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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (23529)	10/5/2007 4:33:58 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217651

CB, it's fashionable these days to say women are the same as men, and all ethnicities are just the same as each other, apart from cultural habits. But it's not true. Women, for a start, are missing a Y chromosome. Or, another way of looking at it, men are deficient by an X chromosome. Then, women's brains are fully grown 3 years before men's, which has significant implications for intellectual development, which is currently unrecognized in education processes. Girls seem to be doing so well when they are young, and through high school. The concern is all about boys. Rightly so in some respects because boys are led to believe, falsely, that they are intellectual failures. Telling them to try harder isn't the answer. Nor is making them work longer hours. Girls, with their bigger brains, can easily learn and understand the school stuff. But the boys who do okay at education because they are bright, take off when their brains finally grow to full size. They then have an advantage over girls whose brains stopped growing well before "hard" subjects like maths and science were seriously introduced. As you know, brain development and learning has to be done at the right stage or the individual misses out. That is true all the way from birth. There is no catching up later. People who learn foreign languages before puberty are indistinguishable from the real thing. Those who learn them in adulthood retain their accent [unless the individual has special talent or has had exposure to linguistic novelty sufficiently as a youngster]. Similarly, trying to teach a female maths and science 3 years after their brains have fully grown is going to be hard work. Apart from developmental timetable, there is the loss of 3 years by females in development time. Boys have that advantage of an extra 3 years of childhood. The biological imperative was obviously for girls to get to having babies sooner rather than later, while it was advantageous for boys to keep learning and developing longer. Feminist ideology might not like it, but that's what nature has done. Or, if not nature, then our biological antecedents. For modern humans to then further debilitate females by delaying their education in real stuff, makes things worse. Males are the champs in maths, physics and most things. They obviously have an advantage and I think it's due to that developmental delay. It's not just cultural. There has obviously been a lot of physical development just in simple brain size from chimpoid ancestors to us now, so to think that the improvements are cultural is silly. We simply have better brains than our ancestors of 30,000 years ago [Y chromosome] and 90,000 [female ancestor]. Since females prefer smarter males, and smarter males tend to kill of the stupider ones in genocidal war, I don't believe the improvements just in the last 2,000 years or even 200 years are simply cultural, with people learning to wash their potatoes and develop their CDMA. Natural selection continues apace, with females conducting a vast eugenics programme. Blokes are aware from bitter experience that females do NOT allow just any passing Tom, Dick or Harry to act as sperm donor. It's also fashionable to moan that the educated are not breeding whereas the mob is, with the implication being that the average intelligence will drop over time. But the blokes at the bottom of the heap are rejected in droves and often enough are in prison or die in car crashes or by other means such as winning Darwin Awards [females don't feature so strongly]. So they do not have offspring. I haven't done a head count, but I bet that the net effect of a slightly lower birth rate among the very intelligent is more than compensated for in the even lower birth rate at the bottom of the heap. However it happened, humans have got high horsepower brains compared with chimps [even at the very low end]. It's not just a matter of learning. You can spend all the time you like "educating" a chimp, and at the end of it, their table manners and conversation will still be dodgy at best. Mqurice