great Chain of Being, which was a method by which scientists used to arrange everything on a scale, with snot and rocks at the bottom, then monkeys and black people, then finally white people, angels and God. Except the angels and God weren't around, so white people were in charge. 'Cause that's the way it was meant to be.
Do you see why talking about intelligence is different from talking about sickle-cell anemia?
Yes, but that's no reason to NOT talk about intelligence.
The guy didn't say "wimmin ain't smart, they have no place in schools!", he said "hey look, I.Q. test show a sexual bias. I wonder what that's about..."
I'm so, so sick of people being retarded about "touchy" subjects. Just because someone else in the past was dishonest about this research is no reason to assume that everyone who looks at the issue is also dishonest. It's not the 50's anymore, people, try to keep up!
Not everything that gets flamed is flamebait.
This issue, like abortion, religion and others like that (...emacs vs. vi - oops, perhaps that doesn't go here) is so loaded that there is nobody there who is capable of serously and objectivly conducting an investigation of this.
There are FEW people capable of seriously and objectively investigating it, but far fewer who are willing to listen to them.
The bigger problem with this, the way I see it, is that before we even get to comparing men vs. women, we need to define what "intelligence" is and how to measure it.
FTFA:
I.Q. tests aren't perfect, far, far from it, I tend to say that they measure your ability to take an I.Q. test more than your intelligence, but it's something that can be measured, logged, and compared.
This study is interresting. It's not comforting, it's not in line with the current vogue of "everyone is the same" discourse, but that's no reason to NOT do the study, nor to refrain from publishing it.
If you want to debate the interpretation of the results, or the methodology, please, be my guest.
But if you object to the study itself because it's subject is sensitive, by god, STFU&GBTW!
1 more midget..assuming there are no midgets in BAtman.
All the umpa loompas are played by one guy.
Let's not get technical : )
The popcorn only tastes good with the butter, and the butter makes you sick anyway.
Why do people insist on calling that inedible yellow oily sludge "butter"? I don't know what industrial process this is a byproduct of, but butter it ain't.
3. Stop turning books/comics into films.
Why? I LIKED Batman.
And I liked the tripods in War of the Worlds (that's pretty much all I liked, but, I liked).
The rest of your gripes made sense, but why not adapt a good story to the screen? Especially since you complain about lack of good stories!
Remember when we used to hate all the damn previews?
No.
I only ever hated the sucky ones, the ones that show you too much, and the ones for movies I will never, ever in a million years, want to watch (those, off course, are the ones that get shown the most).
But I, and everyone I know, like previews. They're a nice buffer to getting there on time, and they make a great transition from "talk all you want, the movie ain't started yet" to "shut the hell up, this ain't your living room" time.
Too bad. Seems you're missing out on the Masterpiece that is Batman Begins. If you plan to see one other movie this year, make it Batman Begins! You will not be disappointed!
"Charlie and the chocolate factory" is also good.
And it has way more midgets.
I have never once had a showing ruined by a phone ringing, someone's kid screaming, or someone else throwing food.
I think you exaggerate the problem a bit much.
Where is this cinephile's eutopia? I nearly got in a fist fight with some guy last fall because he didn't like the looks I gave when he was taking callS (plural) during the movie! Apparently, it's perfectly acceptable to him to let his phone ring, and then talk for a while, THREE TIMES, but it's impolite to look at him doing it.
Not to mention idiots who think they're in their living rooms and who talk with each other... hell, once during one of the LOTR a woman in the row behind me took off her shoes and put her feet up on the seat next to my head! The smell! GAH!
Because it would be better with Tom Cruise? Lets face it if the movie sucks it doesn't matter who the actors are, good actors only serve to elevate a good movie to great, not redeem a crappy movie.
Well, first of all, I will not give money to Jackass or Jackass-like endaevours.
Secondly, he's not even an actor, he's just an idiot with a fanbase who relate to his lowest common denominator antics.
Finally, IF the "actor" playing one of the leads is a talentless idiot picked for his "star power", THEN you know that the movie sucks without having to see it to confirm, the choices they made is enough metadata to make the call.
I'm inclined to think that Jessica Simpson makes up for that.
Meh, horseface has a nice bod', but there's better, and more nubile, girls on the net: Not gonna pay to go see crap just because there's a nice (but covered) body in some of the shots.
The whole drug thing has also really kept going strong despite the "war on drugs" which generally keeps people either on the couch or in the fridge.
Wow, I hadn't thought of that.
The war on drugs has an adverse effect on movie attendance!
I bet a lot of movies would benefit from a trippier audience, and think of what the stoner crowd would do to the snack sideline!
Ok Hollywood, you know what to do! Stop wasting lobbying efforts on the war against your consummers, and have the powers that be legalise "it"!
Not only will the theaters fill up, but your stars won't spend so much time in courts! It's win-win!
Hollywooods' latest non-idea seems to be re-making 70s TV series and films...badly.
I was going to go see the Dukes of Hazard movie (hey, nostalgia + seeing the General Lee jump over stuff on a big screen, sounded like fun) until I realised that it was starring the guy from Jackass. And that Boss Hog was Burt Reynolds, and not a fat, bald, short guy.
And no, I don't plan on pirating it wither. Bleark.
I saw one episode of Firefly when it was out a few years ago and hated it.
Lemme guess, "The Train Job"?
Good thing someone convinced you to get past it later on : )
How much is your name worth at Scrable?