By Angry Harry
Are men more intelligent than women?
Well, the evidence seems to suggest that this is so.
On Start the Week, on Radio 4, tonight, Jeremy Paxman asked Professor Susan Greenfield, well-known neuroscientist (and Director of the Royal Institution) "You claim, don't you, that the more emotion you have, the less mind you have?"
," she answered.
Indeed, it is one of the main propositions in her new book, The Private Life of the Brain
She went on to say,"[For example] One might say that, in meditation, one is developing a very deep consciousness, where you are accessing your inner states, and ignoring the outside world. This could be an example of where you are NOT experiencing an emotion, as such. The opposite would be, [perhaps] a baby, or someone with road rage, or a bungee jumper, awash with emotions and who is not [therefore] 'accessing' [with the mind] the past, or the future, or anything 'inside'."
Thus, Prof Greenfield is saying that the more 'emotion' you experience, the less 'mind' you have.
Now, which of the two possible genders, statistically speaking, experiences more emotion - and would claim to?
Hmm. The female gender, one would suspect.
And it would follow from Professor Greenfield's beliefs, therefore, that, statistically speaking, this gender has less 'mind'. It is less in 'contact' with it.
Putting this another way: Relatively speaking, compared to men, the conclusion must be that women are less often 'accessing the past, or the future, or anything 'inside'
' - statistically, that is.
Well, that's what follows from Professor Greenfield's observations.
All in all, therefore, women seem to function less 'mindfully' than men, or, putting it less euphemistically, less 'intelligently'.
In addition, it cannot have escaped even the most ardent feminist's notice that it is men who are the focused, the possessed, and the obsessed. It is men who push forward the boundaries of science, music, technology and art. It is men who build great cities and great religions.
It is men who tinker well into the night, studying and prising apart the boundaries of even the most obscure and intractable.
I knew one man who spent six years studying locust legs.
FOR SIX YEARS!
And he is probably still at it.
I knew another man who was a mathematician and who struggled daily, FOR YEARS, with some obscure problem in which only one other person in the entire world seemed to have any interest - and it wasn't me.
Just look at any science program on TV and notice the 'workers' laboring in the various scientific fields. The 'experts'. The ones who sneak into their laboratories even on Christmas Day to skulk around engines, chemicals, computers or insects. The ones who spend hour upon hour, year upon year, squashed into their little rooms to study the contents of test-tubes or tissues. The ones who wander into the most hostile and desolate parts of the planet to scrub around for clues, artifacts and ideas.
They're nearly all men.
It is men who lead, explore, push forward and calculate.
The intelligence of men must creep forward more quickly, and further, than that of women,
And, to the extent that intelligence is based on factors in the environment, as opposed to genetics, or based upon learning and studying, as opposed to 'emotionalising' (and, so, losing 'mind') then the intelligence of men must creep forward more quickly, and further, than that of women, throughout their lives - because, statistically speaking, they choose to take on more of the intelligent-provoking 'environment', and they interact with it in much more of an objective and emotionless way (i.e. with more 'mind').
When it comes to intelligence, men have got what it takes. They drive in straight lines, they focus their attention, they do not multitask, they obsess, and they do not spend so much time emotionalizing.
And they actually increase their intelligence by doing such things.
And the whole species benefits from their pursuits.
Statistically speaking, men are taller than women. Not much, but significantly so. The picture below is of some men and women. Some of the women, quite a few of them, are actually taller than quite a few of the men.
But now look at the next picture.
The very same men and women have fallen in love, and they have partnered each other. They are so happy. But, notice that EVERY SINGLE man is TALLER than EVERY SINGLE woman.
And the same thing happens with intelligence. Just as it is that women, statistically speaking, prefer men who are taller than them, and richer than them, and socially higher up the ladder than them, so it is that they prefer men who are more intelligent than them.
Not only do women admit to this last aspect, recent research also shows that most women believe that their partners are more intelligent than them.
And they are!
The situation is exactly the same as for Picture B. Simply think of intelligence instead of height. All the women in this picture have chosen partners who are 'more intelligent' than them, even though it is true that, statistically speaking, across the whole population, there are millions of women who are more intelligent than millions of men.
And until such time as women CHOOSE partners who are less than, or equal to, themselves in terms of intelligence, the statement that 'men are more intelligent than women' will remain true even when looking at the issue as it relates to partnerships between men and women.
Men are MOSTLY more intelligent than their female partners.
Putting this another way: When it comes to looking at men and women as they function within their relationships, men are MOSTLY more intelligent than their female partners.
But, of course, we all know this instinctively.
We just cannot say so.
But it is clear that both men and women CHOOSE
things to be this way - statistically speaking.
As Germaine Greer puts it, "Women are not valued for their intelligence
Well, Yes, they are. But they are not loved for it, nor are they found attractive as a result of it - statistically speaking.
In her book, Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia said that, "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still all be living in grass huts
She has a point, because if women had, indeed, been the dominant gender, then they would have used their influence to promote further emotionalizing. And the result would have been less achievement with regard to developing other things.
And this, of course, partly explains why the educational systems in the west are currently failing so miserably to produce high standards in their pupils. There is too much emotionalizing going on, and not enough thinking; i.e. not enough mind
And, in the past, those little societies that spent their time emotionalizing, instead of creating, inventing and progressing, had no chance in evolutionary terms. They lost the battle long ago. The men were killed and the women were carried away. And they no longer exist. They have been statistically washed away.
Paglia also said that, "Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials.
But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper.
Male conspiracy cannot explain ALL female failures.
I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant.
.Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species
Men are, indeed, more intelligent and creative than women, on the whole. They work at it. They strive for it. They value it. They are loved for it. They are wanted for it.
And the mental environments in which they choose to spend their time definitely develop their talents even further.
That is, they give much more time to their minds.
And this is mostly why women, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, will never be able to compete successfully with men intellectually and nor, therefore, in any task or job which requires intellectual endeavor.
Finally, not only do men develop their intelligence by CHOOSING to engage more so in activities that enhance it - as opposed to emotionalizing - (and so, to the extent that the environment affects intelligence then it will do so more for men than it will for women) but it is also the case that, thanks to the Y chromosome, the genetic variability of men is greater than that of women, so spreading the range of their intelligence more widely. The consequence is that at the bottom range of intelligence there will be found to be far more men than women, and in the top range the SAME will be true.
Further, and for the same reason, both the highest and the lowest intelligence levels of men are more extreme than are those of women.
At the high-flier levels, women haven't got a hope of competing with men.
And the upshot of all this is that at the high-flier levels, women haven't got a hope of competing with men either in terms of their number or in terms of their achievements - unless, of course, the men are deliberately handicapped in some way.
Thus, there is not so much of a glass ceiling created by sex-discriminatory men holding back the realization of statistical parity between men and women in the higher echelons of the world, the women's relative lack of success in these lofty places is far more due to the choices that they make and their less-variable genetic makeup, neither of which is the fault of men.
Nature vs Nurture
For at least half a century, the overwhelming evidence that intelligence is determined very significantly by genes has been hidden from the public - by the usual culprits. The politically-correct view was that the environment was the most significant factor in the development of intelligence and that genes were almost irrelevant.
Indeed, scientists who have expressed the view that intelligence is largely the product of a person's genes have been labeled by the politically-corrected feminist-dominated left as racists, sexists, Nazis, and goodness know what else. And, for example, during the 80s and 90s many of the UK's school teachers were indoctrinated with the view that children do not differ at all in terms of their mental abilities. This is absolute rubbish, but I have met many young teachers who actually believed this wholeheartedly as a result of the politically-correct nonsense being propounded by the teacher-training colleges.
The point here, however, is this.
it is true that intelligence is largely, and significantly, determined by the mental environment in which it is engaged, then it follows, for example, that those individuals who find themselves - or place themselves - in situations conducive to the development of intelligence are going to end up more intelligent than those who do not.
As such, for example, those who live or mostly work in more impoverished circumstances are not going to end up being as intelligent as those who live or mostly work in more enriched circumstances. And so, for example again, middle class people are going to end up more intelligent than those from the working classes. Whites from the rich West are going to end up being more intelligent than impoverished blacks from, say, Africa (or who live in western ghettoes) and, presumably, men throughout history, not being tied to their children and their homes, ended up being far more intelligent than their womenfolk who, apparently, spent most of their time dealing with children and being oppressed.
The politically-corrected cannot stomach the conclusions that must be reached even on the basis of their very own doctrines
Needless to say, the politically-corrected cannot stomach the conclusions that must be reached even on the basis of their very own doctrines concerning the development of intelligence.
And so it is that the various pronouncements of the politically corrected concerning the development of intelligence reveals that they are either mostly incredibly stupid, and simply cannot see where their own arguments lead, or that their propositions are mostly designed to manipulate people rather than to enlighten them; which means, quite simply, that they are bald-faced liars.
Mostly, one discovers that they are both.
But, in either case, their influence (which is mostly due to intimidation) is a negative one, and it tends to make societies structure themselves on the basis of serious
And clearly, societies that do this, particularly complex ones, are not going to progress very well. In fact, eventually, they are going to cave in - well, they will eventually collapse or perform hopelessly in those domains where the falsehoods form part of the very foundations upon which they have been built.
And with regard to the negative consequences of having serious misconceptions about the nature of intelligence, the whole UK educational system immediately comes to mind.
I repeat; these people are either very stupid in that they cannot see what follows from their own pronouncements, or they are dishonest manipulators for whom the ideological ends justify their thoroughly dishonorable means.
The arguments that I have made concerning intelligence are relatively easy to grasp and they are worth understanding.
And they boil down to this:
The more that the environment is said to affect the development of intelligence (a PC left-wing argument) the more must the conclusions from this position suggest politically very-incorrect outcomes. For example again, the men from the past must
have been more intelligent than the women. The colonizers must have been more intelligent than the colonized. The masters must have been more intelligent than the slaves. The whites must have been more intelligent than the blacks. The rich must be more intelligent than the poor.
You fruitfully expose them for the intellectual phonies that they are.
And when you point this out to the politically-corrected and their feminist friends, in order to expose their ludicrous and conflicting
claims, you fruitfully expose them for the intellectual phonies that they are.
And it is very important that we do expose these frauds, because they and their bankrupt ideologies have achieved enormous influence in western societies. And, as a consequence, the futures of these societies are being continually undermined.