Is this bullshit?

>Man are, on average, and at the extremes, more intelligent than women.
Source?

If you look at IQ bell curves for males and females it usually looks like this. Occasionally they'll have the peaks at the same place but with men having more on the extreme ends.

i have literally never met a woman who is even slightly interested in chess, let alone loving it.

You couldn't link a study? I could make a graph like that.

fgt
uam.es/personal_pdi/psicologia/pei/download/Lynn2004.pdf

WOW HOLY SHIT WHAT A FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

Men truly are at the bottom too xDDD

>what did he mean by this?

If you follow the reply chain I literally said the difference was so small as to be insignificant and shouldn't change the way you interact with anybody.

Nah women are shit tier compared to men, hence why 80+% of history is about famous men.

People also believe in god. Keep that in mind.

Questioning everything is a sign of open-mindedness, intelligence.

Women can bring us back to life if we die (pretty important I'd say) or bring children into this world that will feed us and care for us when we're old and decrepit.
Or do you believe you want oblivion and, as many, an end to this horrible world we live in. Don't you remember how disappointing it was to find out we're going to get old, sick, infirm, demented...and die? Often painfully in a horrible accident: that could have been prevented.

> Are Men and Women Equal?
no, but they deserve to be treated equally and given equal opportunities anyway.

Especially since your numbers are averages, and aren't for any given man or woman. If your reason for giving an opportunity to a man instead of a woman is because of brain volume, maybe you should measure that instead of taking the superficial breast volume

because we gave children(women) the right to vote without the responsibility and who make voting decisions with feelings instead of critical thinking.

>Stupid women vote with their emotions look at their lower IQ in general and everything
>What do you mean PhDs in sciences like physics with average IQ of around 130 also vote overwhelmingly liberal

That says nothing about the significance of the difference. Statistics is more than graphs.

Not being men doesn't make women worse, it just makes them different.

in the order that you asked them

>no
>no
>we arent

because the crux of intelligence that matters is learned behavior

Only fake social "sciences" are liberal, real sciences are overwhelmingly conservative.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734366

> Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance.

Your own first citation argues against the point you suggest in the abstract.

0/10 b8

Put simply, because we might be wrong

There's a nuance to "equal treatment". more precisely they should be saying "we should all have the opportunity to be treated in a manner appropriate to the relevant characteristics we possess"

A woman with a 140 IQ shouldn't have brainlets shoving bellcurves in her face

>Why?
Because collectivism is retarded. Women might be worse than men statistically, but there will still be a high percentage of women who can do a better job than a high percentage of men. You are damaging your economy by excluding these women from equal opportunities.

Individualism and meritocracy are the greatest values of western civilization, fucking brainlets try to ruin it all the time though.

why don't we just execute everyone on the stupid half of the bell curve?

Maybe you can pitch that idea to china

We're not barbarians.

Because the stupid half cleans our sewers, builds our houses, grows our food, sells us products and protects us foreign and abroad.

then why do we even need smarter people, we should kill off the smarter 50%

But that's not equal treatment, that's individual treatment. It results in unequal treatment as a whole when mental and physical differences, like OP mentioned, exist (basically: women are uncompetitive). Then nobody has a right to whine about a 95% male executive quota or alleged income inequalities. Even universal suffrage becomes a topic open to debate (since we already apply a "mental capability cutoff" via age restrictions, it wouldn't be a stretch to apply one too, or a different standard, for racial or gender categories when persistent mental differences can be shown).

>Men’s brains are 8-13% bigger in absolute volume, they overall contain 9% more grey matter and 13% more white matter on average.
i guess it makes sense with evolution and all that men can dedicate more resources in a slightly bigger brain and muscles whereas women exchange it for having kids

obviously we are not equal, nothing wrong or weird about that, but it isn't grounds for discrimination

But why should we allocate resources as if they're equal when clearly they aren't? For example, letting women into universities. When you do that, you're claiming that woman is smarter and thus deserves the spot more than every other male candidate available, when clearly that isn't true.

We're not, what matters is how one uses their minds and how hard they work.
To say that a man with larger brain mass is automatically superior would be a bit off, considering the man could be a worthless neckbeard who drives a tractor in the middle of a town. Then compare him to maybe a female who does academic research in .
Most people in both categories (male and female) are worthless anyways, and it just so happens that there are more worthless women then men because of their career choices.

educated republicans are more moderate/left leaning than uneducated republicans
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/01/a-divide-between-college-non-college-republicans/

College alone is meaningless. If all you have is a BA, that's even worse than only a high school diploma. At least a high school graduate has some knowledge of how the real world works. Someone with a BA in african-american gender studies knows less than nothing.

All extremist ideologues are stupid.

THIS
Study any STEM career = 95~100% men.

>Women can bring us back to life if we die
Wtf are you talking about?

Yeah less apt.

Any link to further this school of thought for me?

>IQ
Cute kid
If you did any research you would know men generally score 5 IQ points more then women.

typical female posters

Bingo

I mostly agree with you.

Yeah there are obviously exceptions. There are obviously intelligent women but evidence suggests they are stupid on the whole.

This is the kind of thinking I'm doing. It just makes sense. Why not have the smartest people lead the race (male OR female).

I agree but you seem to be suggesting we ignore a relevant general trend.

...

OP here

I'm seeing a lot of bias from this community. Some people keep making excuses as to why women should be treated equally in a quasi-logical fashion, but really, it's just a knee-jerk reaction triggered by their beliefs.

I'm all for individualism and judging a person on their merits alone. BUT when you have companys going out of their way to hire women over men for the sole sake of "equality" there's obviously a problem here.

So you think we shouldn't be treated equally at all then? Your false dichotomy fallacy is retarded .

women can have sex with you when you're contemplating suicide so your future is changed to one where you do not kill yourself

>giving someone preferential treatment is equal

Yes.

We are equal in rights and duties. It's clearly specified this way in the declaration of human rights.

And it's the only equality laws will ever achieve.

the woman deserves her spot in the university if she got higher grades than the other male candidates and they usually do. Girls are getting better grades than men in almost all subjects but maths in high school

>There is some individuals who have good predispositions, so it's a good idea to let the whole group run our shit
Explain.

>The white race has a higher IQ than average so they deserve to rule the entire planet
>There are some whites who have good predispositions, so it's a good idea to let all whites run all shit
checkmate

If they get lower grades in maths then they aren't smarter and the male candidate should get the spot. And seriously, are you saying that each woman who gets in has higher grades than literally every potential man? That's absurd. If you're allowing a woman in, that means you're claiming that she's better than literally every man, and that's clearly not true. For every woman, there's a man who is smarter than her who should get the spot instead.

Are you retarded?
We should be treated equally in merit.
>butthurt/10

That is THE most pathetic thing I have ever heard.

I'm talking about reality not a construct of human imagination. In law I think men and women should be treated equally. In duties.... hmm... maybe not.

>Girls are getting better grades than men in almost all subjects but maths in high school
Source

>the woman deserves her spot in the university if she got higher grades
Agree

...?
>Not him but
Have people who make the best decisions... make the decisions for the country.

>>Girls are getting better grades than men in almost all subjects but maths in high school
>Source
It happened to me I was there. You didn't notice it?

>Asians are smarter then white kiddo

>Nice evidence faggot
>NAWT
Not that it matters but no the 3 highest grades in my school were all from guys

but weren't the average grades of girls higher?

We only request to rule ourselves.

>Have people who make the best decisions... make the decisions for the country.
This is not how democracy work.
People who are the best at gaining the favors of uneducated, uninformed people with 5 minute attention span get to rule.

>I have anecdotal evidence
Good job.

I'm just going to say it, women are real easy to offend.

Fucking virgin

see

reminder that racial ideology is the most pedestrian form of collectivism

You don't understand the words ideology and collectivism.

But your opinion still worth as much as anyone else's, after all we are all equals.

>Yeah there are obviously exceptions. There are obviously intelligent women but evidence suggests they are stupid on the whole.
But the exceptions themselves are the embarrassment to your argument. To recognize their existence is to validate my point. You cannot simply handwave them away.

We cannot base hamfisted discriminatory policies on mere hunches gleaned from "suggestions." The standard of proof required to suspend an individual's rights is much higher than that in a civilized nation.

There is also the issue of abuse through creative group definition (mental gerrymandering, so to speak). I'm fairly certain studies would prove the average intelligence of Veeky Forums users to be significantly lower than the general population.
>Are normal people and Veeky Forums users equal, and should they have equal rights to vote?

>This is not how democracy works.
I know bud.

>after all we are all equals.
>we are all equals.
In the eyes of your subjective morals

>Unless being sarcastic

((you) (win)) I'm more interested in truth but if your jerking off your ego there you go, I concede.

The "exceptions" are outliers common with almost all stats and trends involving population.

My "argument" is that women are generally stupider then men, which I have empirical evidence to back up (you have none as of yet).

We're talking about biology here kiddo, not philosophy. Facts, not imagination or ideals.

I think you misunderstand what you're reading.
>Nice mental backflips tho
>Pic related

Is it true that in order to have consciousness we need two brains, left and right in order to tell or know that the other side exists and therefore creating consciousness?

>lynn
lol

wiki article that summarizes other research on the topic by people who aren't as partial as lynn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence
they have THE SAME IQ's

the difference in performance is about temperament

>Provide evidence to back up your claim

>Source: wiki

r u 4 reel?

>women are generally stupider than men
>generally stupider than
>stupider
wat is proper English comparative and superlative "declension".

>in the eyes of your subjective morals
What did you expect? You asked a subjective question and expect someone to magically come up with an ultimate answer that is 100% true all the time?
Grow up, kid. The fact that you even started this thread (assuming you're OP, too much shitposting to read through all of it to make sure, but OP seems to reply in the manner than you do, if not, forgive me) is residual of your lack of critical thinking and ability to gather your own data to come to your own conclusions.

Depends on the person, but the majority nowadays are because coddling.

Disagreement. A lot of people have work to do instead of fucking around and playing chess all day. Would love to play in tournaments, but one needs money to live.

What general trend?
That there are stupid people in the world who get treated better than others for no reason other than " just because"? Not everyone gets this magical treatment you people go on about all day, some of us have to work for our respect and money. Really depends on where you live. Are you going to tell me that I need to eat to survive, too?
See >

Ah some intelligent backlash! Fantastic!

>Your first point.
Excuse me for not using proper english! Lord I must be a fool! My WHOLE argument must be flawed! Thank you user!
>Also fyi I went to grammar school kek

>Second point
>You asked a subjective question
It's not subjective if we define parameters, which is easy to do in this case, chap.
>The fact that you even started this thread is residual of your lack of critical thinking and ability to gather your own data to come to your own conclusions.
That necessarily true in this situation.

You're also implying that somehow there is a greater benefit of coming to a conclusion alone, instead of generating it in a group discussion.

You're also not realizing that I wrote the pasta, researched the material and designed the phasing to hook people's interest.

>3rd point
>What general trend?
That women are dumber on average then men. Did you read the op?

>Really depends on where you live
It does, I agree. Perhaps you should think about that in relation to the frustration of your post.

...

Now buddy. You seem intelligent but also misguided, maybe you just had a bad day at work. Maybe you just don't have enough time/energy to re-think your values.

My advice to you is - don't believe what you believe too much.

Everyone should be given the same opportunity to prove themselves. However, this does not mean we should hand out consolation prizes.

Never said your whole argument was flawed, never even insinuated that, just made the correction. As someone whose first language isn't English, I understand the mistake, even if I was being contemptful.

You never defined any parameters or definitions, however, so it is subjective in this case.

Group discussion is flawed because most people's opinions aren't worth their salt and just skews the conclusion. If you were asking people whose business would be analysing the differences between men and women it would be different. You're on Veeky Forums.

I did, see my sarcastic comment after the question, may be slightly difference but it's the same general idea. It's like saying that is generally more stupid than . No one cares, and the least intelligent are still coddled.

The "depending on where you live" comment makes no sense to me and offers no counter argument, so moving on.

How am I misguided? I acknowledge that my views may be baised or not formulated well (it's hard to think clearly when someone is insulting you because of some arbitrary characteristic that I have _no_ control over), and to be quite honest I'm sick of seeing these threads. Some people are stupid, some are not. Pondering this fact does absolutely nothing and all you do is come to the same conclusion over and over again: some people are stupid and some are not. There's no reason to treat people differently because they happen to share a characteristic with other people who generally are .
As clarification, I agree that in general men are superior to women in intelligence and strength, but that is only a generalisation.

>Quick reply

>Never said your whole argument was flawed
Yeah I was being sarcastic due to the irreverence of your post.

>so it is subjective in this case.
Wrong simply. In a way you just admitted that.
>The question was left open to a bit of interpretation, it can easily be answered with objective answers.
Hell is a question ever subjective/objective?

>Group discussion is flawed
Depends on the group. Veeky Forums is the best one can get on Veeky Forums

>>depending on where you live
You claim you earn your worth entirely on your own merit, a lot of women do not and this is a big problem.

>my views may be baised
>it's hard to think clearly when someone is insulting you
>I'm sick of seeing these threads
>>MAY be biased

>There's no reason to treat people differently because they happen to share a characteristic with other people who generally are .
>webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/why-7-deadly-diseases-strike-blacks-most#1
You're full of shit. Your last reply was good, this one you're just shooting blanks in the dark.

Lady you are at a disadvantage biologically, that sucks for you, I hope you have the strength to overcome this adversity. I get why it would upset you when somebody points this out. The healthiest thing to do is accept reality and do your best to make up for any shortcomings you were born into. Goodluck.

>>so it is subjective in this case.
>Wrong simply. In a way you just admitted that.
No.

>>The question was left open to a bit of interpretation, it can easily be answered with objective answers.
>Hell is a question ever subjective/objective?
Yes, left open to interpretation, so therefore people can construe your question to fit whatever they would like to answer. Some people will choose to make objective arguments, others will do: (Just as an example, its alignment is off-topic for this conversation)..
The question can beg for subjective answers, not necessarily be subjective itself.
"Are women inferior?" "Yes, because I don't like them and I feel as if they all get more opportunities than me."
Instead of:
"Do women on average have less muscle mass than men?" "Why yes, here is data that proves that notion."
In this case the question was: "how are we equal?"; how on earth is that supposed to provide objective answers? Everyone has their own interpretation of why they think we're {equal, unequal} or should be treated as such.

>You claim you earn your...
Agreed. Those people are scum.

>>>MAY be biased
I try to think logically about the argument, regardless of other variables. As I said I *acknowledge* that I *may* be wrong because of subconscious errors/not thinking the argument through entirely.

>>webm...
>You're full of shit.
Ok, as clarification:
Medically? Sure. Academically/work-wise? No.
If they *want* to be treated equal to men then they'd better be *treated equal to men*.
I thought you were against women being given places in academia or etc without being deserving of it (e.g. not actually being the best candidate for the position). Maybe that was a different person, then.
This is another reason why leaving your question so open-ended is not-optimal, there are so many cases that have to be covered that one line of thinking does not apply in other test cases.

>Lady you are...
Ok.

Accurate

A female dockworker should not be paid equally to her male coworkers as she cannot lift the same weight as her male coworkers.

A male perfume salesman should not be paid equally to his female coworkers as he cannot sell the quantity as his female coworkers.

All jobs requiring mental processing skills should pay equally among men and women.

There are many Counter-Strike teams and tournaments. There really has only been one female pro player, even though skill is determined not by gender but by aim and knowledge of the game. Instead they prefer to play in their own female only leagues, where they compete against other shitters. Yet gaming news outlets constantly complain about the "discrimination" in the professional gaming scene against women. What the fuck. I recommend you to go watch the Richard Lewis video on this subject

There is disparity between both strength and intelligence, however.
So by that logic men should be paid more for jobs heavy with mental processing.

>>>>>>You asked a subjective question (you)
>>>The question can beg for subjective answers, not necessarily be subjective itself. (you)
>>>Some people will choose to make objective arguments (you)
Translation: The question is subjective.Well ok the question isn't subjective but... Some people will choose to answer objectively and some subjectively. B-b-but yeah t-t-the question is d-definitely still subjective.
>Retarded quasi-logic

>Changing your words as you go along.

>Incomplete and nonsensical sentences (fair enough english is not your first language) which makes it even MORE retarded you correctly my grammar.

>Ok, as clarification:
It's not women I hate, it's just fucking morons. You literally don't understand what you're saying, I hope you're young.

>What is quasi-logic

Do more work
>Get more pay

Simple

>proof

Yes... subjective question = a question that begs for subjective answers... I made that definition clear (in my post) since I don't think English speakers have a definition for it..
Your question is subjective because it begs for subjective answers. There is no simpler way to put it. You ask a shit question and have a shit premise and you will get shit answers.

My sentences are fine and make sense. I think you're running out of actual counter-arguments since you seem to be attacking I instead of the notions that I have provided.

>don't understand what you're saying
Ok. Sure. Instead of pointing out flaws in my logic (which is what I've been waiting for this whole time so I could mend my views if you were right) all you're doing is insulting me and nitpicking things that are irrelevant towards the conversation.

People like you in my field make me sad. Subhuman, pseudointellectual shitposters who think they actually make coherent arguments.
Please travel your way back into your mother's vagina so I don't have to worry about people like you wasting professors' time or exasperating whole communities of researchers with your illogical strawman and ad hominem attacks whenever you're asked to disprove something.

Hahahahha

Wow.
>The mental back-flips.

I honestly wasn't aware you had refuted a single thing. In fact you haven't and you even agreed with me:
>"I agree that in general men are superior to women in intelligence and strength"

Wtf is wrong with your head?

So you hate morons... you must not be fond of yourself.

1)
>>>so it is subjective in this case.
>>Wrong simply. In a way you just admitted that.
>No.

2)
>>There's no reason to treat people differently because they happen to share a characteristic with other people who generally are .
>webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/why-7-deadly-diseases-strike-blacks-most#1
>You're full of shit. Your last reply was good, this one you're just shooting blanks in the dark.

3)
>How am I misguided?
(This was I, you have yet to answer this as well.)

Really? It took me a minute to go back and look at everything you just completely disregarded instead of countering. I agreed with you on certain points, clearly not all of them. I didn't try arguing with you on the points I agreed with...
What in the actual fuck is wrong with _your_ head?

en.oxforddictionaries.com/

>normal chess tournaments are open to women. They just can't win.

because chess is considered a male game. The Polgar sisters were taught chess from an early age and Judit is one of the best chess players ever, scoring victories over guys like Kasparov, Kramnik or Karpov.

The problem with treating them equally is that once you do so they either 1) still think they're being discriminated against or 2) take advantage of their equality and act like they're better than us obviously superior men

a cool story from the article:
>In September 2002, in the Russia versus the Rest of the World Match, Polgár finally defeated Garry Kasparov in a game. The tournament was played under rapid rules with 25 minutes per game and a 10-second bonus per move. She won the game with exceptional positional play. Kasparov with black chose the Berlin Defence instead of his usual Sicilian and Polgár proceeded with a line which Kasparov has used himself. Polgár was able to attack with her rooks on Kasparov's king which was still in the centre of the board and when he was two pawns down, Kasparov resigned.[139] The game helped the World team win the match 52–48.[140] Upon resigning, Kasparov immediately left by a passageway barred to journalists and photographers. Kasparov had once described Polgár as a "circus puppet" and asserted that women chess players should stick to having children.

That is with the exception of intellectually superior females, although about 1/2 of those are still overly emotional

That's quite a butthurt concession there, Commander.

Plenty of others have already pointed out facts that contradict your narrative. No one cares if you have mountains of unconvincing evidence.

And to think you claimed to argue from logic. You can't even explain to me why avatarfagging shitposters such as yourself should be allowed to vote even though they're empirically-proven brainlets.

>butthurt
>facts
>logic
>unconvincing evidence.
Kek wow. 0/8

These.

...

>implying that's what I said

>>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734366
We examined the relationship between structural brain variation and general intelligence using voxel-based morphometric analysis of MRI data in men and women with equivalent IQ scores.
>in men and women with equivalent IQ scores.

Learn to read.

Jesus.

That has very little to do with this thread but thanks. I'd like some sources too please.

Tits.

Intelligence doesn't equal problem solving which is based on different things.

Whales are superintelligent then, we just need way to communicate and we will know everything.