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: carranza2 who wrote (23806)	10/10/2007 12:56:08 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217880

C2, it's not lower IQs, it's less talent in specific things which are learned during development periods. My argument is that maths is not intrinsically something females are less adept at, but something that they are developmentally missing out on. There are no doubt also cultural biases, but IQ differences between males and females are too small to make much difference in maths, physics etc for women in the normal range of intelligence. Tiger Woods [to repeat my analogy] is good at golf because he started long before puberty. If he started when he was 21, he would not now be world champion, just as Michael Jordan is pretty good at golf, but nothing like his amazing talent at basketball. You have to start young. My argument is that females miss out on 3 years of development time, so that does limit them more than males. Bad luck. They have the countervailing advantage of being the hand that rocks the cradle and they have other advantages. Nature has given them plenty of advantages. Whining that they aren't as tall or as muscular as males is pathetic. How greedy can they be? Males miss out on an extra X chromosome and have to deal with a lifetime of testosterone and being male. So they miss out on brain development time and therefore can't read maps. That's just how it is. But if introduced to the serious stuff earlier, they would be more inclined to find it interesting and take it on. They could start with map reading at age 5 and physics and maths at age 1. Delaying calculus until they are married isn't likely to lead them to the grand unified field theory. Mqurice