Anti-white workplace brainwashing.

[Dos Equis]

Why don't you buy the argument?

Because it doesn't make any dang sense. 

[Deicide]

Because it doesn't make any dang sense. 

Dominance Hierarchy forces men to compete against each other for the attention of women whereby some men in their strivings rise to the absolute top and others get pushed to the bottom. There is no such Dominance Hierarchy with women whose assets are not found in achievements but youth, beauty and fertility. Thus the reason why women in most positions tend to perform in a mediocre manner compared to men. That doesn't make sense?

[pillowtalk]

First of all, "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" is hardly unassailable. I"ve never read it, but I just took a look at it's wikipedia page and it's sort of a mess. National averages weren't available for nearly half the countries and several of the averages were pulled from data decades apart. Many of the averages were pulled from data on young children and many of the averages were pulled from different types of tests.

Are you aware that 'Wiki' is - NOT - 'encyclopaedia Britannica' ??
Any-one can submit a page to 'WIKI' - I could now write a monologue on 'Al Doggity' & what a twat he is, his research is appalling/ almost as appalling as his counter debate.
Post it on 'WIKI' - you Google 'Al Doggity' & BOOM - there is the 'WIKI-PAGE' on you.

[pillowtalk]

I am an untermensch polak

What makes you think you qualify for 'untermensch' classification ??

[Dos Equis]

Dominance Hierarchy forces men to compete against each other for the attention of women whereby some men in their strivings rise to the absolute top and others get pushed to the bottom. There is no such Dominance Hierarchy with women whose assets are not found in achievements but youth, beauty and fertility. Thus the reason why women in most positions tend to perform in a mediocre manner compared to men. That doesn't make sense?

Not one bit. 

I work with a lot of women and they are all extremely intelligent.  I live in a house full of women, and they are all very smart.  I encounter women in the marketplace and the classroom, and they are very bright.  Our governor is female.  The leader of our state senate is female.  They hold important positions all throughout this state. 

The attempt to call them genetically inferior is something I would expect to hear over 100 years ago.  The fact we have young people spouting this nonsense today is sad. 

[Al Doggity]

Are you aware that 'Wiki' is - NOT - 'encyclopaedia Britannica' ??
Any-one can submit a page to 'WIKI' - I could now write a monologue on 'Al Doggity' & what a twat he is, his research is appalling/ almost as appalling as his counter debate.
Post it on 'WIKI' - you Google 'Al Doggity' & BOOM - there is the 'WIKI-PAGE' on you.

Lame argument.

First of all, Matt dragged his info from Vdare, a conservative website that doesn't even pretend to be unbiased. Simply skimming the article shows that the author wasn't even honest about his comparisons. Wikipedia is practically the holy bible in comparison.

Secondly, the value of a wikipedia article is the sources it cites. The wikipedia article I referenced cited multiple scientific journals, reviews from respected newspapers and interviews with the authors themselves. Just as you can't (and I didn't) claim that a wikipedia article is 100% reliable simply because it's on the site, you can't dismiss all facts contained in an article and expect to be taken seriously.

 Wikipedia is one of the most reliable resources on the web.  Interestingly, independent studies have found that it is almost as reliable as Britannica. Some appalling research for you:

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

[Deicide]

Not one bit. 

I work with a lot of women and they are all extremely intelligent.  I live in a house full of women, and they are all very smart.  I encounter women in the marketplace and the classroom, and they are very bright.  Our governor is female.  The leader of our state senate is female.  They hold important positions all throughout this state. 

The attempt to call them genetically inferior is something I would expect to hear over 100 years ago.  The fact we have young people spouting this nonsense today is sad. 

All examples of positions requiring social skills, which women have more of and are superior in. Where are the Nobel Prize winning chemists, physicists, mathematicians? The legendary writers? The artists? I rest my case. I am not talking about public office here.

[Dos Equis]

All examples of positions requiring social skills, which women have more of and are superior in. Where are the Nobel Prize winning chemists, physicists, mathematicians? The legendary writers? The artists? I rest my case. I am not talking about public office here.

I'd like to continue this, but I have to conserve my brain cells.  Not working with much to begin with, and I fear this conversation will make me dumber.   

Deicide you obviously hate women. 

[Al Doggity]

All examples of positions requiring social skills, which women have more of and are superior in. Where are the Nobel Prize winning chemists, physicists, mathematicians? The legendary writers? The artists? I rest my case. I am not talking about public office here.

It's sort of a crappy case, though. You're discounting the impact simply being female would have had in allowing women to even gain a foothold in these fields throughout most of history. Today, here in America, you can maybe make the argument that we are largely a merit-based society. I wouldn't make that claim, but it is closer to true now than at any time in history. Patronage and money played enormous roles in all the fields you listed, so a dearth of women practicing in those professions was to be completely expected.

[andreisdaman]

Jag when will you understand no one bothers with your videos?

Just think...do you bother with Matt videos? Nope...you're the same..nothing but wasted bandwidth.

leave jag alone..LOL..I thought the vid was good

[Parker]

Dominance Hierarchy forces men to compete against each other for the attention of women whereby some men in their strivings rise to the absolute top and others get pushed to the bottom. There is no such Dominance Hierarchy with women whose assets are not found in achievements but youth, beauty and fertility. Thus the reason why women in most positions tend to perform in a mediocre manner compared to men. That doesn't make sense?

Thing is, women can't handle competing with one another---when they do, it usually over beauty, and the end result is the fashion industry Supermodel look...long thing arms and legs, no hips, breasts, and exeggerated walk, and androgynous facial features.

[Deicide]

It's sort of a crappy case, though. You're discounting the impact simply being female would have had in allowing women to even gain a foothold in these fields throughout most of history. Today, here in America, you can maybe make the argument that we are largely a merit-based society. I wouldn't make that claim, but it is closer to true now than at any time in history. Patronage and money played enormous roles in all the fields you listed, so a dearth of women practicing in those professions was to be completely expected.

Ah, this tired old argument. Well for starters women have all the opportunities they want NOW. Where are the great female mathematicians, physicists? Artists? Who was the last female who won the Nobel Prize in the sciences. For 40 some years women have had access to all the same possibilities men have. There is a longer, more complex historical argument, but I don't feel like writing pages. Women and men are different. See the original argument involving Dominance Hierarchy, which is the defining difference, as women have no such thing.

[Deicide]

Thing is, women can't handle competing with one another---when they do, it usually over beauty, and the end result is the fashion industry Supermodel look...long thing arms and legs, no hips, breasts, and exeggerated walk, and androgynous facial features.

Precisely. Women's competition amounts to little else than comparing their physical assets because men are primarily interested in a woman's youth and beauty; the opposite can not be claimed of men which is why DH exists.

[andreisdaman]

1) You mean like all the other Afro-Utopian countries that have had control of their country for generations, like eeeeerrrrrm - well there is the-eeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr - no I mean, that one where you know,  thingy - NAME THEM

2) the ones who have been in-breeding for FIVE generations ?? - very scientific

well..pillow you make my point......just how long have these black african countires been governed by their own people?...not that long...maybe not even 60 years.....most were ruled through colonialism as you alrerady know....so they have not had time to develop democratic traditions and rule of law....also...and I know you will deny this of course because you never concede a point to the other side even when it's true, but the colonialists (british, dutch, french, portuguese, etc....) started these regimes on the road to dysfunction by installing puppets and strongmen to rule by proxy.....persons who were ill-equipped to govern and beholden to the colonialists...these strongmen began in turn to display the same brutality as the colonialists to stay in power...thus beginning a cycle of coups, conflicts and social unrest.......

second....I was not trying to be scientific with the point about appalachians v.s the rich......I don't have the time to do the research on that nor do I care to...I was trying to show a correlation which I think has some merit.....the rich and better off will tend to have higher IQ's..thats the key....IQ is most likely more determined by status than race.....

[andreisdaman]

Nothing comes close eh? Haha please.  A quick fact check would prove otherwise
For example, the majority of the data points in Lynn's book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" were not based on residents of the countries in question. The datum for Suriname was based on tests given to Surinamese who had migrated to the Netherlands, and the datum for Ethiopia was based on the IQ scores of a highly selected group that had emigrated to Israel, and, for cultural and historical reasons, was hardly representative of the Ethiopian population. The datum for Mexico was based on a weighted averaging of the results of a study of “Native American and Mestizo children in Southern Mexico” with result of a study of residents of Argentina.

The datum that Lynn and Vanhanen used for the lowest IQ estimate, Equatorial Guinea, was the mean IQ of a group of Spanish children in a home for the developmentally disabled in Spain

Other studies have found that blacks in Africa with a good education score better on IQ and other standardized tests than do whites. Crawford-Nutt (1976) found that African black students enrolled in westernized schools scored higher on progressive matrix tests than did American white students. The study was meant to examine perceptual/cultural differences between groups, and demonstrated that one’s performance on western standardized tests correspond more closely with the quality and style of schooling that one receives more so than other factors.

Which is exactly what the Flynn effect correlates to.  Better environment for learning and study throughout the generations WHICH is what Gladwell eloquently points out.  Meanwhile your racist vdare rubbish tries to discredit him.  While all these pioneer fund lackies circle the wagon to skew science to prove something which is not true.  Blacks (or any race) are not fundamentally less intelligent than another race, when all given the equal opportunity they have shown to be on par. 

Shuttleworth-Edwards et al (2004) conducted a study with black South Africans between the ages of 19–30, where highly significant effects for both level and quality of education within groups whose first language was an indigenous black African language, was revealed. Black African first language groups (as well as white English speaking groups) with advantaged education were comparable with the US standardization in IQ test scores (e.g. WAIS-III)

In a critical review of The Bell Curve, psychologist Leon Kamin accused Lynn of disregarding scientific objectivity, misrepresenting data, and racism.[40] Kamin argues the studies of cognitive ability of Africans in Lynn's meta-analysis cited by Herrnstein and Murray show strong cultural bias. Kamin also criticized Lynn for "concocting" IQ values from test scores that have no correlation to IQ.[41] Furthermore, Kamin argues Lynn selectively excluded a study that found no difference in White and Black performance, and ignored the results of a study which showed Black scores were higher than White scores.

Sh*t i didn't even have to try to find this information.  It's so easily obtainable.  Really MattC you should move out of Bumfu*k Manitoba and lose the small minded racism.  You never know you might even find that these dark skinned people you demonize aren't quite so bad after all.

incredible mind-blowing post, KCBaller.......good job... and a very nice read

[Al Doggity]

Ah, this tired old argument. Well for starters women have all the opportunities they want NOW. Where are the great female mathematicians, physicists? Artists? Who was the last female who won the Nobel Prize in the sciences. For 40 some years women have had access to all the same possibilities men have. There is a longer, more complex historical argument, but I don't feel like writing pages. Women and men are different. See the original argument involving Dominance Hierarchy, which is the defining difference, as women have no such thing.

Most recent nobel prize science winners were born in the 1940s or earlier. Meaning, their female classmates would have already come of age by the time the American women's movement began.

Why do you believe that women have all the opportunities they want now? What flash occurred that opened all doors 40 years ago with no residual impact? Was it anything like the one that obliterated the concept of racism?

 There are still ceilings in fields with a large percentage of women working in them. How could you expect these obstacles to disappear overnight in fields with such a small female representation?

[andreisdaman]

All examples of positions requiring social skills, which women have more of and are superior in. Where are the Nobel Prize winning chemists, physicists, mathematicians? The legendary writers? The artists? I rest my case. I am not talking about public office here.

Your argument sounds rational but you're forgetting that the reason why women have not been chemists, physicists, etc is because for generations men (especially white men) pushed women into occupations which THEY felt women were most suited for.....such as nurses, teachers, etc...women were discriminated against when they wanted to go into medicine (as doctors), or into other male dominated fields because society told them that if they did it would not be feminine to do so, or they could not compete with men in those fields......40 years ago there were few women doctors and it was not uncommon for men not to want treatment from a woman doctor....had women been allowed to become physicists, mathematicians, etc..then their sheer numbers and increased presence in those professions would have produced many more female nobel prize winners in those fields by now

[andreisdaman]

It's sort of a crappy case, though. You're discounting the impact simply being female would have had in allowing women to even gain a foothold in these fields throughout most of history. Today, here in America, you can maybe make the argument that we are largely a merit-based society. I wouldn't make that claim, but it is closer to true now than at any time in history. Patronage and money played enormous roles in all the fields you listed, so a dearth of women practicing in those professions was to be completely expected.

sorry....didn't read your post before posting mine above..you said the same thing I said and you said it before me.....I wasn't trying to steal your thunder.....I give you credit as being the originator of the above......very good post...we were thinking alike here

[andreisdaman]

Ah, this tired old argument. Well for starters women have all the opportunities they want NOW. Where are the great female mathematicians, physicists? Artists? Who was the last female who won the Nobel Prize in the sciences. For 40 some years women have had access to all the same possibilities men have. There is a longer, more complex historical argument, but I don't feel like writing pages. Women and men are different. See the original argument involving Dominance Hierarchy, which is the defining difference, as women have no such thing.

dude you are playing games here....you are too smart not to know that 40 years means  nothing in terms progression for a group.....your point would be more valid after maybe 100-200 years or so.....white men in America had over a 200 year headstart...also alot of the Nobel winners are old men...who have dominated their fields for 30-40 years....women are only now starting to get into those fields in somewhat large numbers

[Deicide]

Your argument sounds rational but you're forgetting that the reason why women have not been chemists, physicists, etc is because for generations men (especially white men) pushed women into occupations which THEY felt women were most suited for.....such as nurses, teachers, etc...women were discriminated against when they wanted to go into medicine (as doctors), or into other male dominated fields because society told them that if they did it would not be feminine to do so, or they could not compete with men in those fields......40 years ago there were few women doctors and it was not uncommon for men not to want treatment from a woman doctor....had women been allowed to become physicists, mathematicians, etc..then their sheer numbers and increased presence in those professions would have produced many more female nobel prize winners in those fields by now

This has been shown to be a fabrication, just as the wage gap has been shown to be. Women even now, naturally gravitate towards jobs which are more social in nature because women ARE more social and tend to work fewer hours out of CHOICE. There have been numerous studies done on this. Men and women are different in their approaches to things. This is a consequence of evolution.

I highly recommend this book if you are openminded:

[andreisdaman]

Precisely. Women's competition amounts to little else than comparing their physical assets because men are primarily interested in a woman's youth and beauty; the opposite can not be claimed of men which is why DH exists.

well....yes...to a point......men created the rules in this society..it is a patriarchial society......we insisted that women be feminine, look good, produce babies, and stay in the kitchen while we as men went out and did what we pleased....

not to mention.....the reason why men as a whole have been able to suceed on such a vast scale is because women took care of our children, cooked for us, cleaned our dirty underwear, and freed us from the responsibility to do so.....thus we had time to work outside the home and create stuff and invent this and that......if we were the ones doing the women's chores and the situation was reversed, women would be winning all the noble prizes and we would be the ones trying to reduce our pot bellies to look young and look good for them....

[Deicide]

well....yes...to a point......men created the rules in this society..it is a patriarchial society......we insisted that women be feminine, look good, produce babies, and stay in the kitchen while we as men went out and did what we pleased....

We didn't create anything. All the rules are a product of evolution and natural selection. No one insisted on anything; that is just the way things have always beem, for all species, and we are no exception. Men have hardly done as they pleased. The haven broken their backs in hard labour to provide for their families with little or no acknowledgement throughout history.

not to mention.....the reason why men as a whole have been able to suceed on such a vast scale is because women took care of our children, cooked for us, cleaned our dirty underwear, and freed us from the responsibility to do so.....thus we had time to work outside the home and create stuff and invent this and that......if we were the ones doing the women's chores and the situation was reversed, women would be winning all the noble prizes and we would be the ones trying to reduce our pot bellies to look young and look good for them....

You really do not believe in evolution or biology, do you? Men and women are not the same and it is not a matter of simple role reversal that would change everything to the opposite. Regardless of cultural advancements we are the same animals we were 100,000 years ago and play by the same rules.

[andreisdaman]

We didn't create anything. All the rules are a product of evolution and natural selection. No one insisted on anything; that is just the way things have always beem, for all species, and we are no exception. Men have hardly done as they pleased. The haven broken their backs in hard labour to provide for their families with little or no acknowledgement throughout history.

You really do not believe in evolution or biology, do you? Men and women are not the same and it is not a matter of simple role reversal that would change everything to the opposite. Regardless of cultural advancements we are the same animals we were 100,000 years ago and play by the same rules.

exactly my point.....and who do you think was in charge and setting the rules 100,000 years ago???

[Dos Equis]

I just pulled this off the net:

In 1903, only two years after the Nobel Foundation was established, a Nobel Prize was awarded to a woman, Marie Curie, for the first time. Women have been winning Nobel Prizes ever since. In fact, one woman, Bertha von Suttner was influential in convincing Alfred Nobel to establish a Prize for Peace. Women have won Prizes in all categories with the exception of Economics (which was established in 1968 and first awarded in 1969). Feel free to let your opinions be heard on how we can increase the role of women in the Arts & Sciences on our public forum!.


Physics: 1903 Marie Sklodowska Curie
1963 Maria Goeppert Mayer


Chemistry: 1911 Marie Sklodowska Curie
1935 Irene Joliot-Curie
1964 Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin


Physiology & Medicine: 1947 Gerty Radnitz Cori
1977 Rosalyn Sussman Yalow
1983 Barbara McClintock
1986 Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 Gertrude Elion
1995 Christiane Nusslein-Volhard
2004 Linda B. Buck
2008 Francoise Barre-Sinoussi


Peace: 1905 Baroness Bertha von Suttner
1931 Jane Addams
1946 Emily Greene Balch
1976 Betty Williams
1976 Mairead Corrigan
1979 Mother Teresa
1982 Alva Myrdal
1991 Aung San Suu Kyi
1992 Rigoberta Menchu Tum
1997 Jody Williams
2003 Shirin Ebadi
2004 Wangari Maathai


Literature: 1909 Selma Ottilia Lovisa Lagerlof
1926 Grazia Deledda
1928 Sigrid Undset
1938 Pearl Buck
1945 Gabriela Mistral
1966 Nelly Sachs
1991 Nadine Gordimer
1993 Toni Morrison
1996 Wislawa Szymborska
2004 Elfriede Jelinek
2007 Doris Lessing

http://almaz.com/nobel/women.html

[Deicide]

I just pulled this off the net:

In 1903, only two years after the Nobel Foundation was established, a Nobel Prize was awarded to a woman, Marie Curie, for the first time. Women have been winning Nobel Prizes ever since. In fact, one woman, Bertha von Suttner was influential in convincing Alfred Nobel to establish a Prize for Peace. Women have won Prizes in all categories with the exception of Economics (which was established in 1968 and first awarded in 1969). Feel free to let your opinions be heard on how we can increase the role of women in the Arts & Sciences on our public forum!.


Physics: 1903 Marie Sklodowska Curie
1963 Maria Goeppert Mayer


Chemistry: 1911 Marie Sklodowska Curie
1935 Irene Joliot-Curie
1964 Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin


Physiology & Medicine: 1947 Gerty Radnitz Cori
1977 Rosalyn Sussman Yalow
1983 Barbara McClintock
1986 Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 Gertrude Elion
1995 Christiane Nusslein-Volhard
2004 Linda B. Buck
2008 Francoise Barre-Sinoussi


Peace: 1905 Baroness Bertha von Suttner
1931 Jane Addams
1946 Emily Greene Balch
1976 Betty Williams
1976 Mairead Corrigan
1979 Mother Teresa
1982 Alva Myrdal
1991 Aung San Suu Kyi
1992 Rigoberta Menchu Tum
1997 Jody Williams
2003 Shirin Ebadi
2004 Wangari Maathai


Literature: 1909 Selma Ottilia Lovisa Lagerlof
1926 Grazia Deledda
1928 Sigrid Undset
1938 Pearl Buck
1945 Gabriela Mistral
1966 Nelly Sachs
1991 Nadine Gordimer
1993 Toni Morrison
1996 Wislawa Szymborska
2004 Elfriede Jelinek
2007 Doris Lessing

http://almaz.com/nobel/women.html

And compare it to the list of men.