Are men idiots?

Maybe we should be more specific: Men are self-destructive idiots. Women are idiots in other ways. How many men wear stiletto heels or watch Say Yes to the Dress?

But then again, men go to monster truck rallies, so maybe it's a wash.

Just Bob said: Maybe we should be more specific: Men are self-destructive idiots. Women are idiots in other ways. How many men wear stiletto heels or watch Say Yes to the Dress? But then again, men go to monster truck rallies, so maybe it's a wash.

Just Bob said: Maybe we should be more specific: Men are self-destructive idiots. Women are idiots in other ways. How many men wear stiletto heels or watch Say Yes to the Dress? But then again, men go to monster truck rallies, so maybe it's a wash.

Palaeonictis said:

Just Bob said: Maybe we should be more specific: Men are self-destructive idiots. Women are idiots in other ways. How many men wear stiletto heels or watch Say Yes to the Dress? But then again, men go to monster truck rallies, so maybe it's a wash.

That's stereotypical, not all women watch Say Yes to the Dress, and not all men go to monster truck rallies, I`m pretty sure that some women go to monster truck rallies, just as some cross-dressers (= men cross-dressers) might watch Say Yes to the Dress.

The Darwinian feminist who posts here occasionally would probably say it's because men are more inclined to risk-taking.

Speaking of idiots; it appears that the vast majority of IDiots are male? Look at UD, for example.

And aren't the vast majority of fundamentalist demagogues also male?

Looking the sheer, whacked-out ideologies that get pushed in the political arena, the characters behind them seem to be mostly males; males who can never admit to being wrong about anything, and who seek to dominate others; especially women.

Just look at the ultra conservative committees in Congress and state legislatures who come up with legislation that attempts to control women's health and reproductive options; they are mostly authoritarian males who don't seem to know anything about women. They also lack introspection about themselves.

To know what womanhood is all about, one has to be a woman; not own women.

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of idiots; it appears that the vast majority of IDiots are male? Look at UD, for example. And aren't the vast majority of fundamentalist demagogues also male? Looking the sheer, whacked-out ideologies that get pushed in the political arena, the characters behind them seem to be mostly males; males who can never admit to being wrong about anything, and who seek to dominate others; especially women. Just look at the ultra conservative committees in Congress and state legislatures who come up with legislation that attempts to control women's health and reproductive options; they are mostly authoritarian males who don't seem to know anything about women. They also lack introspection about themselves. To know what womanhood is all about, one has to be a woman; not own women.

Yardbird said: I don't know if that relationship is significant. My impression is that more self-professed atheists are male rather than female.

Well the evolutionists on Pandas Thumb have been 19:1 male/female ration as long as I watched. Does that make evolutionism idiotic? Just kidding! All YEC/ID, almost, thinkers and shakers and readers are male.
if you can say men are MORE idiots can you say women are?? I bet you can't. i don't want to and don't.
Male /female differences are real and real results demonstrate curves in the historical charts.
Saying men are idiots is more worthless evolutionist thoughtfulness.
Evolution is irrelevant. lots of other motivations going on.

Yardbird said:

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of idiots; it appears that the vast majority of IDiots are male? Look at UD, for example. And aren't the vast majority of fundamentalist demagogues also male? Looking the sheer, whacked-out ideologies that get pushed in the political arena, the characters behind them seem to be mostly males; males who can never admit to being wrong about anything, and who seek to dominate others; especially women. Just look at the ultra conservative committees in Congress and state legislatures who come up with legislation that attempts to control women's health and reproductive options; they are mostly authoritarian males who don't seem to know anything about women. They also lack introspection about themselves. To know what womanhood is all about, one has to be a woman; not own women.

I don't know if that relationship is significant. My impression is that more self-professed atheists are male rather than female.

Early "Darwin Awards" included urban legends or made up stories, by the way. Stories are better verified now, but read with skepticism.

harold said: But authoritarian religious leaders are overwhelmingly male.

Robert Byers said: Well the evolutionists on Pandas Thumb have been 19:1 male/female ration as long as I watched. Does that make evolutionism idiotic? Just kidding! All YEC/ID, almost, thinkers and shakers and readers are male. if you can say men are MORE idiots can you say women are?? I bet you can't. i don't want to and don't. Male /female differences are real and real results demonstrate curves in the historical charts. Saying men are idiots is more worthless evolutionist thoughtfulness. Evolution is irrelevant. lots of other motivations going on.

harold said:

Yardbird said:

Mike Elzinga said: Speaking of idiots; it appears that the vast majority of IDiots are male? Look at UD, for example. And aren't the vast majority of fundamentalist demagogues also male? Looking the sheer, whacked-out ideologies that get pushed in the political arena, the characters behind them seem to be mostly males; males who can never admit to being wrong about anything, and who seek to dominate others; especially women. Just look at the ultra conservative committees in Congress and state legislatures who come up with legislation that attempts to control women's health and reproductive options; they are mostly authoritarian males who don't seem to know anything about women. They also lack introspection about themselves. To know what womanhood is all about, one has to be a woman; not own women.

I don't know if that relationship is significant. My impression is that more self-professed atheists are male rather than female.

Markedly more, and overt religious faith is higher among women. This is well documented and was a stereotype even in the days when most people went to church. Men skipping church on Sunday AM was an accurate stereotype in the rural community I grew up in. This feature was strongly related to the crash and burn, or at least severe decline, of the Dawkins-centered "gnu atheism movement". What the statistics are in countries with near universal rejection of or practice of religion I don't know but in "mixed" societies like the US men are usually less religious as a group.. But authoritarian religious leaders are overwhelmingly male.

Yes, creationists are idiots according to your logic (in my eyes they are simply ignorant fools). AKA, idiots, so Byers is an idiot. How wonderful.

Mike Elzinga said: demagogues tend to direct their calls for aggression at the younger men.

Although *some* females can be quite idiotic, as well. Such as Sarah Palin, Phyllis Schlafly, Michele Bachmann, etc. I`m not saying that all women are idiots, far from it, I`m just saying that *both* men and females can be idiots, such as Kent "Inmate" Hovind.

Men are more likely to be idiots in ways that get them killed. Women are more likely to be idiots in ways that... [what's the right ending? "Gain them social points"?]

What this comes down to is, in the propagation of the species, men are more expendable than women. Just as sperm, by their sheer numbers, are more expendable than ova.

In general (though there are always exceptions for idiocy) women have more of a biological imperative to exercise caution where their physical and economic (and therefor reproductive) welfare is concerned. And while there might be a sexual-selective advantage for males to show a certain amount of bravado and/or bravura, taking that too far and taking your genes out of play just makes selection that much easier for the female.

It's for the same reason that war and violent crime (especially organized religion violent crime) are usually perpetrated by males. It thins out their numbers and gives those who survive a competitive advantage. Doing stupid shit in your backyard while your buddy films it is just another way of letting nature even things out.

In other matters, it's not my impression that a majority of self-identified atheists are male, so much as that the ones who talk or write about it most publicly are more likely to be male.

Katharine said: In other matters, it's not my impression that a majority of self-identified atheists are male, so much as that the ones who talk or write about it most publicly are more likely to be male.

Yardbird said:

Katharine said: In other matters, it's not my impression that a majority of self-identified atheists are male, so much as that the ones who talk or write about it most publicly are more likely to be male.

That's what I meant by self-identified. Maybe I should have said self-advertised.

The idiots in relationships seem mostly to be female, in my experience. That is, they're the ones who go for the male idiots that survive, and then are surprised when the guy turns out to be a jerk. Not that men don't "choose poorly" as well, but they're typically aware that there's something wrong with her, but who cares, she's just that hot. And no, neither all males nor all females go for the jerks, but a lot do.

Bottom line: Sexual displays and attraction aren't a matter of intelligence, in either sex.

Glen Davidson

Sexual displays and attraction aren’t a matter of intelligence, in either sex.

gdavidson418 said:

Sexual displays and attraction aren’t a matter of intelligence, in either sex.

By that I don't mean that sexual attraction has nothing to do with intelligence, just that it's not primarily about intelligence. Glen Davidson

Katharine said: ...it was over too soon and deeply unsatisfying.

In other matters, it’s not my impression that a majority of self-identified atheists are male, so much as that the ones who talk or write about it most publicly are more likely to be male.

gdavidson418 said: The idiots in relationships seem mostly to be female, in my experience. That is, they're the ones who go for the male idiots that survive, and then are surprised when the guy turns out to be a jerk. Not that men don't "choose poorly" as well, but they're typically aware that there's something wrong with her, but who cares, she's just that hot. And no, neither all males nor all females go for the jerks, but a lot do. Bottom line: Sexual displays and attraction aren't a matter of intelligence, in either sex. Glen Davidson

I favor the risk-taking theory. By way of anecdotal example, in his book The Double Helix James Watson relates how he transferred from Copenhagen to the University of Cambridge without prior permission. He got scolded for his unauthorized move and ended up losing about three months' salary, which would hurt any graduate student (if I remember that part correctly). Since I admire James Watson, I'll just call his actions "ill-advised" here rather than stupid or idiotic.

Dr. James Watson is a smart man! The Copenhagen-to-Cambridge risk worked out very well in the end, for it was at Cambridge that he and Francis Crick solved the DNA puzzle and won the Nobel Prize. Watson could have been "removed from the academic gene pool" by an over-zealous administrator instead of getting chewed out and docked three months pay. When risk-takers fail they look stupid, but when they succeed they look brilliant.

My heart is with James Watson. I've taken risks, but I'm still alive and still employed doing (mostly) interesting work.

Carl Drews said: I favor the risk-taking theory. By way of anecdotal example, in his book The Double Helix James Watson relates how he transferred from Copenhagen to the University of Cambridge without prior permission. He got scolded for his unauthorized move and ended up losing about three months' salary, which would hurt any graduate student (if I remember that part correctly). Since I admire James Watson, I'll just call his actions "ill-advised" here rather than stupid or idiotic. Dr. James Watson is a smart man! The Copenhagen-to-Cambridge risk worked out very well in the end, for it was at Cambridge that he and Francis Crick solved the DNA puzzle and won the Nobel Prize. Watson could have been "removed from the academic gene pool" by an over-zealous administrator instead of getting chewed out and docked three months pay. When risk-takers fail they look stupid, but when they succeed they look brilliant. My heart is with James Watson. I've taken risks, but I'm still alive and still employed doing (mostly) interesting work.

fnxtr said: The Darwinian feminist who posts here occasionally would probably say it's because men are more inclined to risk-taking.

cwjolley said:

fnxtr said: The Darwinian feminist who posts here occasionally would probably say it's because men are more inclined to risk-taking.

Maybe woman are more inclined to mate with risk takers. She's still got some nerd in the friend zone to help take care of her kids after the risk taker finally offs himself. Just in case you hoped your genes care anything about you personally ;)

cwjolley said:

fnxtr said: The Darwinian feminist who posts here occasionally would probably say it's because men are more inclined to risk-taking.

Maybe woman are more inclined to mate with risk takers. She's still got some nerd in the friend zone to help take care of her kids after the risk taker finally offs himself. Just in case you hoped your genes care anything about you personally ;)

Palaeonictis said:

Carl Drews said: I favor the risk-taking theory. By way of anecdotal example, in his book The Double Helix James Watson relates how he transferred from Copenhagen to the University of Cambridge without prior permission. He got scolded for his unauthorized move and ended up losing about three months' salary, which would hurt any graduate student (if I remember that part correctly). Since I admire James Watson, I'll just call his actions "ill-advised" here rather than stupid or idiotic. Dr. James Watson is a smart man! The Copenhagen-to-Cambridge risk worked out very well in the end, for it was at Cambridge that he and Francis Crick solved the DNA puzzle and won the Nobel Prize. Watson could have been "removed from the academic gene pool" by an over-zealous administrator instead of getting chewed out and docked three months pay. When risk-takers fail they look stupid, but when they succeed they look brilliant. My heart is with James Watson. I've taken risks, but I'm still alive and still employed doing (mostly) interesting work.

James Watson is arrogant, his ideas about women are biased, and to say at the least, out dated, and he stole most of his information from Rosalind Franklin. I think that if Franklin did live after 1958, she should have gotten the Nobel Prize, instead of Francis Crick, Watson and Maurice Wilkins.

(Badly) paraphrased line from some comedienne years ago: Mr. Studly Macho? No way! I want a man who can stare a 30-year mortgage in the face!

Not that I disagree that a lot of male psychology does lead to idiocy, but perhaps another factor is the general lesser opportunities available to women.

With greater equality in society, maybe women too can raise their level of idiocy.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlY6T7dGck-lEJf08bCFSOiq51xZ7SSBac said: Not that I disagree that a lot of male psychology does lead to idiocy, but perhaps another factor is the general lesser opportunities available to women. With greater equality in society, maybe women too can raise their level of idiocy.

harold said: Katharine said -

In other matters, it’s not my impression that a majority of self-identified atheists are male, so much as that the ones who talk or write about it most publicly are more likely to be male.

No, actually, polls indicate that in the US, women are more religious. This is very well established stuff that has been shown over and over again, and also tends to be true elsewhere in the Anglosphere. Here is a link to a decent summary of results up to 2009. If you see atheism as a virtue, it's one you'll have to concede is more associated with men, at least for now. As I noted, there are countries where almost everyone claims to be religious and countries where almost everyone denies being religious, but in the mixed society of the US, women persistently show more religious behavior and report more religious belief in polls. The stereotype of women being more religious is an accurate and old one. People who were 100 years old when I was a small child believed that stereotype, and polls indicate that they were right. http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-religious-men.html As an anecdotal note, I also find women to be far more religiously tolerant than men. I don't have supporting evidence for this, but it is my impression that religious bigotry is predominantly male. Women are more likely to express ecumenical beliefs. That's just my impression, but I think it may be reasonable.

I'd like some readers' opinions about the following, and in particular if anyone thinks there may be a connection:

Many of you are familiar with the Curmudgeon's site, where a regular feature is "Creationist Wisdom," which is a letter to the editor by someone who has decided to make a fool of himself publicly, instead of sticking to the safety of his inner circle of evolution-deniers or evangelizing one-on-one to a "Darwinist." As many of you know I always try to differentiate between "rank-and-file evolution-deniers" and "anti-evolution activists." These letter writers seem to be mostly "transitional fossils" of the former evolving into the latter. Many such writers, upon reading the replies, are embarrassed at how they had been misled, and presumably just retreat to the safety of their former behavior. But some, especially repeat writers, show evidence of being at least partly in-on-the-scam, and thus well on their way to becoming full-fledged activists.

There have been 500 such letters, of which I have read most. After ~100 letters I noticed that at least 90%, maybe even 95%, of the authors are male. I have some ideas as to why that might be the case (mainly that it's about impressing women), but I welcome other ideas.

Frank J said: There have been 500 such letters, of which I have read most. After ~100 letters I noticed that at least 90%, maybe even 95%, of the authors are male. I have some ideas as to why that might be the case (mainly that it's about impressing women), but I welcome other ideas.

Just Bob said:

Frank J said: There have been 500 such letters, of which I have read most. After ~100 letters I noticed that at least 90%, maybe even 95%, of the authors are male. I have some ideas as to why that might be the case (mainly that it's about impressing women), but I welcome other ideas.

I would suggest that some amount of the discrepancy can be attributed to the roles imposed upon women in those subcultures. The man's job is to defend his tribe, whether against the sabertooth, the Philistines, or the evolutionists. The woman's job is to have babies, bake pies, and not be uppity.

There have been 500 such letters, of which I have read most. After ~100 letters I noticed that at least 90%, maybe even 95%, of the authors are male

Just Bob said:

Frank J said: There have been 500 such letters, of which I have read most. After ~100 letters I noticed that at least 90%, maybe even 95%, of the authors are male. I have some ideas as to why that might be the case (mainly that it's about impressing women), but I welcome other ideas.

I would suggest that some amount of the discrepancy can be attributed to the roles imposed upon women in those subcultures. The man's job is to defend his tribe, whether against the sabertooth, the Philistines, or the evolutionists. The woman's job is to have babies, bake pies, and not be uppity.

harold said: I once told some guy who was going on about how the Ten Commandments should be the law of the land that one good effect of that would be that all the Republican politicians would immediately be arrested, and he literally instantly dropped the subject.

TomS said: Or should I also mention the last words of the Bible about not adding to what is said?)

harold, if those guys are writing creationist letters to the newspaper to impress women, they are barking up the wrong tree.

If you want to impress a traditionally-oriented woman, swap recipes with her. If you want to impress a non-traditionally oriented woman, serve her a nice dinner that you have cooked in a clean and tidy living space that you have cleaned and tidied. If you want to impress either one, get her laughing.

I suppose writing a creationist letter to the local paper might have the last effect. But not in a good way.

Dave Luckett said: harold, if those guys are writing creationist letters to the newspaper to impress women, they are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to impress a traditionally-oriented woman, swap recipes with her. If you want to impress a non-traditionally oriented woman, serve her a nice dinner that you have cooked in a clean and tidy living space that you have cleaned and tidied. If you want to impress either one, get her laughing. I suppose writing a creationist letter to the local paper might have the last effect. But not in a good way.

If a man prepares dinner for you and the salad contains three or more types of lettuce, he is serious. -- Rita Rudner

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: harold, if those guys are writing creationist letters to the newspaper to impress women, they are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to impress a traditionally-oriented woman, swap recipes with her. If you want to impress a non-traditionally oriented woman, serve her a nice dinner that you have cooked in a clean and tidy living space that you have cleaned and tidied. If you want to impress either one, get her laughing. I suppose writing a creationist letter to the local paper might have the last effect. But not in a good way.

If a man prepares dinner for you and the salad contains three or more types of lettuce, he is serious. -- Rita Rudner

It is two thirty am here on the night before Christmas.

......................................................

It seems it was a night like any night:

The sleepy town asleep and still below

The hillside, chill in dying firelight,

Deserted, bare, bereft. I do not know

Of miracles. There's tales, of course, but just

An idle rumor for a winter's eve,

No more than that, impossible to trust

With only addled peasants to believe,

The witnesses confused, of little worth;

The evidence uncertain, scant, unclear.

Yet every time I listen, hope to hear

The blessed angels singing peace on Earth.

............................................

A merry Christmas to all.

Women buy computers because they're coloured pink.

Men buy computers for their technical specs.

I support the view that men (maybe not always or all of them) in many ways are or behave like idiots. In contrast, women are more ruthless, a trait I believe they needed to have in order for the species to survive.

If all the world would have a proportion of female executives, leaders, politicians et cetera like Norway and other Nordic countries I believe the world would be a much better place for people (and probably many animals as well) to live in than it presently is. I am a feminist, a strong believer in the superiority of women over men in some very important ways.

The Y-chromosome is a rather small one, isn't it?

Ian Derthal said: Women buy computers because they're coloured pink. Men buy computers for their technical specs.

cwjolley said:

fnxtr said: The Darwinian feminist who posts here occasionally would probably say it's because men are more inclined to risk-taking.

Maybe woman are more inclined to mate with risk takers. She's still got some nerd in the friend zone to help take care of her kids after the risk taker finally offs himself. Just in case you hoped your genes care anything about you personally ;)

eric said:

cwjolley said:

fnxtr said: The Darwinian feminist who posts here occasionally would probably say it's because men are more inclined to risk-taking.

Maybe woman are more inclined to mate with risk takers. She's still got some nerd in the friend zone to help take care of her kids after the risk taker finally offs himself. Just in case you hoped your genes care anything about you personally ;)

I don't think "risk takers are attractive" is the 'standard' risk taker hypothesis. IIRC the standard goes something like this: males can reap a much larger reproductive advantage from 'winning' a risky move because a perceived-fittest male may impregnate a lot of females in a given fertile season. With females, the payoff for risk taking is much less, because no matter how fit they are perceived to be, they are going to max out at one batch of kids per fertile season. The cost of 'losing' a risky move may also be more for females (assuming loss doesn't just mean death), because while a loss reduces a male's chance of breeding in the next season, a female may lose her current batch of kids that she's taking care of, *plus* the next season's opportunity. The example I'm most familiar with is not actually humans, but bears. IIRC some studies have shown that male bears will generally go after bigger prey (per pound of bear) and are more likely to opportunistically attack something big that they see. Females instead seem to favor steady sources of food and steady, reliable migration patterns. *** I would also not rule out "mere side effect" as an explanation. There doesn't have to be any advantage to it at all; if risk-taking behavior is a likely side effect of getting low-level testosterone injections every day from puberty on, well, males are going to be more risky just because they use testosterone as part of their reproductive system.

harold said: This seems reasonable. If a behavior increases reproductive fitness, it's adaptive, and if it's adaptive, it's likely to be selected for. Whether or not risk-taking behavior in men always rewards the exact men who take the most risk is unclear. There's a dynamic interaction. A familiar modern example is when a war is going on. Being in the military is a cheap way to attract women. I didn't catch on to that when I was younger, but I live near a navy base now, and it's fairly clear that a very average guy is going to be more successful with more attractive young women if he joins the navy. The effect is almost as powerful as being in a semi-successful rock band or something. On the other hand, when an actual war is going on, the men who are left behind for whatever reason have access to the women. We can substitute "mammoth hunt" here for "war". Among men there is plausibly selection for both impulsive aggressiveness, and also not only for calculated intellectual control of aggression, but even for submissive emotional characteristics. One argument might be that the crafty men who find a way to work for mammoth meat without taking the worst risk would be predominantly selected for. But if women didn't give the more aggressive guys who fling themselves at the mammoth a break, those guys would die out, and then it would be hard to get mammoth meat. I think what's also selected for is lack of excessive risk taking behavior by women. Men simply cannot get pregnant. Men cannot nurse an infant. The ultimate dynamic is that, even to someone like me who strongly supports total equality of opportunity for women, it's clear that men are more expendable. That's just the way it is. If crafty, calculating men who put their own survival first and calculate well how to do so were exclusively selected for, they'd eventually be competing with women to avoid the most severe risks. We can't have that. So, although the calculating man has an inherent advantage in survival over the man who, however intelligent he may be (and some of them are brilliant), is emotionally compelled to the high risk adventurer role, women must give the risk taker a break.

daoudmbo said: (...) I would add that it's specifically young, unmarried men who are expendable. And I would wager there's a direct correlation between violence/crime/war and ratio of unmarried young men in any given societies. Even if the old, evil demagogues are the ones ranting about war (the Dick Cheney's and Bin Laden's of the world), they would never participate directly, it's just empty rhetoric without the young unmarried men to kill and die for that rhetoric.

daoudmbo said:

harold said: This seems reasonable. If a behavior increases reproductive fitness, it's adaptive, and if it's adaptive, it's likely to be selected for. Whether or not risk-taking behavior in men always rewards the exact men who take the most risk is unclear. There's a dynamic interaction. A familiar modern example is when a war is going on. Being in the military is a cheap way to attract women. I didn't catch on to that when I was younger, but I live near a navy base now, and it's fairly clear that a very average guy is going to be more successful with more attractive young women if he joins the navy. The effect is almost as powerful as being in a semi-successful rock band or something. On the other hand, when an actual war is going on, the men who are left behind for whatever reason have access to the women. We can substitute "mammoth hunt" here for "war". Among men there is plausibly selection for both impulsive aggressiveness, and also not only for calculated intellectual control of aggression, but even for submissive emotional characteristics. One argument might be that the crafty men who find a way to work for mammoth meat without taking the worst risk would be predominantly selected for. But if women didn't give the more aggressive guys who fling themselves at the mammoth a break, those guys would die out, and then it would be hard to get mammoth meat. I think what's also selected for is lack of excessive risk taking behavior by women. Men simply cannot get pregnant. Men cannot nurse an infant. The ultimate dynamic is that, even to someone like me who strongly supports total equality of opportunity for women, it's clear that men are more expendable. That's just the way it is. If crafty, calculating men who put their own survival first and calculate well how to do so were exclusively selected for, they'd eventually be competing with women to avoid the most severe risks. We can't have that. So, although the calculating man has an inherent advantage in survival over the man who, however intelligent he may be (and some of them are brilliant), is emotionally compelled to the high risk adventurer role, women must give the risk taker a break.

I agree with all this completely. Particularly the bit about men being more expendable, I would add that it's specifically young, unmarried men who are expendable. And I would wager there's a direct correlation between violence/crime/war and ratio of unmarried young men in any given societies. Even if the old, evil demagogues are the ones ranting about war (the Dick Cheney's and Bin Laden's of the world), they would never participate directly, it's just empty rhetoric without the young unmarried men to kill and die for that rhetoric.

Yay!