J. Reed Schrichte — well, I read it, or at least started reading it, until it made me puke in my mouth. These are my thoughts, as far as I had them.
As far as your other comments, sure, everything human is trial and error. But we are majorly reformatting gender lines today. Spend some time learning about the transgender community. In the future, I expect traits we associate with specific genders today, will be decoupled from our birth sex body parts.
Now, onto my thoughts of the material you posted on that link…
Quotes from: http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
“What was his crime? Nobody accused him of actually discriminating against women. His misdeed was to think thoughts that are not allowed to be thought, namely that there might be more men with high ability. The only permissible explanation for the lack of top women scientists is patriarchy — that men are conspiring to keep women down. It can’t be ability. Actually, there is some evidence that men on average are a little better at math, but let’s assume Summers was talking about general intelligence. People can point to plenty of data that the average IQ of adult men is about the same as the average for women. So to suggest that men are smarter than women is wrong. No wonder some women were offended.
But that’s not what he said. He said there were more men at the top levels of ability. That could still be true despite the average being the same — if there are also more men at the bottom of the distribution, more really stupid men than women. During the controversy about his remarks, I didn’t see anybody raise this question, but the data are there, indeed abundant, and they are indisputable. There are more males than females with really low IQs. Indeed, the pattern with mental retardation is the same as with genius, namely that as you go from mild to medium to extreme, the preponderance of males gets bigger.”
I think a better question to ask would have been: Why are there more men at the top? And the answer would likely e be a combination of reasons — of which intelligence would be one variable.
He goes on to say,
“All those retarded boys are not the handiwork of patriarchy. Men are not conspiring together to make each other’s sons mentally retarded.”
I would actually disagree. Unintelligent men are the work of the patriarchy.
The patriarchy is not just all men — it is alpha men dominating — both women, as a gender whole, and also alpha and non-alpha men. (Alpha men generally have a better chance going up against another alpha man, although we do love those underdog stories for a reason. Non-alpha men normally do not go up against alpha men. Some, instead, go after women, more specifically alpha women, who threaten their status as non-alpha men. See gamer-gate as an example.)
Some (alpha) fathers absolutely do dominate their non-alpha sons. Ask any woman who has dated a number of non-alpha men. Alpha women and non-alpha men have the same issues and discriminations.
As far as the extremes he discusses, I’d like to see some data. I also question the paradigm in which these extremes are defined, who defined them. I’m curious how gender-neutral the paradigms and extremes he uses are? Certainly standardized tests and intelligence tests have biases.
He goes on to suggest that women earning less money might be a statistical quirk! What bullshit!
“Today, sure enough, women get higher college grades but lower salaries than men. There is much discussion about what all this means and what should be done about it. But as you see, both facts could be just a statistical quirk stemming from male extremity.”
Plausibility has to do with what the author believes is possible, and plausibility is not based in reality at all, it’s based in the author’s brain.
The different but equal theory is one I personally ascribe to, but rather than limit the theory to only the gender — how about apply it to the individual. One individual may be equal but different (or better) in some ways. But this different but equal has nothing to do with whether I have a cock or a cunt.
I won’t even start with his Can’t vs Won’t section. I’m sure a behaviorist economist has already ripped these ideas to shreds. It’s sexism pure and simple, although hidden (not so well).
And at this point, I just turned off on the whole subject, thinking I have many better things to do, like pack for my upcoming move, like review the footage of films I am producing, like walking my dog or doing yoga since I woke up with a kink in my neck and I generally work 80+ hours a week on my various projects and this one has ceased to have value.