__

[MagisterCultuum]

While I agree that the word Dominatrix sounds much cooler, it should be compared to dominator, not master. "trix" is simply the female version of the masculine ending "tor" in Latin. I prefer to use other cooler sounding words like "doctrix", "senatrix", ect., when it is appropriate, but this tends to confuse people. Word length has nothing to do with the quality of what it describes. A shorter word is more efficient.

I've read somewhere that biologically and neurologically men are more efficient but women are more sophisticated. This means that women heal better and are better at multitasking. Men's neurons are much larger, but women have far more. Also, a man can concentrate harder on a task for a short time, but then the neurons in that part of his brain begin to starve itself and will die if he doesn't switch to using some other part of his brain instead. Women's brains are less strictly organized, which lets enough blood flow to feed the neurons for a much longer time, and allows them to adapt to changing circumstances and/or injuries much better. Women supposedly have a tighter bell curve when it comes to intelligence, meaning the smartest men are significantly smarter and that most men are imbeciles. I've heard woman compared to the state of the art B-2 bomber, while men are more like the old B-29 that has dominated the sky since World War II. Of course, this could all be wrong.

 

[vyapti]

I've read somewhere that biologically and neurologically men are more efficient but women are more sophisticated. This means that women heal better and are better at multitasking.

Well worded. This describes my relationship well. I'm usually concerned with efficiency and goal completion--the end product. My wife, however seems to think that the journey is as important as the destination. Frivolous things like building relationships are important to her.

Also, a man can concentrate harder on a task for a short time.

Any task in particular?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I don't remember where I read it, but that seemed to imply on pretty much anything. The key is it is sometimes a very short time. A man would soon need to move on to something else and couldn't deal with the some type subject for a while, while a woman could stick with it almost indefinitely and possibly do something completely unrelated at the same time.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Any task in particular?

Any that don't hinge on talking or listening.
edit: my this thread is busy today.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

A man can concentrate on listening well for a couple of seconds. He can concentrate on talking if he doesn't also need to be listening or thinking.

If a man likes a subject, or just needs to do it a lot, it is likely that more blood vessels will grow to the part of the brain necessary for him to do so without wearing out the brain too quickly. This probably diverts blood from areas of the brain that are rarely used. It is not possible for all parts of the brain to get enough blood to sustain activity there at all times.

 

[.SinClaire.]

okay maybe like this then?

Women supposedly have a tighter bell curve when it comes to intelligence, meaning the smartest (wo)men are significantly smarter and that most men are imbeciles.

edit: cut cut snip plop.

 

[vyapti]

A man can concentrate on listening well for a couple of seconds. He can concentrate on talking if he doesn't also need to be listening or thinking.

This is not true during March Madness. I've been able to listen to, at most, 3 words before I drift back to the game. Incidentally, I can concentrate way more than 2 seconds on Basketball AND Football.

Edit: Just not shoes or gossip!

 

[MagisterCultuum]

No,.SinClaire. The average woman is smarter than the majority of men, but there are more male geniuses. It has been shown that the mean IQ is identical for both genders, but the median and mode IQ is significantly higher for women. That means that in general women are the smarter sex, but there are enough smart men to offset this. That is, if I am remembering correctly. Of course, there are other types of intelligences that IQ tests cannot measure, such as EQ. I don't know how the genders compare here, but intuitively it doesn't seem like this men would gain any points related to how well they perceive the emotions of others.

 

[vyapti]

In a normal distribution, the mean and median are equivalent. I believe you mean that the standard deviation (or variance) is significantly higher in women.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

In a normal distribution, the mean and median are equivalent. I believe you mean that the standard deviation (or variance) is significantly higher in women.

No, he means the opposite, and I've heard this too. Most geniuses are men, as are most morons. (Although I wouldn't go so far as to say a majority are imbeciles.)
Makes sense from a survival point of view, I guess. Everyone needs a competent mom, but if a few of the men exceptional, the tribe/species could make do with a few stupid ones, assuming there is some kind of corelation between upper & lower deviation.

 

[vyapti]

Apparently, I fall into the latter category. Thank for the correction.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

If I remember correctly, a bell curve for IQ is only an approximation and is not nearly as accurate for males as for females. Male IQs would not fit into a normal distribution, so median and mean would differ somewhat.

The "majority are imbeciles" part was hyperbole.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

The "majority are imbeciles" part was hyperbole.

I understand the technique. The internet being what it is, however, whatever absurdity you use to illustrate your point is no doubt devoutly believed by a group of people with several competing web sites and possibly an e-mail server.
So it's a good idea to accompany your sarcasm with a smilee if you want people to know it is tongue in cheek.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

What an interesting discussion...

 

[MayNilad Man]

Yes, very interesting. Tell me more...

 

[wilboman]

So, assuming the team constitute the higher end of the male intelligence scale (note tongue-in-cheek smiley), who wants to step forward and confess that they fill the lower end of the scale?

 

[DieselBiscuit]

its a joke

supposed superiority or delicate dominion, claiming completion is complete contradiction

1. The bush. Do not beat it, neither about nor even remotely near it. Which is to get the point across in a seemingly inconsistent or, at least, in an appeasingly figurative or methephorical way. Yes, understanding of the case in point of course ranks vastly amongst the top candidates, although sophistication of argument is indeed superior by comparison. But by all means, vagueness to the point of being obscure is a plus unless clarity is beyond reach under said circumstance.

2. Just say it?

3. Alliteration agrees and poetry perseveres in the face of foolish fecundism.

Yeah, that about sums it up for me.

 

[Senethro]

Misunderstood pop-psychology in this thread.

 

[QES]

If one has changed the truth of their origional answer to this poll, how does one go about rectifying it?

Also - I think that discussing the different intelligence quotients betwixt the sexes is frivilous considering that people are stupid without reservation.

I as the stupidity king demand tax and tithes!

-Qes

Send tithes too:
P.O Box 12345, SpaceBall city, Spaceball

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Also - I think that discussing the different intelligence quotients betwixt the sexes is frivilous considering that people are stupid without reservation.

Not true at all--I reserve the right to be stupid at a moment's notice.