Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (44837)	1/16/2004 8:55:14 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

KC, I'd say the individual overlap is so large that your comment is a matter of individual characteristics rather than gender: < some stimuli appropriate for my daughter @ 3 were utterly wasted on my son at 3. You raise an interesting point. In my experience my son has a much lower 'saturation' level than my daughter had (speaking in equivalence of age terms > We had the opposite with son versus three daughters. Each is an individual with individual interests, talents, physiology, their whole DNA background, not to mention early life experiences. African Americans have lower average IQs than Jews. That doesn't mean anything as far as individuals are concerned. People have trouble treating people as individuals. They determinedly dump them into a rule of thumb stereotypical category ignoring the fact that each person is unique and might have little in common with others in the group. There are no doubt some super-smart melanin-rich American female mathematicians. Not many, but probably a few. People who don't understand this stuff would say that disproves the theory. But super-smart melanin-rich female mathematicians would understand and agree with the theory. Or, if they don't then they are obviously not too bright. That's a mathematical proof called Catch 22. Mqurice

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (44837)	1/17/2004 5:41:15 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<Smart like love is not enough> Nature knows that life is a compromise. What's good for one purpose causes problems in another. Nature has selected females to reproduce younger than males who have been selected to stay in the developmental phase for a longer time. Because the developmental phase is so important, I will now expound my theory that in matters which don't require muscle and size, in which males always automatically excel, but which are purely a matter of mental achievement, males also always win where there is a measurable challenge [meaning not decided by vote or arbitrary means]. Chess for example gives measurable results. Nobel prizes are subjective so "Number of Nobel Prizes won" would not be a reasonable measure of achievement. The best chess player, a mathematics competition, a computer programming competition, or anything else requiring skill, knowledge, intelligence and speed will have a male winner. That's because to get to be the best, people need to start young, learn for years all through their adolescence into adulthood and then be the very best at about age 23, when they make their greatest achievements. Chess champions, theories of relativity, most great things, are done by males aged in their 20s. Not their 30s or 40s, by which time they are still fiddling with their gravitational constant, but not being really spectacular. It's just how nature has arranged things. Child development is vital to achievement. Children deprived of some of their development years can't make it up in full later. Some developmental things are so important that complete failure results. Same with other mammals. Age 23 is peak performance time. Females have missed out on 3 years of development. That's a 15% burden. With large numbers of males and females, even an amazing female will be swamped in the males of equal ability. Hence the higher up the ability ladder we look, the greater the difference between male and female outcomes. As you say, there's more to success in life than the advantage of a longer development time, or love or money, or intelligence. Nature knows this. Nature has been selecting people to form the next generation for a very longgggg time. The process is continuing its cruel and exquisitely complex work. It's funny that people deny things which don't fit their propaganda training. The current propaganda is that males and females are the same, even though a very casual observer can tell that they are not. Look at an average 14 year old boy and an average 14 year old girl [who is actually a young woman]. See if you can spot any differences. Then ask yourself why there are those differences and what effects those differences would have on the adult and the communities in which they live. We are not all clones. We are each unique individuals, including identical twins, in an infinitely complex web of human life which is also still bound symbiotically to the rest of life. Males are not the same as females. Tall people are not the same as short ones. Brown are not the same as white. Males are not the same as females. Each person has their own physiology, intellectual and physical abilities, needs and luck. The champion male always does better than the champion female in a fair intellectual fight. That's because there's the great statistical advantage of having another 3 years of developmental time. Mqurice