Who is really smarter boys or girls????????

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by tdol

Some men don't lack the body fat, suely?

I was hoping for Hardrock to comment on that first.

:D :D Stop callin' me sue :D :D

Originally Posted by Casiopea

I was hoping for Hardrock to comment on that first.

:D :D Stop callin' me sue :D :D

HardRock wrote:

“Who are Smarter- Boys or Girls?”

It is a quote. And I think he/she used it to trigger the readers attention and I like this kind of technique.


Well, if it's a quote, it'd be best to modify it--otherwise it serves only to weaken the argument that boys are stronger at grammar than girls


Well, it is conspicuous that girls are better than boys are at grammar. I know girls they are excellent language –learners, at least the girls I have met. If they are not, why girls speak before boys then?



RonBee wrote:
What you mean to say is that males are stronger and have more endurance than females.

Hardrock wrote:
I MEAN THAT MALES HAVE MORE PHSYCAL ENDURANCE THAN FEMALES.


The terms 'male' and 'female' would be best given that 'boys' rarely build houses. Speaking of physical endurance, it's a known scientific fact that females are more likely to survive the cold temperature of the sea when shipwrecked. In terms of physical attributes, males lack the body fat required to sustain such cold temperatures. I'd add in giving birth, but all things considered, the male body is not made to endure that physical feat. But, mind you, leaving that bit out kind of makes your argument one-sided. That is, you seem to be comparing women to men rather than comparing women and men.


This is another piece of information that I can add to my essay later simply because females have certain points of strengths and males have that too. I think that characteristic is given to women by God to be able to bear the pains and suffering of giving birth.

However, and to be neutral I don’t like to dig deep into science and say that there is certain hormone in the males that encourage them to seek out powerful positions in the political and social arenas . I ruled that out simply because I did not want to be biased with either party. It is well known that the majority of political positions are occupied with males in countries that even give opportunity for women to seek political positions. A certain study showed that in females a certain hormone that deters females from acquiring a high position in any hemisphere. If I were asked what was that hormone I would really admit that it is called serotonin.




Hardrock wrote:
What I meant is that they will learn a lot because they will witness and experience things that the females do have the opportunity to learn. Consequently, if we get an experienced male and an inexperienced female ( as it is common in my country ) to build a house who do you think will be able to perform better ?


Well now, that's why the argument is dubious. Culture plays a major part here. Men and women are capable of different roles in other countries.

That ‘s right that what was driving at. My audience, LET’S SAY Ronbee is not the kind of audience I was writing to .I was writing to somebody who shares the same background.



RonBee wrote:
What research? What nerve? Is that "nerve theory" consistent with what is known about brain anatomy?

Hardrock wrote:
Well, I have read this in an article titled “Scientists Probe the Roots of Abilities That Seem Linked t Sex“ and many scientists believe this to be true.


The problem is not what the scientists believe; the problem is that the readers have not read the article and so they have no idea what 'nerve theory' is about or how it strengthens your argument.


This is another problem of my audience .I was supposed to write to someone who is well aware of this research i.e. my prof .

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by HardRock

“Who are Smarter- Boys or Girls?”

The problem with the quote is that it doesn't make any sense.

"Who are smarter?" These groups of boys or these groups of girls? It should be "Who is smarter?" This group of boys or this group of girls? :D

Originally Posted by HardRock

..., why girls speak before boys then?

Anthropologists attribute it to culture, specifically child rearing practices: young females are expected to do more in the home--they learn to communicate early on, whereas young males are not expected to do as much until they leave home--they learn to communicate later on.

Originally Posted by HardRock

This is another piece of information that I can add to my essay later simply because females have certain points of strengths and males have that too. I think that characteristic is given to women by God to be able to bear the pains and suffering of giving birth.

Good point :D. You may, however, want to consider changing God to something like by Nature.

Originally Posted by Hardrock

However, and to be neutral I don’t like to dig deep into science and say that there is certain hormone in the males that encourage them to seek out powerful positions in the political and social arenas . I ruled that out simply because I did not want to be biased with either party. It is well known that the majority of political positions are occupied with males in countries that even give opportunity for women to seek political positions. A certain study showed that in females a certain hormone that deters females from acquiring a high position in any hemisphere. If I were asked what was that hormone I would really admit that it is called serotonin.

Now that's a fabulous point :D Social scientists have shown that in elementary school, female math scores are higher than male maths scores, yet when females enter junior high school their math scores significantly drop--this has been observed in both western and eastern cultures across the board; that drop is attributed--according to social scientists--to puberty: females don't want to compete with males; they want to marry them. Again, culture, not IQ, plays a major role here. Females have the drive, they redirect it at puberty towards seeking out powerful positions as mates of successful providers for the sole sake of their future fecundity. Consider this, how many nerdy girls had boyfriends in school?

Originally Posted by Hardrock

What I meant is that they will learn a lot because they will witness and experience things that the females do have the opportunity to learn. Consequently, if we get an experienced male and an inexperienced female (as it is common in my country) to build a house who do you think will be able to perform better ?

First, females in your country are not given the opportunity to learn to build houses, so, you see, you're not giving them the fair shake here. Second, the experienced are always the more preferred, sans gender, unless that is the inexperiened is a husband with a family to support. Take for example that in Asian cultures females are traditionally the household accountants. They keep the books; they decide where and when to spend the money. No consider that in cultures wherein males are preferred over females in the business sector, whom do you think X accouting company would hire the experienced housewife or the inexperienced husband if they had an accounting position open? Given that in such cultures it's the husband's role to support the family, the husband would most likely get the job, inexperienced and all. They'd train him. So you see experience really has no meaning when it comes to gender issues. Culture will determine the selection every time.

Originally Posted by Hardrock

That ‘s right that what was driving at. My audience, LET’S SAY Ronbee is not the kind of audience I was writing to .I was writing to somebody who shares the same background.

That's a really important point :D You should state that in your title or within the body of your essay.

Originally Posted by Hardrock

This is another problem of my audience .I was supposed to write to someone who is well aware of this research i.e. my prof .

Ok. Well then you should at least outline the 'nerve theory' then so as to show your prof that you've read and understand the issue. Simply naming the 'theory' doesn't do much.

:D

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by HardRock

A certain study showed that in females a certain hormone that deters females from acquiring a high position in any hemisphere.

I find this study a bit strange- did they test Margaret Thatcher and Benazir Butto for serotonin levels? Women are underepresented, but there are many who have got to the top. Interestingly, this is often in more traditional cultures, too. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanks, India, etc, have all been led by women, while American is still wondering whether Hilary Clinton will be ready to stand in a couple of terms' time.

[RonBee]

AE: run for office
BE: stand for office

:wink:

[Tdol]

We do occasionally say 'run', but 'stand' is more common.

Ronbee Wrote:



Grammatically, the last sentence is perfectly fine, but to say that something qualifies somebody to be intelligent is to say something nonsensical. You can't be qualified to be intelligent. Intelligence is itself a quality.

I think that intelligence can be developed through practicing and other means. It is just like an ordinary organ that develops over time. Do you think that you are as intelligent as when you were a young baby?




TDOL Wrote:

I find this study a bit strange- did they test Margaret Thatcher and Benazir Butto for serotonin levels? Women are underepresented, but there are many who have got to the top. Interestingly, this is often in more traditional cultures, too. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanks, India, etc, have all been led by women, while American is still wondering whether Hilary Clinton will be ready to stand in a couple of terms' time.


Yes, it is true that there are some women who are/ were leaders, but they are so rare compared to male leaders. :o :wink:

Ronbee Wrote:



Grammatically, the last sentence is perfectly fine, but to say that something qualifies somebody to be intelligent is to say something nonsensical. You can't be qualified to be intelligent. Intelligence is itself a quality.

I think that intelligence can be developed through practicing and other means. It is just like an ordinary organ that develops over time. Do you think that you are as intelligent as when you were a young baby?




TDOL Wrote:

I find this study a bit strange- did they test Margaret Thatcher and Benazir Butto for serotonin levels? Women are underepresented, but there are many who have got to the top. Interestingly, this is often in more traditional cultures, too. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanks, India, etc, have all been led by women, while American is still wondering whether Hilary Clinton will be ready to stand in a couple of terms' time.


Yes, it is true that there are some women who are/ were leaders, but they are so rare compared to male leaders. :o :wink:

[RonBee]

Yes, intelligence can be developed, just as any quality or attribute can be developed, but that has no bearing on the other statement. There isn't anything that can qualify a person to be intelligent. Indeed, a person has to have intelligence for there to be anything to be developed. A person must be capable of learning before that person can be taught.

:)

[Tdol]

Originally Posted by HardRock

Ronbee Wrote:



Grammatically, the last sentence is perfectly fine, but to say that something qualifies somebody to be intelligent is to say something nonsensical. You can't be qualified to be intelligent. Intelligence is itself a quality.

I think that intelligence can be developed through practicing and other means. It is just like an ordinary organ that develops over time. Do you think that you are as intelligent as when you were a young baby?




TDOL Wrote:

I find this study a bit strange- did they test Margaret Thatcher and Benazir Butto for serotonin levels? Women are underepresented, but there are many who have got to the top. Interestingly, this is often in more traditional cultures, too. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanks, India, etc, have all been led by women, while American is still wondering whether Hilary Clinton will be ready to stand in a couple of terms' time.


Yes, it is true that there are some women who are/ were leaders, but they are so rare compared to male leaders. :o :wink:

In some countries in Europe, female political representation is nearly 50% and female leaders, government members, etc, are common enough not to attract any attention.