The testominy right to women in Islam

[Toramana]

Toramana, again you're on a tangent; even if this is the claim of this professor, I assume that what you're asserting is true; it doesn't invalidate his research IN THIS scope.

If you're trying to be someone who champions the cause of critical thinking and scientific progress; you should also try doing it with out logical fallacies.

I am not asserting it is true or false. I am bringing home the question that if male-superiority is universal (given a man any where at any time, he will be superior to a woman anywhere at any time....this is what the initial pronouncement of religion is ) and natural as indicated by his higher intellectual accomplishment (on the basis of which you make the claim I think), how does your claim stand in the face of the fact that European woman is more accomplished, more intellectual...Link this to the question that, is this supriority natural/intrinsic or acquired?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Well let me re-iterate this then so that there's no conclusion; Current evidence suggests that ON AVERAGE males have a greater tendency towards Rational Problem Solving than women, Exceptions to this pattern are only that, exceptions. And that is all that's being claimed here. Now perhaps you define "capacity" as having the faculty for being able to do something rather than the tendency or inclination; but to me that is apart of capacity, and that's what my readings are suggesting so far.

[Toramana]

I'm not making a claim, I saying that there is evidence that suggests that Males are more Rationally Inclined. This is true, the more contemporary evidence is making this suggestion, even amidst findings that women often out perform male peers in scholastics; this is not my claim.

You're making a claim that women are fully rational; although now you're being somewhat more ambiguous by what you mean by rational, when you use such a way of expressing things it implies that the inclination of males and females towards rational decision making is at par; this is not what we find based on current evidence, whether there's a consensus on it yet or not is not on debate here; this is what they're finding out. However, this would essentially trump the Politically Correct excuses that people who favor your argument peddle in a manner that can only be described as: to use a word you seem to toss around, Dogmatically. Excuses such as blaming sociocultural conditions rather than entertaining the possibility that perhaps these tendencies happen because evolutionarily, males tended to be involved in activities which would nurture those inclinations and females were not. Not because of sociocultural repression but because our Environment didn't require it. Now before you leap forward in politically correct banter, this isn't a claim, but rather an alternate way of addressing the same contentions you see present. Furthermore your sociocultural idea can similarly be flipped around, that it seems women are more on par with males, only because policies were enacted to make things more "female friendly". I know this is definitely evident in the surroundings I was raised in.

Rationality does not necessarily have to do with making the right or wrong decision; it has to do with the mental operations used to come to a certain decision or solution. Computers for example have a rational system of assessing data, but can often come to the wrong answer if certain givens are not established. You're merely projecting what you wish to see in this exchange by what you "infer"; it's false premise, which is precisely the dogma you're accusing others of.

If anything resembles dogma here I would argue that it's coming from your end. not to seem disparaging. If you actually read through what I wrote/typed, I stated that the reference I gave would lead you to the relevant materials regarding the studies and current evidences. We're not having a scholarly debate here. There's no need for me to find Journal articles for you since I don't have subscriptions to Journal Databases at this time.

I've explained this in the last three posts and yet you're stubbornly hurling out the same Knee-Jerk Robotic reactions of "religious minded" and "dogma"; which is ostensibly ironic given the situation.

Hahaha, where is that current evidence the way? That is the main point. The only thing you cited is an article. See this.

"ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2005) — Irvine, Calif. (January 20, 2005) -- While there are essentially no disparities in general intelligence between the sexes, a UC Irvine study has found significant differences in brain areas where males and females manifest their intelligence.

The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance.....
....
....
....
"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm

For the article on which this article is based, see "The Neuroanatomy of General Intelligence: sex matters" on sceicedirect.com.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I say socities were to a greater extent shaped by science than dogma and superstition. When man understood the working of nature through experience/empirical observation and discovered his own ptentialities, he evolved more effective social structures.

From hunter-gathering to aggrarian society (it is speculated agriculture was discovered by women) to industrial era, to post-industrial age, every change in technology and increase in cognitive ability has coincided with some social change (primitive society to feudal society to industrial society, etc.).

There must be some objectivity governing societal rules otherwise we would have Taleban trying to reverse the wheel of time.

Which is a false assessment since we can see that primitive societies were more balanced with their environment and had an ecological equilibrium; which would be an objective EMPIRICALLY more measurable way to determine viability of social structures.

While it is true that science has shaped societies; how those advancements were assessed were through the cognitive experiences of the population; which manifested in the various lore and beliefs of the peoples.

Compared to now where politically correct emotionalism governs most Industrial Societies, we're rapidly expending our shelf life as a result of it.

Reversing the wheel of time actually wouldn't be all that bad, we'd be a less polluted planet That would be a strongly objective way of doing things if you take all things into consideration.

Change in technology hasn't coincided with social change if you mean social development, nor has it provided any deeper cognitive ability; it has however turned mankind from a stable species, into a parasitic one. Not exactly a good report card.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Hahaha, where is that current evidence the way? That is the main point. The only thing you cited is an article. See this.

"ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2005) — Irvine, Calif. (January 20, 2005) -- While there are essentially no disparities in general intelligence between the sexes, a UC Irvine study has found significant differences in brain areas where males and females manifest their intelligence.

The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance.....
....
....
....
"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0121100142.htm

I already explained; follow the sources of the article I presented and you'll find your evidence. I won't buy an $80 Journal Database subscription just to post studies on a forum, if I can find free ones that's another story.

As for the article you presented; doesn't assess anything about the intellectual/rational abilities of males compared to females but only what areas of the brain those faculties reside within gender. Also look at what it's saying "No single neuroanatomical structure"; this is not the same as "brain size" as Brain size is macroscalar, i.e. the sum of all parts.

[Toramana]

Lol. You barely have a grasp of simple grammar yet you are so quick to make mighty claims on behalf of science.

It's a scientific fact that women have more rods and less cones than men. The implications of that are significant. I'm not going to play google for you, so why don't you go ahead and gear your focus towards the science of the eye genius.

Your own insecurities lead you to believe that this simple anatomical fact is a shortcoming, so you fight against your own being. It's not a shortcoming, it's actually blessing, although it may not give a woman the upper hand in visual investigation it grants her an edge in other more detail oriented (visually) arenas.

Pa Khair Fatima Bibi...I am not born in an aristocratic family...am a poor man and have made my way to this Western country don't know how...I have also learnt my English from books not in a native environment....So there are bound to be errors. Hope you would parden me for that...

I apologise for the mistake that I made...

I mean what is the situation on the whole if you take into account all the sense-abilities (visual, accoustic, etc.). Who has edge in which sensory aspect?

[Toramana]

"We examined the relationship between structural brain variation and general intelligence using voxel-based morphometric analysis of MRI data in men and women with equivalent IQ scores. Compared to men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. In men IQ/gray matter correlations are strongest in frontal and parietal lobes (BA 8, 9, 39, 40), whereas the strongest correlations in women are in the frontal lobe (BA10) along with Broca's area. 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."

The above was referenced in the following excerpt from Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence .

"An alternative proposal is the measurement of gray matter or white matter volume in the brain as an indicator of intelligence; the former used for information processing, whereas the latter consisting of the connections between processing centers. Neuroimaging studies, such as MRI and CT, have demonstrated loss of gray matter volume in conditions associated with cognitive impairment, such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia and senile dementia.[40] In 2005, Haier et al. reported that, compared with men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence.[41] Using brain mapping, it was shown that men have more than six times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly ten times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men.[42] They also report that the brain areas correlated with IQ differ between the sexes. In short, men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions.[43]".

But there is also the following article.

http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2005_BC_PhiKappaPhiForum.pdf

Then there is this book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions_of_Gender

I mean on the basis of current studies, one cannot say anything for sure.

[ScimitarXEdge]

That's all well and good

but they're comparing men and women on similar intelligence scales specifically and then isolating what areas of the brain are stimulated.

this is not relevant to men and women and their rational tendencies on average.

[Toramana]

Which is a false assessment since we can see that primitive societies were more balanced with their environment and had an ecological equilibrium; which would be an objective EMPIRICALLY more measurable way to determine viability of social structures.

While it is true that science has shaped societies; how those advancements were assessed were through the cognitive experiences of the population; which manifested in the various lore and beliefs of the peoples.

Compared to now where politically correct emotionalism governs most Industrial Societies, we're rapidly expending our shelf life as a result of it.

Reversing the wheel of time actually wouldn't be all that bad, we'd be a less polluted planet That would be a strongly objective way of doing things if you take all things into consideration.

Change in technology hasn't coincided with social change if you mean social development, nor has it provided any deeper cognitive ability; it has however turned mankind from a stable species, into a parasitic one. Not exactly a good report card.

He said it was not science that shaped the society. I contended it and said Science (invention of tools and new ways of production, etc.) has a dominent role in shaping the society. It wasn't the issue whether Science did it for good or for bad. You have your own-rather I will say fundamentalist opinion of the worth of what science has achieved for humanity. I am sure a lot of people would not agree with you.

There is no limit to human ingenuity. He/She may exploit the resources on earth to catapult himself/herself to a higher cognitive level and then esacpe into the outer space colonizing other planets. That is already being speculated.

[Toramana]

Below is the abstract of the paper/communication at http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wichertsPAIDrejoinder.pdf .

"In this rejoinder, we respond to comments by Lynn, Rushton, and Templer on our previous paper in which we criticized the use of national IQs in studies of evolutionary theories of race differences in intelligence. We reiterate that because of the Flynn Effect and psychometric issues, national IQs cannot be taken to reflect populations’ levels of g as fixed since the last ice age. We argue that the socio-cultural achievements of peoples of Mesopotamia and Egypt in 3000 B.C. stand in stark contrast to the current low level of national IQ of peoples of Iraq and Egypt and that these ancient achievements appear to contradict evolutionary accounts of differences in national IQ. We argue that race differences in brain size, even if these were entirely of genetic origin, leave unexplained 91–95% of the black-white IQ gap. We highlight additional problems with hypotheses raised by Rushton and Templer. National IQs cannot be viewed solely in evolutionary terms but should be considered in light of global differences in socio-economic development, the causes of which are unknown."

An excerpt from the paper above regarding the sex-difference of brain-size versus intelligence.

"Another problem with the brain size hypothesis lies with the fact that sex differences in brain size are larger than race differences, yet studies involving representative samples, broad cognitive test batteries, and sound statistical methods consistently fail to show a clear sex difference in g ( Dolan et al., 2006; Keith, Reynolds, Patel, & Ridley, 2008; Van der Sluis et al., 2006)."

I should say that the main point of the above is, sex difference in brain weight doesn't seem to count for IQ.gap.

[ScimitarXEdge]

"we argue" is as much as that response seems to provide in regards to insight; furthermore are the methodical parameters used to measure IQs nationally the same as ones used to measure IQs between genders? That's where we can separate wheat from chaff regarding the issue.