Gender vs Intellectuality

[Paralith]

Well, as both one of the few women at SFN and an aspiring behavioral ecologist, I suppose it's time that I gave my two cents.

 

I haven't said much up to this point because, as INow says, and as has been established in countless threads addressing intelligence in one way or another, until we find a good definition for intelligence we'll never really be able to answer this question. And a good definition for intelligence seems to be beyond the current state of knowledge about the brain at this point in time. (My suspicion is, though, that human men and women probably do not differ much at all in pure intelligence.)

 

However, as others have said, there are a great many differences between the way men and women think and view the world; that I can attest to both as a woman and as a researcher who is particularly interested in exploring these differences and how they evolved.

 

I find it interesting that thedarkshade says that "men rule because of their natural advantage." I will agree that the natural state for us humans and our ancestors is patriarchy - males are the dominant gender. This is also the case in chimpanzees. As to why males are the dominant gender, and not females (as is the case in bonobos, who are as equally related to us as chimpanzees are), I think the exact factors leading to this are as yet unknown. In any case, human men have a long history of dominance of the social group. They have been the main effectors of the formation of cultural rules and traditions. And many of these rules are related to the strict control of women.

 

Unlike most animal species, including our closest primate relatives, males contribute little to parental care once their offspring are born. Their primary role in reproduction is competition for mate and deposition of sperm, and little more. This is not the case in humans, likely because of how extremely helpless human children are when they are born, and the great degree of care they need from both parents in order to have a chance at survival - something else that is relatively uncommon in the animal world. However, if men are going to put such a great degree of time and energy into every single one of their offspring, they need to be especially sure that the offspring is actually theirs, and not some other competing males' that they are being tricked into raising for him. To waste so many resources on offspring that are not their own is highly detrimental to their reproductive success. So most traditional cultures lean towards the strict control of women and their behavior.

 

This is compounded by the fact that humans are philopatric - when females reach breeding age, they leave their natal group to find a new one. When males reach breeding age, they stay in their natal group, surrounded by their kin. And they all have interest in working together to control their mates and avoid cuckoldry.

 

In short, I believe that a large reason for why, culturally speaking, "men rule" today, is because they've skewed human culture to ensure their rule and control. It is a reproductively successful tactic and they have become quite good at it - cooperative, goal oriented behavior and social maneuvering are behaviors that males tend to excel in. And while you could point to other differences in the way men and women think to explain why, perhaps, women are less prevalent in science and technology and even online science forums, I think it is largely due to a cultural belief that these kinds of things are male things. That males ought to be exploring and learning and gaining new ground while females ought to be concerned with home and family. I doubt that any real difference in ability is causing this trend.

 

I also say this because of the gender ratio at the biomedical research lab where I currently work. It is at least half women, if not more so. My own lab group consists of six women and no men at all. Many of them are from other countries, and one of my Indian female co-workers actually expressed surprise when I commented on how unusual our lab was for having so many women in it. Apparently, in India, there are actually more women in this field than men. I don't know how accurate that is, but the fact that people from India think that is the case says something in itself.

 

As time goes on and cultural ideals slowly change, more and more women are getting into these fields that are currently dominated by men. I'd imagine that in the future, the idea that men could be better and/or more intelligent than women will become easily disprovable.

[thedarkshade]

And many of these rules are related to the strict control of women.

And that control is due to dominant strength that men have over women. It's sad to see the mentality that exists in many countries in the world (including mine although it's getting better). I have seen countless cases when in a family the wife does all the work. In Albania, until two decades ago there was a severe habit on treating women. They were supposed to do all the work. Make the food, wash the clothes, do the physical work, make the bed for everyone, clean the house and a lot lot more. And there were a lot of cases where if the wife made the tea a bit hotter than it should, the husband hit her. Now even if that wife was 100% more intelligent than that husband, how could you expect that to show up?

It is a real sad thing, knowing that this is a tradition in many countries in the world. Fortunately in the country where I live, in the recent years there have been some good improvements and women have joint in many areas lice politics, science, law, education; and the success in some cases has been much better than those of men for have been in the same position for year. This is a clear indicator that tell intelligence does not depend in gender.

[SkepticLance]

To Paralith

 

Your posting was good. It is nice to see the woman's view point.

 

I would perhaps differ from you in a small point. I do not think there is much deliberation in determining gender based social functions. Neither men, nor women, sit down and ask : "how shall we arrange for the bahaviour of the other gender?"

 

It is something that kind of sneaks in. You could call it social evolution. A million tiny events influence how people behave. That which improves our social and reproductive success is passed on to the next generation, through biological or social evolution.

 

In effect, males breed characteristics into females, and females breed characteristics into males. What those characteristics are, has nothing to do with good or bad. Just with what works.

 

Males have bred into females a strong interest in their physical appearance. Women are prepared to spend enormous amount of time, effort and money making themselves look good. Why? Because females who do this are more likely to land a mate who will enhance their reproductive potential.

 

Females have bred into males a strong interest in social status. Males are prepared to spend enormous amounts of time, effort and money making themselves attain higher status. Why? Because males who do this are more likely to find a mate who will enhance their reproductive potential.

 

There are heaps of behavioural differences between male and female, which have been bred into the two genders by the choices of the opposite. Overall, it appears that intelligence is not one of them, but various aspects of intelligence may be. The apparent greater facility females have with communication, and the apparent greater facility males have with visuo-spacial skills.

[Paralith]

To Paralith

 

Your posting was good. It is nice to see the woman's view point.

 

I would perhaps differ from you in a small point. I do not think there is much deliberation in determining gender based social functions. Neither men, nor women, sit down and ask : "how shall we arrange for the bahaviour of the other gender?"

 

It is something that kind of sneaks in. You could call it social evolution. A million tiny events influence how people behave. That which improves our social and reproductive success is passed on to the next generation, through biological or social evolution.

 

Thanks for the compliments, Lance. And of course, there was no deliberation when it came to molding social behaviors. If I said so then I did not mean to. It was in males' reproductive interest to set cultural values in a certain way, so those who did so were more successful. That is all. It was most certainly not a conscious effort.

[Dr.Evil]

Lots of good points but a lot of crap aswell.

Yes general intelligence is about even but there are a hell of a lot of diferences.

I am going to make a slight apology the generalisation but as a whole it is true.

 

Men and women are different it has built in to our DNA over millions of years it probably is 50% nature 50% nuture. Boys play with cars girls play with dolls. The boy will be imagine the movement of the car and how it works the girl will imagine all the socail interactions of the dolls character etc. It's not a bad thing it would be boring if we were all the same. Men are stronger physicaly because we needed to be. Thousands of years ago women were nearly always pregnant so men were the hunter gatherers. So naturally Men are beter with spatial awareness, judging distances maths, science etc. Women are much beter socially and the area of the brain to do with speach is over twice the size of the average mans. Mens brains weigh 150 grams more on average but we probably give ours selves more brain damage. Men are beter with shapes whereas women are beter with colour.

 

Men are usually beter at doing single tasks very very well due to testosteron but women are beter at keeping an eye on many things at once. The gap is reducing though because society has changed and specalized gender specific tasks are becoming less important as more women are working and more men are looking after children.

 

Men are simple: Eat, drink, shag, learn.

women are complicated but in a good way.

 

Most women seem to act like they have 2 minds when it comes to men.

They say they want a nice caring guy who treats them well.

 

But the emotional side wants a guy who tells them what to do and is a bit rough around the edges and the emotional side always wins hands down.

 

Mabey in a few hundred years we will be mentally exactly the same.

 

Unfortunately for men we have been demasculated over the last 200 years.

Unforunately for women there are very few real men around these days.

[Mr Skeptic]

Mabey in a few hundred years we will be mentally exactly the same.

 

In a few hundred years we will most likely be a completely different species due to genetic engineering.

[Dr.Evil]

Do you really think genetic engineering is going to be that common in just a few hundred years?

[Mr Skeptic]

Do you really think genetic engineering is going to be that common in just a few hundred years?

 

I think so. Take a look at any of the new sciences, and see how far they got in the last 100 years. And the rate of learning/technology growth is accelerating.

[Mag]

Dr. Evil, while I can sort of agree with what you said, when you say "boys play with cars and girls play with dolls"

realize that almost always has to do with how the child is brought up.

If the parents want their boy to be "masculine" then they'll give him GI Joes, Cars, and things like that. Same with girls.

However, you can give a girl a car to play with at a young age, and they most likely will.

They may pretend in a different manner, but by no means when we are children we say "Well mother, I am a boy, therefore I believe you should give me this car to play with" - its all gender roles.

[SkepticLance]

To Mag

 

Sorry. Not correct. There have been numerous experiments in which researchers tried to get a bunch of kids raised with equal treatment on all areas of interest, leading to boys and girls being equally interested in all things. Did not work. The young girls developed an interest in nurturing in spite of the special training, and the young boys got boisterous as only young boys can, in spite of special training.

 

The story I love most was that of a young girl given a toy truck. She played nicely with it till bed time, then went off to bed with said toy truck. Parents came in and found her tucking the truck into bed and kissing it good night as if it were a doll.

 

Certain feminist researchers have tried their damnedest to prove that the difference between boys and girls behaviour was from nurture only. They succeeded in proving the opposite.

 

There is even a tribe in central America which has high levels of a genetic disease which causes young boys to seem to be young girls, with a vagina, and no obvious male bits. Only with puberty do the male organs appear, and after that the guys develop normally physically.

 

The tribespeople are used to this, and treat every child that seems female as if she were female - with female clothes etc. The boy/girls grow up boisterous with mainly male interests, in spite of appearing, and being treated as girls. After puberty they change the way they treat the boy/girls, and the young men, as they now are, grow up normally, and get married, and adopt a standard male role in that tribe.

 

This was reported some years ago in New Scientist, as a result of some work for some years by an anthropologist, and used as a very good example to show how gender roles are primarily genetic.

[Mag]

Ah, you've destroyed my psychological health by correcting me!

 

Anyways, I didnt know about all those studies. However, that is not to say that girls cannot play with cars - because as I said, they would play with them in a different fashion (well, I said "they may pretend in a different manner"). Instead of racing and crashing, they would be taking mommy to work or something.

 

As far as the tribes people are concerned... where was the story published?

Its not that I dont trust you, but I would like to possibly read it, or at least know where it was published.

[SkepticLance]

To Mag

 

I would love to re-read the story too. It was genuine enough, and I remember that I read about it in New Scientist. There is doubtless another, more original version written as a formal scientific paper. It was a few years back, though, so may not be easy to find. I cannot even remember the formal medical name for the genetic condition. I remember that it is found world wide, but is rare in most places, but much more common in the tribe mentioned. I guess this is due to the genetic isolation of that particular tribe.

 

It is not unique. There was (again, going by memory) a Swiss person who became an olympic class snow skier, in the female division. He/she was going to represent his/her country, but got banned when a sex test showed that she was actually a he. Some strange things happen....

[iNow]

It's important to note that the above is discussing general tendecies, and fails to account for outliers.

[DrDNA]

Certain feminist researchers have tried their damnedest to prove that the difference between boys and girls behaviour was from nurture only. They succeeded in proving the opposite.

 

There is even a tribe in central America which has high levels of a genetic disease which causes young boys to seem to be young girls, with a vagina, and no obvious male bits. Only with puberty do the male organs appear, and after that the guys develop normally physically.

 

The tribespeople are used to this, and treat every child that seems female as if she were female - with female clothes etc. The boy/girls grow up boisterous with mainly male interests, in spite of appearing, and being treated as girls. After puberty they change the way they treat the boy/girls, and the young men, as they now are, grow up normally, and get married, and adopt a standard male role in that tribe.

 

This was reported some years ago in New Scientist, as a result of some work for some years by an anthropologist, and used as a very good example to show how gender roles are primarily genetic.

 

Doh. I hate when this happens.

 

This whole study was about outliers. This is probably a good example of nature vs nurture gender roles in an small, physically & genetically quite distinct population.

 

But it is not a strong case for the basis of gender roles in the population as a whole. In order for a conclusion to be applicable to the general population, the sample used in the study MUST reasonably represent that population. As described, this one most certainly does not represent the general polulation.

Case not solved.

 

PS: I do not intend to critisize you with these statements, just point out a big issue with the study/conclusion you have objectively reported.

[SkepticLance]

To DrDNA

 

Two points.

 

1. When we talk about nature vs nurture, we mean genetic effects versus behaviour conditioning. Since the entire human species is genetically similar to within 0.1%, the genetic conclusions are mostly still sound, even when generalised from outlier populations.

 

2. The conclusion is also supported by the experiments in our own western societies, as I described earlier. It appears that typical gender behaviour tends to remain that way even with drastically altered upbringing. In other words : boys will be boys, and girls will be girls, in spite of what assorted researchers try to achieve.

[Dr.Evil]

Dr. Evil, while I can sort of agree with what you said, when you say "boys play with cars and girls play with dolls"

realize that almost always has to do with how the child is brought up.

If the parents want their boy to be "masculine" then they'll give him GI Joes, Cars, and things like that. Same with girls.

However, you can give a girl a car to play with at a young age, and they most likely will.

They may pretend in a different manner, but by no means when we are children we say "Well mother, I am a boy, therefore I believe you should give me this car to play with" - its all gender roles.

 

Actually this experement has been done on chimps and the males still play with cars and females still play with dolls showing that it is slightly genetic. There are oviously exeptions however but even if males were genetically the same in the brain as females over time we would evolve to fit our roles beter.

 

I think so. Take a look at any of the new sciences, and see how far they got in the last 100 years. And the rate of learning/technology growth is accelerating.

 

Mabey but genetically engineering people is limited to the rate of reproduction. I think we will know what we are doing a lot beter by then but 300 years time is only about 9-11 generations and I personally dout it will change that much that quickly. Mabey we will all have some slight changes by then such as immunity but I can't see it being that wide spead.

[Mr Skeptic]

1. When we talk about nature vs nurture, we mean genetic effects versus behaviour conditioning. Since the entire human species is genetically similar to within 0.1%, the genetic conclusions are mostly still sound, even when generalised from outlier populations.

 

Careful though. If we are talking about the differences between humans, only the genetic differences between them count for the "nature" portion. To put it another way, it is the question, "What is the probability that this human have attribute A given that his genetic composition is B?" If it is more than 50%, then we have a positive correlation, and if it is less than 50% then we have a negative correlation.

 

The question is similar for the "nurture" portion, but much harder to study. With genes, you can look at identical twins, but no one has an identical upbringing. I think that if you look at identical twins you will also find that there are many things that cannot be explained by genetics.

[DrDNA]

1. When we talk about nature vs nurture, we mean genetic effects versus behaviour conditioning. Since the entire human species is genetically similar to within 0.1%, the genetic conclusions are mostly still sound, even when generalised from outlier populations.

That 0.1% can account for HUGE physical and behavioral variations, so it is indeed significant. Your brain and Jeffery Dohmer's are probably much closer than 99.9% but I doubt that you react to stimuli in the same manner.....although he was raised in what appears to be a perfectly "normal" home.

 

2. The conclusion is also supported by the experiments in our own western societies, as I described earlier. It appears that typical gender behaviour tends to remain that way even with drastically altered upbringing. In other words : boys will be boys, and girls will be girls, in spite of what assorted researchers try to achieve.

I don't necessarily have a problem with other studies. I do have a problem with any study that looks at outliers and tries to draw broad conclusions about the general population from the observations of those outliers. That is a bucket with big holes in it. The sand falls right through it. And even though I might agree with the conclusions, I must disagree with the methodology.

[Dr.Evil]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the ratio of boys/girls on this site?

[Mag]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the ratio of boys/girls on this site?

 

there's been a few threads on this.

I think its like 3 girls per... everyone else, lol.

 

Searching yields this:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27835&highlight=your+gender

[Dr.Evil]

Thanks. It looks like about 90% guys from the poll. But it could be up to 99%. The poll only shows the percent from voters. Girls are probably more likely to vote than boys because they are the minority and they want to be counted. Well I guess this proves that our superior Y genes make us beter at science!

[Paralith]

Thanks. It looks like about 90% guys from the poll. But it could be up to 99%. The poll only shows the percent from voters. Girls are probably more likely to vote than boys because they are the minority and they want to be counted. Well I guess this proves that our superior Y genes make us beter at science!

 

All that proves is that you boys talk about science more on an internet forum than girls on average. Whether or not you're significantly better at it, based only on what's here in this forum, is highly debatable.

[iNow]

I believe it has to do with the tendencies we've evolved regarding socialization.

 

I postulate that males have a tendency toward competition and showing off socially, and internet fora are great for this because we can all have a bunch of pissing contests and show the world how much we know and how great we are. Tie on to that a love of science, and you have sites like this, where using a common theme, we have males "showing off" just because they've evolved an inherent need to do so. We also do it to learn from others, but overall it's rather competitive.

 

Females have not generally evolved a need to mentally show off or fan their peacock feathers or have an elaborate intelligence dance to attract mates, so when they visit fora like this it is generally with a genuine desire to learn (coupled with that same common grouping theme of a love of science), and maybe even answer a question here or there... but I suggest that this is more for altruistic and "personal enrichment" reasons than a general need for attention and hierarchical advancement. Female socialization through the evolutionary past has tended toward finding protection of themselves and their children, and having a large enough group to share food and resources. You will see females more often on myspace and facebook and the like than on more intellectual and competitive sites.

 

I am HUGELY generalizing above, and I've left out numerous important caveats and exceptions and failed to address how much of these trends are shifting, but the basic picture I'm trying to convey is that girls tend show off with how they look physically with cues to health and fertility, whereas males tend to show off with their capabilities, strength, intelligence, and where they rank in the packs in which they are members. The lopsided gender frequencies here, I contend, are just emergent properties of these tendencies.

 

 

[/Generalizations of an Arm Chair Evolutionary Psychologist]

[SkepticLance]

Just a comment on the development of gender roles. I mentioned earlier about the central American tribe with lots of boys being born looking like girls - being raised as girls - but nevertheless behaving like boys.

 

It appears that sex hormone balance in early life is enormously powerful in determining gender-typical behaviour. Nature more than nurture.

 

I came across the opposite condition. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This is where, in a true XX female, the ovaries in the foetus do not make enough oestrogen, and the adrenal glands instead make lots of testosterone. These girls grow up as tom boys, exhibiting typical male behaviour, even though they are definitely female and raised as females. Some undergo 'sex change' operations to become male. Lots are homosexual. A testimony to the power of hormones in determining behaviour - nature more than nurture.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

 

I quote :

 

"Female homosexuality

Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (an autosomal recessive condition which results in high androgen levels during fetal development) have more masculinized sex role identities and are more likely to have a homosexual sexual orientation as adults than controls (Dittmann et al. 1990ab, 1992; Zucker et al., 1996; Hines et al., 2004). An alternative explanation for this effect is that the fact that girls with this condition are born with masculinized external genitalia leads their parents to raise them in a more masculine manner which then influences their sexual orientation as adults. However, the degree to which the girls' genitals are masculinized does not correlate with their sexual orientation, suggesting that prenatal hormones are the causal factor, not parental influence."

 

It is more than just sexuality (and many such girls grow up heterosexual). Girls with CAH grow up exhibiting male behaviour in a range of things, from their choice in toys, to rowdy competitive behaviour, to a love of the technical aspects of cars etc.

[ChemHawk]

This is not entirely true. Researchers continue to study whether these findings—and those like it—are the result of gender differences OR a result of environmental influences, social pressures, personal beliefs and values, or a combination of all and more. The volume of the brain's gray matter can increase with LEARNING, so here another thing to consider throughout the history of mankind before we make such biased conclusions.