Men are Genetic Simpletons!!

Originally posted by Nordlys
I disagree. 😉 The fewer drivers, the better.

My point about him learning to drive was that he would have the ability. Many people have a licence but no car. It's the number of vehicles, not drivers, that are the problem. 🙂

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Who in their right mind would let me drive their car if I had a licence? If not anyone, then I wouldn't be driving, and it would be pretty pointless.
I'd rather just keep the money.

Is it a plan of yours to always be a bad driver if you get the opportunity?

Originally posted by PBE6
It's funny how a writer could misuse the word "simpleton" when describing approximately half the world's population. It's also funny that her editor let it pass. And the funniest part of all is that the article was completely without substance. If all I have to do is denigrate someone in the title of my article to guarantee someone will read it, I think I've been in the wrong business all along.

Genetic simpletons
That's not the case with males.

This is the beginning of the article. I think too many people have been fooled by the original poster's mistake and have read the article in a completely wrong way. The article actually says that men are less likely to keep recessive alleles than women.

Our superiority is scientific. 😏

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Genetic simpletons
That's not the case with males.

This is the beginning of the article. [/b]

Er, no. That's the beginning of page 2.

Originally posted by Pawn Qween
Is it a plan of yours to always be a bad driver if you get the opportunity?

No.


I just feel that trying to get a licence would be a waste of my time and money atm, when it would be of little use to me anyway.

Originally posted by Pawn Qween
My point about him learning to drive was that he would have the ability. Many people have a licence but no car. It's the number of vehicles, not drivers, that are the problem. 🙂

The ability is also a temptation. It's not always fun to walk long distances in horrible weather or to wait for buses. I am glad I don't have a choice.

Edit: Also, it's a skill that needs to be practised, so he'd have to drive at least occasionally or take lessons again when he'd get a car.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Edit: Also, it's a skill that needs to be practised, so he'd have to drive at least occasionally or take lessons again when he'd get a car.

Exactly! If I never practiced, much of the lessons would have been forgotten by the time I got a car. 🙁

Originally posted by Pawn Qween
My point about him learning to drive was that he would have the ability. Many people have a licence but no car. It's the number of vehicles, not drivers, that are the problem. 🙂

You have never been to Florida...or any retirement community around here then.

Dave

Originally posted by Nordlys
Er, no. That's the beginning of page 2.

Ok, I'm a simpleton. 😉

But that doesn't change the fact that, according to this article, men do evolve faster and the claim that female architecture is "more complex" is actually a vacuous statement included for the purpose of political correctness.

This 'complexity' and 'simplicity' are just terms with an emotional charge to balance it back. But there seems to be no benefit from that complexity. Instead of saying men are genetically more simple, less emotionally charged would be to say men are genetically more efficient.

We are superior. Face it. 😛

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Exactly! If I never practiced, much of the lessons would have been forgotten by the time I got a car. 🙁

How can you say that when you don't know how to drive? What makes you think you would forget? 😀

Originally posted by Pawn Qween
How can you say that when you don't know how to drive? What makes you think you would forget? 😀

What makes you think that he would be an exception?

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, [b]I'm a simpleton. 😉

But that doesn't change the fact that, according to this article, men do evolve faster and the claim that female architecture is "more complex" is actually a vacuous statement included for the purpose of political correctness.

This 'complexity' and 'simplicity' are just terms with an emotional charge to balance it back. B ...[text shortened]... uld be to say men are genetically more efficient.

We are superior. Face it. 😛[/b]

I agree that the article is unnecessarily emotionally charged and rather stupid. However, I think there is a benefit from the complexity - while it slows down evolutionary changes, it also makes undesirable changes less likely. I don't have statistics, but I have seen strong indications that males are more likely than females to deviate extremely from what's considered "normal", both in positive and negative ways.

Originally posted by Nordlys
What makes you think that he would be an exception?

Yeah, exactly. 🙂
(thanks noodles 😉)

Originally posted by Nordlys
I agree that the article is unnecessarily emotionally charged and rather stupid. However, I think there is a benefit from the complexity - while it slows down evolutionary changes, it also makes undesirable changes less likely. I don't have statistics, but I have seen strong indications that males are more likely than females to deviate extremely from what's considered "normal", both in positive and negative ways.

Since selection biases the process towards keeping the positive changes, statistically it's better to have higher variance in the variance of one's genes.

Anyway, I'm not really serious about this.

Originally posted by Palynka
Since selection biases the process towards keeping the positive changes, statistically it's better to have higher variance in the variance of one's genes.

Anyway, I'm not really serious about this.

There's an evolutionary advantage, but an individual disadvantage for those who are on the losing end.

Anyway, neither am I. 😉