Here is a place to let your words do your talking for you.
Ah, now I get why your last link to me was so snarky. If you want my attention, that's not the way to go about it. I just thought I should ignore it. Paul is also trying to get my attention with posts with links to shoddy research and little links to me. You boys!! Is this the technological age's equivilent to hair pulling?
Tell me, lad, what post you would like me to link to specifically. I would be more than happy to do so. You can email me. I answer emails, unlike other people I know.
Paul is also trying to get my attention with posts with links to shoddy research and little links to me. You boys!! Is this the technological age's equivilent to hair pulling?
We must be bored, what with being more intelligent and so on.
Yeaaah. You keep telling yourself that, hon.
BTW, I have given you the attention you crave. I have linked to you. Are we square now? 
Are we square now?
For now...
I've actually never quite understood the whole war of the sexes and the identity politics of it. For instance, if men were smarter than women (a difficult hypothetical to imagine given some of the oafs that exist among men) then what would that have to do with me or an individual woman? After all, there are individual women who are more intelligent as well as more technically capable than I am in numerous ways so why would vast generalities matter? "Men in general are smarter than women and uh, I'm a man so that must mean I'm smart too or somethin'. If I stand in a crowd of men, that means I'm smart right?"
Even if it were true the aggregate wouldn't actually mean much at the individual level. Hmmm....hopefully that's not my feminine side talking.
Aaaw.
No that's not your "feminine" side talking at all. That's just intelligence which doesn't have to be feminine or masculine!
I could be wrong, but it seems that men have more fragile egos and the big deal is that it's really important to a lot of men to think they are smarter. I don't know why. I don't get all bent out of shape about the fact that I am smaller than most men. What's the fuss? (Of course, since we are being all understanding and all over here I'll admit that modern society has been making fun of men far too much. Even if it's paybacks for years of acting as though women were stupid, it still isn't right.)
And I'm sorry for not linking to you more. What I've noticed is that you link to me after I've posted something. I chould update with a link back to you, for example. I don't tend to link to your posts, because I don't feel well-read enough to opine on the things you do and I really have little of worth to add. It certainly isn't because I'm ignoring you. Okay? But I'll try to do better.
Mynym,
I decided to post on the ridiculous research after all. I quoted you, too.
I quoted you, too.
I see that.
I also saw Paul's comment, which was nothing interesting or meaningful. Little wonder that the fellow has no problem with evolution, whatever that term may mean at any given time, as he may hardly mean what he says at any given time.
On a more controversial note, Socrates argued that men are better than women at everything, including knitting and weaving and so on. His argument was made in the context of soothing Greek chauvinists in his day so that women could be educated. A sardonic argument: "Look, if you must identify with all men then simply observe that men are already better at everything, so why are you so insecure that you won't allow women to be educated? You fellows may as well let women be educated, unless you're scared." But as in most of Socrates' arguments he was using a truth, one that apparently still exists. As you noted, genius par excellence still tends to be a trait of men more than women even if some of the worst imbeciles are also men. That may be an artifact of history.
Yet, there again, it probably actually isn't because no amount of oppression ever seems to hold back genius. Beethoven was deaf, Einstein was subject to rote learning as a child and the list could go on, so the historical evidence indicates that discrimination and adversity usually can't hold genius back, so appealing to it in explaining a lack of genius fails to comport with the evidence as to what the nature of genius is. Such an explanation may make one feel good about lacking genius but it's not an actual explanation.
I don't really know the answer...but perhaps an ironic explanation could be based on male insecurity. I.e. if people who feel good about themselves and who have high self-esteem also tend to lack intelligence as a result then a male tendency towards insecurity would cause increased levels of intelligence.
That would make the Leftist feminization of American public education ironic because students would be taught to feel good about being ignorant, stupid and wrong.
But I'll try to do better.
But then I might feel too secure, have high self-esteem and begin to get dumb about things. Of course that wouldn't happen because you're too intelligent and balanced about things as a result. But for others it seems that is hard for people to understand that everything can be taken too far, even the nicest things.
Again, even if Socrates is right or the supposed facts are correct: "So there are more male geniuses than female...so that makes me smarter than women, right?" The only thing worse than such reasoning being applied to the facts are those creatures of ressentiment and victimization par excellence, radical feminists, reasoning in the opposite direction: "So there are more male geniuses than women...so that must mean that women are oppressed! I can just feel the victimization of it all, can't you?"
Commenting by HaloScan
