Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/30/13 08:18 PM, AxTekk wrote:

So, like I said, it's not that raw cognitive prowess is the differentiator. Women just use their fluid g to build verbal skills while men use their fluid g to build mathsy skills (generally).

No, look at the SAT scores, men and women score almost equal in reading and writing ( with men slightly above) but men vastly outshine women in math.

That's only at the SAT level, where you notice a clear lumping at the top which suggest the test is not hard enough to adequately determine the true gap between men and women at the extremes. ( i.e. if you plot a curve of the scores you'd notice a little bump at the end for perfect scores, that shouldn't be if the test was hard enough ).

Anyway if you look at IQ distribution by gender you'll always see the same pattern:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=iq+distribution+by+gender&safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VJiaUsPAHIrhoAS70oCYAQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=911

You basically have to do "feminist" science (i.e. bullshit) to come with a different outcome.

I'd disagree with you about "just about every profession" though, the female skill set should be especially suited to film (colour thinking, emotional thinking and creative thinking are all female strong points psychometrically),

"Film" isn't a profession, it's a HUGE industry with thousands of different jobs.
What "women in film" most likely complain about is being under-represented in directing ( i.e. they want the big money ).

Sadly, to become a director requires high initiative, high independence and high organizational skills. If you look at what it takes to achieve this just on Youtube, you'll notice that when you start at the bottom and there's not a huge team of people to do shit for you, you have to take care of every job to get to put your name on a movie and that's very often how future big-time directors get noticed when they are just film students.

At 11/30/13 09:01 PM, poxpower wrote: What "women in film" most likely complain about is being under-represented in directing ( i.e. they want the big money ).

Sadly, to become a director requires high initiative, high independence and high organizational skills

Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhhh..... that got really misogynistic really quickly...

At 11/30/13 09:34 PM, AxTekk wrote: Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhhh..... that got really misogynistic really quickly...

he's stating facts, you can embrace female equality while still acknowledging statistics

a scientist published test results that showed white people are statistically smarter than black people, and it's people like you that jump to conclusions that scrutinize these facts

At 11/30/13 09:34 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 11/30/13 09:01 PM, poxpower wrote: What "women in film" most likely complain about is being under-represented in directing ( i.e. they want the big money ).

Sadly, to become a director requires high initiative, high independence and high organizational skills

Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhhh..... that got really misogynistic really quickly...

Why? I just rattled off the same kinds of characteristics which you already agree women have less of than men.
???

Stop being a bitch.

At 11/30/13 10:22 PM, poxpower wrote: Stop being a bitch.

Lol initiative, independence and organisational skills... Love to see the stats you have to back that one up.

At 11/30/13 03:04 PM, exudaz wrote: I have an image I like to post when feminazis and transgenders complain about "Patriarchs" and "society"

That makes you the most selfish, self-centered piece of shit. Just because there are other problems in the world doesn't mean and should never mean that we should stop taking care of other problems. Your whole post and your stupid picture is a fallacious argument.

Like somehow in your retarded ideology, there is a clear hierarchy between problems, and they should be considered in one specific order, and as long as the "most important" problems aren't solved, then it is wrong to care about anything else then what is supposedly, according to your own subjective ideas, the "most important problem to solve."

At 11/30/13 10:24 PM, AxTekk wrote: Lol initiative, independence and organisational skills... Love to see the stats you have to back that one up.

No this graph of IQ curves proves that men are better at these obviously quantifiable skills are you black or just stupid?

taking out a bit of trash first

At 11/30/13 10:22 PM, poxpower wrote
the usual

poxpower I've asked you before and I'm going to ask again, what biologically in the brain separates a high IQ individual from a low IQ individual, is it environmental, is it descriptive about gender in our society, or is it about relative skill? I've asked you this multiple other times and I've stated why it's important to know if you're going to rattle off about this in any detail of descriptiveness, yet you're still poisoning threads with this idiocy.

Why? I just rattled off the same kinds of characteristics which you already agree women have less of than men.

While women certainly have different behaviors then men on average and likely have different rates of success judging from certain tests it's ridiculous to go straight from this to genetic inferiority especially when we're talking about success in a very specific field we're not even sure has much to do with what you'd find on an IQ test.

You apparently haven't done much research at all. It's the point where you link to a google image search that I know you really aren't fit to debate on any authentic intellectual level whatsoever. So let's set the record strait, so far what the research has shown is that males usually score above females by a marginal degree with the variance between male and female test scores clouding up the results a bit.
Differences in brain physiology between sexes do not necessarily relate to differences in intellect. Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance. And women on average score differently in some cases on the test such as mathematics and verbal ability, but you can't really lump female brains and male brains together developmentally.
Is there a genetic cause to these gaps or is it environmental, it's ridiculous to make conclusions now especially with all the studies going into neuroplasticity and epigenetics as it chips away at the likelihood. Even if we ignore the top 2 discrepancies this still doesn't do anything for your argument in the long run, what you have here is an average, not something that is descriptive of the competency of everybody in an entire gender.

you can read a few studies by yourself.
http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_papers/2007/Deary2007Intelligence451-456_Brother_sister_sex_differences.pdf
"Males have only a marginal advantage in mean levels of g (less than 7% of a standard deviation) from the ASVAB and AFQT, but substantially greater variance. Among the top 2% AFQT
scores, there were almost twice as many males as females. These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences inintellectual eminence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology#IQ

Stop being a bitch.

you are laughably immature.

At 11/30/13 10:58 PM, Entice wrote:

At 11/30/13 10:24 PM, AxTekk wrote: Lol initiative, independence and organisational skills... Love to see the stats you have to back that one up.

No this graph of IQ curves proves that men are better at these obviously quantifiable skills are you black or just stupid?

Damn son, you got me. I do kinda wonder how Pox feels about Asian dudes loving rap music too actually...

At 11/30/13 10:53 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 11/30/13 03:04 PM, exudaz wrote: I have an image I like to post when feminazis and transgenders complain about "Patriarchs" and "society"

That makes you the most selfish, self-centered piece of shit. Just because there are other problems in the world doesn't mean and should never mean that we should stop taking care of other problems. Your whole post and your stupid picture is a fallacious argument.

Like somehow in your retarded ideology, there is a clear hierarchy between problems, and they should be considered in one specific order, and as long as the "most important" problems aren't solved, then it is wrong to care about anything else then what is supposedly, according to your own subjective ideas, the "most important problem to solve."

It shows how frivolous our 'problems' are. Gender inequality in films is nothing compared to real problems, and it's retarded that we're so fed up with garbage like this when there's actual shit going on in other parts of the world. I'm saying that we should take care of real problems first, and then put little things like this in the spotlight.

I don't care if the problems are here, in Mexico, the Ukraine, or the middle east, if others are suffering so much that they're dropping dead on the streets, don't you think that's a little more important that some feminists thinking that filmmakers don't represent genders perfectly in movies?

Just because the problems aren't affecting you, it doesn't mean they're unimportant.

Have some common fucking sense.

At 11/30/13 11:13 PM, naronic wrote: Differences in brain physiology between sexes do not necessarily relate to differences in intellect. Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance. And women on average score differently in some cases on the test such as mathematics and verbal ability, but you can't really lump female brains and male brains together developmentally.

Plus physiological causes does not necessarily mean intellectual limits. It seems more likely that the broad physiological differences between sexes would translate to things like motivation (if they actually cause anything, psychologically). This would definitely fit the results we see while being neater, simpler and more logical imho.

At 11/30/13 11:13 PM, naronic wrote: poxpower I've asked you before and I'm going to ask again, what biologically in the brain separates a high IQ individual from a low IQ individual, is it environmental, is it descriptive about gender in our society, or is it about relative skill? I've asked you this multiple other times and I've stated why it's important to know if you're going to rattle off about this in any detail of descriptiveness, yet you're still poisoning threads with this idiocy.

He's not here to reconsider his misogynistic values, you know that.

Btw naronic, your demonstration was pretty effective. You have solid background to back your propositions, and your reading of the numbers and social factors is pretty accurate. But reading your post, it also made me think that even if poxpower was right in anyway about this... it still wouldn't change a goddamn thing. Not only because the numerical variations between genders are minimal, but also because when considering the specific qualities on an individual, you shouldn't ever discriminate him based on the group he comes from. So even if he could prove that women are less intelligent then men IN AVERAGE, which I HIGHLY DOUBT... he still couldn't argue that all women are inferior to men when it comes to intelligence. Even his cheap graphics tend to prove this... There are at least 10% of women in these graphics who have an higher IQ then 80% of the males... So how could you possibly support such discriminative theories anyway... and that is even if we would hypothetically assume that everything pox said was true...

At 11/30/13 11:31 PM, exudaz wrote: I don't care if the problems are here, in Mexico, the Ukraine, or the middle east, if others are suffering so much that they're dropping dead on the streets, don't you think that's a little more important that some feminists thinking that filmmakers don't represent genders perfectly in movies?

So we shouldn't care?

Your argumentation is so poor. You have never expressed how the fact that there are more "important issues" in the world would in anyway affect our needs to work on these issues.

Your lack of vision is so stunning... I don't even know where to start!

Would you ever argue that the fact that there are people dying of thirst in Africa would somehow make it irrelevant to work on the housing problems and situations in occidental world? If you answered yes... then you're a desperated case. There is so much fallacy in this arugmentative approach!

At 11/30/13 11:34 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: and that is even if we would hypothetically assume that everything pox said was true...

No, I think if Pox was right and all gender inequality in film was due to genetic inequality, that would say we wouldn't need to worry about gender discrimination and stuff. Not that I actually think gender inequality is a massive priority...

I think it's laughable to assume that just because some hipsters on tumblr yell "cis privilege" at every turn means there aren't genuine problems with inequality.

At 11/30/13 11:43 PM, AxTekk wrote: Not that I actually think gender inequality is a massive priority...

*IN FILM. GENDER INEQUALITY IN FILM

At 11/30/13 08:37 PM, FlakJaketPro wrote:

If they wanted to earn the respect of the American people, they could do something big. Invent Something,

Nah, a trans* doesn't have to do anything but exist to deserve the same respect and representation that cishets do.

At 11/30/13 06:37 PM, AxTekk wrote:

http://home.uchicago.edu/jlist/papers/116-full.pdf

On the 4th page/2nd paragraph the pdf denotes that the gap in women and mens scores under finanical incentive isn't statistically significant and that both genders generally perform better.

How do you figure this is related to the film industry? Even if every woman was definitely less than intelligent than every man, after 85 years, we should have at 10 female storytellers who've won in every category (Best Picture, Best Director,
Best Adapted/Original Screenplay). A gap in intelligence wouldn't explain the gap in representation. Intelligence and creativity are not linked.

At 11/30/13 11:39 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 11/30/13 11:31 PM, exudaz wrote: I don't care if the problems are here, in Mexico, the Ukraine, or the middle east, if others are suffering so much that they're dropping dead on the streets, don't you think that's a little more important that some feminists thinking that filmmakers don't represent genders perfectly in movies?

So we shouldn't care?

Your argumentation is so poor. You have never expressed how the fact that there are more "important issues" in the world would in anyway affect our needs to work on these issues.

Your lack of vision is so stunning... I don't even know where to start!

Would you ever argue that the fact that there are people dying of thirst in Africa would somehow make it irrelevant to work on the housing problems and situations in occidental world? If you answered yes... then you're a desperated case. There is so much fallacy in this arugmentative approach!

You're not understanding what I'm trying to tell you. You're skull is so thick it's crazy. I never tried to imply our problems are irrelevant. It's just that this 'gender equality in movies' is total bullshit compared to what goes on in the rest of the world. And to focus so much on irrelevant shit like this is crazy.

You're clearly too stupid to understand what I'm trying to get through to you, so I'll just stop. It's like, trying to teach calculus to a baboon.

At 11/30/13 11:59 PM, exudaz wrote: You're not understanding what I'm trying to tell you. You're skull is so thick it's crazy. I never tried to imply our problems are irrelevant. It's just that this 'gender equality in movies' is total bullshit compared to what goes on in the rest of the world. And to focus so much on irrelevant shit like this is crazy.

There is so much bullshit in your posts, I don't even know why I'm wasting my time here. Have some kind of normative reasoning, goddamnit! You can't say one thing, then the complete opposited in the next. If you accept the sole fucking idea that issues shouldn't be considered in a "most important to less important" order, than you can't just suggest in the most arbitrary way that issues of gender inequality are irrelevant. Have some consistancy in your argumentation, fucktard.

You're clearly too stupid to understand what I'm trying to get through to you, so I'll just stop. It's like, trying to teach calculus to a baboon.

Lol. You have no kind of structure in your argumentation, shut the fuck up.

At 11/30/13 10:24 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 11/30/13 10:22 PM, poxpower wrote: Stop being a bitch.

Lol initiative, independence and organisational skills... Love to see the stats you have to back that one up.

You already agreed.
"The skill set men tend to aquire suits (currently) higher paying jobs better."

"The big difference between sexes isn't cognitive ability. It's motivation, and"

( that one was funny as you were shocked that I was disputing something you were JUST first introducing in that sentence lol ).

Anyway you keep talking about differences between averages when I am talking about differences at the far-end of the curves.

At 11/30/13 11:13 PM, naronic wrote:

poxpower I've asked you before and I'm going to ask again, what biologically in the brain separates a high IQ individual from a low IQ individual,

Fucked if I know

is it environmental,

Only in part

is it descriptive about gender in our society, or is it about relative skill?

I don't even know what that means.

genetic inferiority

Who said anything about inferiority?
??
That's you, not me.

IQ is quite obviously related to success in the managerial positions of moviemaking, such as starting companies, finding and managing talent etc.

It's also an extremely competitive business where just having creative talent is not even close to enough to get you to the top.

So let's set the record strait, so far what the research has shown is that males usually score above females by a marginal degree with the variance between male and female test scores clouding up the results a bit.

It's not marginal, for IQs of 130, the ratio is 2:1.

And women on average score differently in some cases on the test such as mathematics and verbal ability, but you can't really lump female brains and male brains together developmentally.

This has 0 to do with what's being talked about.

Is there a genetic cause to these gaps or is it environmental,

Genetic.

you can read a few studies by yourself.
http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_papers/2007/Deary2007Intelligence451-456_Brother_sister_sex_differences.pdf

Why do you quote things that agree with everything I've said?
??

At 11/30/13 11:34 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:

Not only because the numerical variations between genders are minimal,

Again, 2:1 ratio for IQs of 130 ( and the ratio just gets worse for women after that ).
You should look up the meaning of the word "minimal".

but also because when considering the specific qualities on an individual, you shouldn't ever discriminate him based on the group he comes from. So even if he could prove that women are less intelligent then men IN AVERAGE, which I HIGHLY DOUBT...

How could you write something like this if you had read or understood anything I wrote?
It's just impossible. Let me recommend some reading material more appropriate to your level:

At 11/30/13 11:54 PM, thatkidkenji wrote: On the 4th page/2nd paragraph the pdf denotes that the gap in women and mens scores under finanical incentive isn't statistically significant and that both genders generally perform better.

No, it says both genders perform better and that the stereotype threat isn't significant. I don't even get why you'd have a problem with this, it's just showing that men are vainer and more competitive. It doesn't even say that men are innately vainer and more competitive, you could just as easily argue from these figures that women should be taught to be equally vain and competitive (if you reeeaaaally think it's improving these men's lives).

How do you figure this is related to the film industry? Even if every woman was definitely less than intelligent than every man, after 85 years, we should have at 10 female storytellers who've won in every category (Best Picture, Best Director,
Best Adapted/Original Screenplay). A gap in intelligence wouldn't explain the gap in representation. Intelligence and creativity are not linked.

Yeah, I never claimed they were. And I agree entirely with you. I don't get how you're mixing me and Pox up, we have different display pics and sigs and errything

At 12/1/13 12:09 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/30/13 10:24 PM, AxTekk wrote: Lol initiative, independence and organisational skills... Love to see the stats you have to back that one up.

You already agreed.
"The skill set men tend to aquire suits (currently) higher paying jobs better."

Lol I never said women were quantifiably less any of those things. I said they were quantifiably less mathsy and that you would probably see something more like a 60-40 split in finance given time to air out the boardrooms.

Saying women lack the initiative, independence and organisational skills to be successful is insulting, and (to my understanding) inaccurate.

So sources, please.

"The big difference between sexes isn't cognitive ability. It's motivation, and"

( that one was funny as you were shocked that I was disputing something you were JUST first introducing in that sentence lol ).

Motivation is a big difference, I never denied that. Men are more willing to set aside their family for work, and more willing to suck every dick necessary to get where they need to go.

I still don't think that accounts for all of it - I know a lot of women who hustle hard, and in any case the differences observed (while significant) are not large enough to account for the differences we see here.

At 11/30/13 11:31 PM, exudaz wrote:

We should work on the real problems first

How about we work on both at the same time.
This either/or logic you have is insanely stupid.

This is actually an interesting question. Because I had never heard of a female director until Lords of Dogtown and The Hurt Locker. Then when I heard that Katheryn Bigelow was the first woman to be nominated for Best Director and then be the first one to win Best Director for The Hurt Locker... that kind of confused me. So truth be told I don't have the answer.

At 12/1/13 12:09 AM, AxTekk wrote:

At 11/30/13 11:54 PM, thatkidkenji wrote: On the 4th page/2nd paragraph the pdf denotes that the gap in women and mens scores under finanical incentive isn't statistically significant and that both genders generally perform better.

No, it says both genders perform better and that the stereotype threat isn't significant.

"In the financial incentives only treatment, women's test scores rise by 0.32 (standard error of 1.03) from the baseline, or less than one-fourth as much as men's scores increase, although this difference is statistically insignificant." It then goes on to state that both men and women perform worse under stereotype/financial incentive treatments.

At 12/1/13 12:24 AM, thatkidkenji wrote:

At 12/1/13 12:09 AM, AxTekk wrote: No, it says both genders perform better and that the stereotype threat isn't significant.

"In the financial incentives only treatment, women's test scores rise by 0.32 (standard error of 1.03) from the baseline, or less than one-fourth as much as men's scores increase, although this difference is statistically insignificant."

Yeah, the difference between women with financial incentives and without financial incentives (as the difference of any treatment was roughly equal to the financial incentive treatment).

I'm not even mad bro

At 12/1/13 12:15 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Saying women lack the initiative, independence and organisational skills to be successful is insulting

I never said that.
You could only be writing that I said that if you had very little reading comprehension or were dishonest.

So sources, please.

Take risk aversion for instance;
http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/pubs/wp/12-05NelsonRiskAverse.pdf

Again you'll notice that even if both sexes aren't THAAAAAAAAT different on average, it's exclusively men who are the LEAST risk-averse.

Now combine just those two: If way more men are really smart and way more men take high risks, that means that many many times more very smart men will take big risks that very smart women.

So if there's a 2:1 ratio of men with 130 IQs and say a 3:1 ratio of high risk-takers, that makes a 6:1 ratio of smart risk-takers.
Since it's mostly smart risk-takers who will make it big in a high-risk venture like director in Hollywood, then it'll be mostly men at the top.

I still don't think that accounts for all of it

Never said it did.

At 12/1/13 12:09 AM, poxpower wrote: It's just impossible. Let me recommend some reading material more appropriate to your level:

You obviously have zero formation in terms of social sciences. The sole fact that you believe IQ to be a good measurement of human capabalities is the proof of that. Your stupid "everything is measurable with numbers hur dur" approach and the way you use google images as "demonstrations" of your points is a stunning proof of your intellectual limitations.

You are incredibly limited in both your assertions and the lacking demonstrations of the validity of those. You believe that an empirical method based on people's hability to answer to socialy constructed ideals is fascinating. What naronick said to you stands. The IQ method evaluates socialy constructed habilities. So of course, if women are kept down by a system, your dumb IQ method will reflect it. Your stupid sexist analysis supposes gender equality in terms of education. This is autoreferential bullshit. You are like these dumb university teachers back in the days who kept women out of University and then argued that women were dumb.

Your arugmentation proves a total lack of political and sociological knowledge of how power distribution, especially over education and political establishment affects and recreates inequalities.

But hey, just use pictures of kid books to attack my points. Your ad hominem crap will eventually work.

At 12/1/13 12:28 AM, AxTekk wrote:

Yeah, the difference between women with financial incentives and without financial incentives

You're really going to choose to read it like that?

Your belief that an empirical method based on people's hability to answer to socialy constructed ideals is fascinating.*

At 12/1/13 12:29 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/1/13 12:15 AM, AxTekk wrote: Saying women lack the initiative, independence and organisational skills to be successful is insulting

I never said that.

Sadly, to become a director requires high initiative, high independence and high organizational skills.

Good stuff.

I still don't think that accounts for all of it

Never said it did.

Oh cool, so you concede that gender discrimination counts for a large part of it?