The Science Of Why Woman Out Perform Men

Post Reply New Topic

Look below at the woman with the big ass below. If this woman had a boy child, he would not inherit such a big ass.


If Arnold had female offspring surly she would not inherit this natural ability to put on muscle

So, what you're saying is that the bad boy gene is gender exclusive?

They're secondary sex charactaristics, caused by "Hormones". You know, just like the differences in mental ability are also caused by hormones. A women would pass her big-butt gene onto both her boys and girls, but because of the hormones present while growing the boys will not develop big butts. The same is true for your arnie example, girls would get the gene, they would just have a different hormone mix and the muscles will not develop.


As far as i'm aware, he was talking about darwinian psycology, which is gene independant, there is no "bad boy" gene. Basically darwinian psycology says that specific personality traits will be passed onto the offspring, much like genes are passed on. It's true to an extent, but it's not sex dependant and the traits the children form will in many cases be the exact opposite of their parent. For example, a narcissistic parent ends up with dependant children. Even more important is the mirror neurons that control this behaviour don't deactivate, as soon as you leave home, you'll "mirror" the people you are around.


You mean the superficial, narrow-minded girls, that are more easily noticed by guys because of their fashion and make-up like the bad-boy? You know that dorky girl in the corner you'd never give a second look? she doesn't like the bad-boy.

Personality traits are passed on through the generation. You pointed out that some behaviour (being a bad boy) isn’t sex specific. However, I beg to differ.

If natural selection meant that woman chose men bad-boy men chose the nicest of woman and the woman chose the worst bad boy. Then in future generation there would be a stark contrast between the behaviour of men and woman regarding behaviour.
And similar to what you said about the big ass gene, a nice woman can carry the bad boy traits to her sons but not her daughters.

Most probably right J ;However! you must acknowledge that these superficial qualities are no more, no less the survival traits. And even if you believe in freewill, it accounts for substantially less we like to believe. These types of woman and men cannot really choose their preferences; I don’t think anyone can do that.

The choices we make regarding a partner are not only to cater for our lusts and desire but is subject to what kind of partner we can tolerate and what kind of partner that is capable of stopping the horrible feeling we call loneliness and not all partner can do that. For example a male gay partner can never stop my tooth ache of the sole called loneliness even if he has very pretty eyes.

Holy s**t she does have a big arse

He's cute!

Too bad he's gay....

I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion, but I came across an interesting article a few years ago that might shed some light on the topic. If it's irrelevant, just ignore it.

According to the article, women tend to outperform men in learning environments (generally speaking...there's always exceptions). The reason cited was that women tend to have less of an ego-investment in the learning process and are able to learn the material as presented better than men, so they naturally perform better on exams. Another way of putting it is that women are more open to instruction than men because men are more prone to feel threatened by someone telling them they're wrong, even if they are.

Again, I don't know if this is, in fact, the case, but based on some of my own experience and observations it seems at least plausible.

This definately has some bearing on the test scores. Men are mentally different than women, they need different environments in which to maximise learning potential. Does this mean male only and female only schools? i don't know the answer, but it would be nice to see some change, whatever form it might take.

Not so much threatened, but I assume NT men are a little like aspies. Questioning the teachings. While woman are very good at just excepting the information of faith, which to an extent can be good things as most subjects are scientifically accurate.

The fact still remains that bad boys do not in my observation pick the clever girls at all. They do not pick the “nice”girls either. In my observation they pick the attractively groomed girls with the good figures and sexy dress code, and without too many boring study obligations.

Also while you might choose to guess otherwise, being a bad boy and being unintelligent are independent traits.

We know that females as a group have bigger bottoms because of hormonal activity. The genes that result in some women having a bigger than typical bottom even for a female, can be and are carried by males but without the hormonal trigger they simply remain inactive.

Those hereditary characteristics that are sex linked are not so due to magical manifestations but as a result of material processes. To posit a sex linked element to hereditary intelligence,you need to posit either objective evidence that this occurs in real life or at least posit a mechanism by which this occurs.

There is no evidence that people actually are getting more stupid as a group, nor any real evidence that males are doing "worse" for any reason other than displacement by increased competition with a previously excluded group.

At the start of the post you talked about darwinian psycology, now you mention natural selection? Make up your mind as to wether we are talking about genetics or not, because the two idea's are mutually exclusive. Darwinian psycology says "personality traits" are passed on, let me clarify... The type of personality traits that are form from the environment acting upon an individual, not their genetics acting upon them.

Also, natural selection does not act over such short periods as 50 years, the time scale that you have suggested in one of your earlier posts. 50 years? that is two generations, three at the most. For their to be a relevant statistical change in the amount of bad boys present in the population and a meaningful change in intellect soley based on the mechanisms you describe over a period of 50 years, some type of genocidal event would have had to have taken place in which the "non-bad boy" population was decimated.

Dominatrix!! !

Borg Queen FTW!!



You will now be assembled. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.