Everyone seems to assume that men and women are the same, except for their genitals. This is false. Nature designed men to excel, and women to be average.
That's controversial. So let me prove it.
You have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Of those, 22 pairs contain mainly genes that define physical features (e.g. eye color, diabetes.)
You receive one copy of each chromosome from your mother, and one from your father. Your traits are the results of the interactions between these pairs of chromosomes.
So, if you inherit a gene for blue eyes in one of your father's chromosomes, and the corresponding gene for brown eyes from your mother's corresponding chromosome, that pair will cancel out, and you'll probably have green eyes as a result.
The 23rd pair of chromosomes is VERY special. It controls the things that make you human (e.g. IQ, compassion, foresight, artistic talent...)
The 23rd pair differentiates sex too. Women get an X chromosome from each parent, while men get an X from mom and a Y from dad. The Y chromosome contains the genes for "maleness."
But X and Y are not the same size, unlike the other chromosomes. The X chromosome has over 1,000 genes. The Y chromosome has just 78 genes.
It looks like nature has been whittling down the Y chromosome for generations, until it barely contains the genes for "maleness." Why would it do that?
So that, in men, the human traits on the X chromosome can be expressed freely, without interference from the Y chromosome. Nature is EXPERIMENTING on men!
If a man has a high-IQ gene on his X chromosome, it will be expressed freely, without interference from the Y chromosome, which has no such gene.
If a man has a serial-killer gene on his X chromosome, it will be expressed freely, without interference from the Y chromosome, which has no such gene.
If you draw a bell curve for any uniquely human trait (e.g. IQ, compassion, musical ability...), the curve will be much flatter for men. Most women cluster in the middle of the curve, while men rule the extremes.
Nature experiments in this way on men because, if a highly successful adaptation is found (e.g. intelligence), the man can pass on that gene to far more children than a woman can. Male sperm is plentiful. Female eggs are scarce.
The flattened bell curve for men is why there will never be as many great female scientists as male scientists.
It is why there will never be as many great female businessmen as male businessmen.
It is why there will never be as many female serial killers as male serial killers.
And it's why men dominate even stereotypically female fields, like cooking, fashion design, and art.
It's SCIENCE!! Are you a SCIENCE DENIER??
Extra credit: For a man to pass on his uniquely human qualities (e.g. IQ), he needs daughters. But a woman who wants to pass on her uniquely human qualities is better off having sons. Explain why.
[+]Ten_Thousand_Monkeys1 points [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
I don’t know enough about genetics to refute everything spouted here, I but I know enough to confidently say that all this is bullshit.
[–]PowerToAnnihilate -2 points-1 points0 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]Ten_Thousand_Monkeys1 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
Did I say “feel” or did I say that I know enough.
[–]PowerToAnnihilate 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]Ten_Thousand_Monkeys1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link
It’s very reductive and completely fails to address how little we know about how genetics encode things like IQ. OP waxes poetic about our “uniquely human qualities” like IQ but we don’t know enough about the genetic basis of IQ to be drawing these kinds of conclusions. It’s written more like bad eugenics rhetoric than actual science. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, OP doesn’t have a good understanding of how eye color is influenced by genetics, and the same failings in OPs understanding of genetics are going to be interwoven into the bad understanding of other phenotypes, including “IQ.”
That doesn’t even get into the science of IQ itself, which is a whole other topic for discussion. From what I understand “IQ” itself is a rather contentious subject. The idea of IQ is over used in our pop culture as an easy label to brag or tear down others, but the science of IQ is not settled.
Taking a reductive pop/folk understanding of IQ and combine with a reductive understanding of genetics to arrive at ideologically motivated conclusions about men and women is bad science. It’s bullshit. Similar to the bullshit pseudoscience that tried to prove some races are inferior
[–]WikiTextBot 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HelperBot_ 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PowerToAnnihilate 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WMOWin2016 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Historybuffman 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DoBeTrippin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shellbross 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DoBeTrippin 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link