From an evolutionary biology standpoint, it makes sense.

On average, males and females have almost the exact same number of offspring per individual, differing only because there are not the same total populations. The variation, however, is wide. In my particular family tree, there is one male ancester who had 41 children, while the maximum female is 11. That male ancestor out-lived his first three wives and re-married, continuing to father children into his 80s. When you get down to it, there really isn’t a limit to how many offspring a male can have, while females are essentially limited to about a dozen. Wilt Chamberlain, for example, had some very clear traits which females might see as valuable in their offspring.

Given a difference in genetic risk and reward for variation, one would expect to see a genetic difference in level of risk taken.

Put another way, given that the gambles are different, why would it make sense to insist that the game is played in an identical manner?

This could also explain why the prison population is predominantly male; there are more dumb men who do dumb things that cause them to wind up in jail.

As if Beer doesn’t help this situation!!! Just Kidding. We all know it is pot that makes you stupid. Beer makes you wiser, like Bud. – Lorica

I have managed to track a number of students since their graduation, and of the women that I can find, all are doing very well in professional positions. Just about all of them have taken time out to have children and this has slowed the progression of their careers. Even so, I have to say that the women that made it through the course have done every bit as well as the men.

During the time that they were in school, the women were frequently at some disadvantage because they had never done many of the things that the young men had done. I am thinking of things like change a tire, run a snow blower, watched a backhoe at work, etc. These were small disadvantages, however, and with a few photographs, some drawings, and an occasional suggestion as to where to go to see something in action, they caught on very quickly.

The finding that men are more heavily represented in both extremes of the intelligence distribution suggests something else. This could also explain why the prison population is predominantly male; there are more dumb men who do dumb things that cause them to wind up in jail.

Are men intrinsicly better at science and math than women(nature), or is it because it is less socially acceptable for young girls to be good at math & science (nurture)? This could be the same for IQ too. If more girls (vs. boys) are raised in an environment that suggests that woman SHOULD accomplish less, than it makes sense that women typically will accomplish less than boys (especially on a statistical basis). These norms are also backed up in kids programing (scooby-doo for example).

It’s currently very difficult to tell how much is nature & nurture. I think this is what the Harvard President was trying to say in his speech. However, he did not seem prepared for that speech, especially the nuances and controversy that surround the subject in academia, and his speech ended up implying more than he ever meant to say.

Things have dramatically changed in the last 20 years. Studies often show that fathers put higher expectations on athletic ambitions than on scholastic ambitions. As a result, male test scores are dropping through the floor. On the other hand, increased focus on female scholastic achievement has caused a dramatic increase in educated women. Most colleges now have trouble finding male applicants with acceptable grades.

However, men still outnumber women in science & engineering (but not nearly as much as before). Why this still occurs, and how much of a male/female rift still exists is currently up for debate.

- Mathematics, in its most direct form of definition, and in fact usage, is simply yet another means which human beings speak to each other. In other words, leaving aside the scientific hedgemony that mathematics enjoys, it really is just a specialized form of language. This being the case there seems to be a conflict in the fact that women were found to be simulteaneously better, and yet worse, at language skills than women.

- My very unscientific thoughts about why this might be the case concerns more the fact that most of the women I have known in my life find science a rather dry boring pursuit, and thus have a natural adversion to the study of science, and its form of “language”, mathematics, and in no way would that support a weakness in native learning skills in the mathematics area. Indeed, as has been shown by this, and a number of similar studies, science too is an area that attracts fewer women than men.

- Since mathematics is an “abstract” language, dealing in the invisible in all but the most rudimentary cases, it might be that men have a greater affinity for the abstract, and are thus drawn to mathematics more easily.

- In neither case does these reasons reflect a lower intelligence. Moreover, in general the real problems these sorts of studies run up against is the misinterpretation of cause and affect, rather than simply the situational data gathering processes they mentioned.

- Either way, Feminazi’s still suck. They are not after equality, but rather a sort of faux imposed superiority, which of course is just as inferior as misplaced studies. By marginalizing the environ they live in, they hope to normalize their version of a sociatal construct where their points of view are the norm, something they can cope with, where they cannot cope with things as they actually exist.

- The biggest flaw in their thinking, as is common with all Progressive mind sets, is to try to abolish human nature. It simply doesn’t work.

- Viva ‘La differance’….

- BBH –