Öde ö utan nutida samhällsstrukturer. Vem får mest makt, man eller kvinna?

..57 studier på

Sex differences on the Progressive Matrice: A meta-analysis (2005) och Males have greater g Sex differences in general mental ability… (2006)

Storleken på hjärnan har nada att säga, det har vi påvisat för länge sen. man öppnade skallarna på ex antal genier och förväntade sig monster till hjärnor och fann i vissa fall mindre hjärnor än standard storlek...Einsteins ex.

Psychologist Michael McDaniel evaluated studies that used brain-imaging and standard intelligence tests and found that unequivocally, bigger brains correlated with smarter people [source: McDaniel].

Since males have the bigger brains, they must have the smarts, right? In one study, scientists converted the SAT scores of 100,000 17- and 18-year-olds to a corresponding IQ score and found that males averaged 3.63 IQ points higher than the females [source: Jackson, Rushton]. The study, did, however, use about 10,000 more females than males, which may have affected the average, but the study's authors believe that the greater the brain tissue, the greater the ability for cognitive processing [source: Bryner].

They found a link between intelligence and the amount of gray matter in the frontal lobes. Since frontal lobes appeared to be controlled by genetics, the results indicate that parents pass along the potential for genius.

Brain size and smarts are, to some extent, genetic — and now, a team of more than 200 researchers has uncovered specific genes that are linked to both brain volume and IQ.

Though scientists have suggested bigger brains are "smarter," this study is the strongest case yet for a genetic connection to brain size and to IQ. Of course, brain size is not 100 percent correlated with a person's intelligence, and other factors, including connections between brain cells and even a person's experiences, play roles.

"We found fairly unequivocal proof supporting a genetic link to brain function and intelligence. For the first time, we have watertight evidence of how these genes affect the brain," said lead researcher Paul Thompson, a neurologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine.

Another notable genetic sequence, located within the HMGA2 gene on chromosome 12, was linked with intracranial volume — in other words, the space inside your skull that marks the outer limit as to how big your brain can get. At this spot, every C-allele variant was linked to not only lower intracranial volume, but also to lower IQ scores on the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery, a measure of intelligence.

People with bigger brains are smarter than their smaller-brained counterparts, according to a study conducted by a Virginia Commonwealth University researcher published in the journal "Intelligence."

Modern studies using MRI imaging have shown that brain size correlates with IQ by a factor of approximately .40 among adults (McDaniel, 2005). The correlation between brain size and IQ seems to hold for comparisons between and within families (Gignac et al. 2003; Jensen 1994; Jensen & Johnson 1994). However, one study found no familial correlation (Schoenemann et al. 2000). A study on twins (Thompson et al., 2001) showed that frontal gray matter volume was correlated with g and highly heritable. A related study has reported that the correlation between brain size (reported to have a heritability of 0.85) and g is 0.4, and that correlation is mediated entirely by genetic factors (Posthuma et al 2002).

man har också påvisat att hjärnor är under utveckling och IQ är något som ändras beroende på mat, inlärning och förväntningar. ex. svarta som länge haft lägre IQ generellt sett än vita, deras IQ har ökat dramatsikt i takt med bättre käk, mer utbildning och bättre standard.
IQ ökar alltså i en befolkning där många studerat under längre tid.

Och återigen för 3:e gången...
det spelar noll roll...en människa med högre IQ har ingen rätt sätta sig på nån med 4 p lägre.
Då ska i sånt fall ex. antal kvinnor dominera ex. antal män. Ren idioti med andra ord.

man kan bara konstatera de skillnader man hittar mellan män och kvinnors hjärnor är fjuttiga och bör inte sättas som skäl för att nån ska dominera nån annan. eftersom skillnaderna mellan individer är betydligt större.

och visst jag kan länga dig 200 olika länkar på detta men vet du jag gidder inte.

I have spent much of my career attempting to discover, and explain, differences between males and females that are universal. By "universal" is meant that not one of the thousands of societies that have ever existed have failed to recognize these differences and to incorporate them into the system of expectations, values, and institutions.
"Universality" does not imply that there are not, in every society, individual exceptions. The height of men and women is the model to keep in mind. There are many individual "exceptions", many women who are taller than many men, but the best basketball teams are everywhere comprised of only males. Indeed, any discussion of sex differences that is not founded on an understanding of the statistical, rather than absolute, nature of individual's sex differences is doomed to incoherence. (Indeed, a good filter through which to assess any argument denying the importance of sexual physiological differences is this question: is the point made by the argument also be true of height; if so, then the argument obviously fails as refutation?)

It is only on the societal level that a population's observation of statistical behavioral sex differences and a "social law of large numbers" renders the differences absolute. The reification that makes the statistical absolute is, of course, a function of cultural factors that ratify, and often increase, the differences between male and female behavior. But the basic statistical differences that set limits on, and give direction to, expectation is rooted in hereditary physiological differentiation of the sexes. For example, the statistical reality that male dominance tendencies are more easily elicited than are those of females becomes, on the societal level, the absolute, "men are aggressive; women are passive". This might all seem too obvious to mention. But it is astonishing how many contemporary arguments ignore this fact and proceed as if the exceptional individual refutes the societal rule.

There are three universal institutions that concern us here:

1. (Patriarchy) The upper positions of the hierarchies of every society are overwhelmingly filled by men (patriarchy). A Queen Victoria or a Golda Meir is always an exception and is always surrounded by a government of men.

2. (Male Status Attainment) The highest-status (non-maternal) roles are male. The high-status roles are male not primarily because they are male (ditch-digging is male), but because they have high status. This high status elicits from males, more strongly than from females, the behavior required to attain the status. Which roles are given high status and which behavior is required to attain these roles is socially determined, but the greater impulse to attain whatever--socially-determined--roles are given high status is a function of male physiology.

3. (Male Dominance) Both men and women feel that the male is dominant and that the woman must "get around" the male to attain power. Even when male dominance is absent from law (as in the United States) or formal custom (as in "chivalrous" societies), the expectation is still one of male dominance. This is attested to in the U.S. by, for example, the feminist's detestation of male dominance and her incorrect attempt to explain it in purely social terms. My purpose here is not to provide the anthropological evidence of universality or the physiological evidence supporting an explanation of universality in terms of the differing neuro-endocrinological development of males and females. I have done so in many publications and in my book Why Men Rule (Open Court). Here my purpose is merely to provide a compendium of the commonly invoked fallacious arguments that attempt to deny the primary importance of male-female hereditary psychophysiological differences. These fallacies are everpresent at a time when discussions of sex differences invariably assume that the differences are caused primarily by what "society tells us". (While these discussions occasionally give lip-service acknowledgement that physiological differentiation "might play some role", such acknowledgement is meaningless in an analysis that implicitly assumes the causal primacy of the social. )

1. "Socialization explains our expectations of males and females and the male-female differences in behavior (cognition, emotion, and action)". There are two fatal problems with this claim: (A) It does not explain anything, but merely forces us to ask another question: why does socialization of men and women always work in the same direction? Just as the male's greater physical strength is not caused primarily by our telling little girls that the men are stronger than women, so too is the male's more readily elicited dominance behavior not caused primarily by the socialization. (It is this sex difference, not the difference in physical strength, that mediates the physiological and the universals.). Socialization may often increase sex differences, but it can never be the primary cause of them. This point does not, of course, demonstrate that the socialization relevant to dominance behavior reflects physiological factors, but that is not its purpose. The point is made merely to make clear that socialization is always a mediator, whether the primary causes be physiological, economic, or whatever, so that the presence of socialization in no way conflicts with the claim of the primary importance of inherent sex differences. The evidence for this is the anthropological universality and direct neuropsychological knowledge. In other words, the question is: why has the socialization of every society that has ever existed associated dominance behavior with males? (I.e., the socialization does not create the sex difference, but specifies the behavior in which it is manifested in a given society; physiology does not tell one how to fire a rifle or change a diaper, but it associates aggressive behavior more strongly with males and nurturance behavior more strongly with females.).

(B) The second problem with the explanation in terms of socialization is its implicit assumption that the social environment of expectations, customs, norms, institutions, and the like is an independent variable capable of acting as counterpoise to the physiological constituents that make us male and female.

If the association of sex and behavioral characteristic were a variable independent of a population's observation of physiological reality then, at least in principle, socialization could act as counterpoise to hereditary sex differences. For example, a society could, by having women lift weights throughout life and men remaining sedentary, balance the male's inherent strength advantage.

But in real life this can't happen because the social environment is a dependent variable whose limits are set by our psychophysiological construction and a population's observation of the behavior related to it. In real life a population's observation of the relative physical strength of men and women precludes the possibility that expectation, socialization and practice will balance the male's greater inherent strength and will result in institutions rendering women as physically strong as men. Likewise, in real life a population observes the male's dominance tendency and develops expectations and socialization concordant with this.

2. "The physiological theory of limits is "reductionist." The problem with this criticism, perhaps the most-commonly heard, is that a scientific explanation is supposed to be reductionist, if by that we mean "capable of explaining the most empirical reality with the fewest hypotheses". "Reductionism" is impotent as criticism unless the criticized analysis attempts to explain more than its explanatory mechanism is capable of explaining. "Reductionism" would be a legitimate charge if, for example, it were claimed that physiology explains the difference between women's roles in the United States and Saudi Arabia. But the theory of constraints on social possibility is a theory of limits; it makes no claim of explaining any of the variation within the limits (i.e., any variation found from one actual society to another). A criticism of "reductionism" here is akin to one denying the physiological basis of the human need to eat (and the universality of institutions satisfying this) on the grounds that the explanation does not tell us why the French eat French food and the Chinese eat Chinese food, why societies have different numbers of meals per day, or why some societies associate food with religion far more than do others. The physiological explanation does not claim to explain this variation nor does it imply that it explains it. In short, the criticism of "reductionism" is analogous to an accusation of "sophistry" that fails to specify any logical fallacy. It is mere name-calling.

3. "We define patriarchy' and/or dominance' differently from the way you do." In various anthropological writings, even those predating the ideologically-infused works of the past two decades, one can find at least twenty varying definitions of "patriarchy". The one I use is both that which is most often used and the common denominator of most of the other definitions. But a far more important point--one lost on those who believe that a disagreement over my use of the word somehow refutes the theory I present--is this: It is the empirical reality--not the word one uses to represent it--that is crucial. As long as one uses consistently the word he has chosen, the specific word chosen is unimportant. If you wish to call those gigantic gray animals with long trunks and skinny tails "toasters", you can. But you can't then claim that these "toasters" are good for making English Muffins. Likewise: the empirical reality is that the hierarchies of every society without exception are filled primarily by males (and that, in the very few tiny societies with relatively little hierarchy, the informal male dominance found in all societies plays a similar role). If you object to my terming this "patriarchy"--fine. Choose any word you like, say. "toaster". You must then explain why every society has "toaster". You can't make an empirical reality disappear by redefining your words. All of this can be said of the "redefinition of dominance'" found in numerous feminist writings.

4. "The explanation fails to understand the "complexity of social life" and "the tremendous variation among societies." The "complexity" and "variation" invoked here are irrelevant. No society is "so complex" that it lacks the universal institutions. There is not so much variation that any society fails to meet the constraints of the limits discussed here. The explanation of universality is a sufficient explanation of the limits within which social variation and complexity take place. The issue of "complexity" is simply another version of the "Chinese food" attempt to obfuscate with irrelevant empirical realities that the theory presented here does not attempt to explain. (Similarly, many authors devote a great deal of space to arguing against the importance of neuroendocrinological factors other than those that alone are sufficient to explain the universality; such arguments are irrelevant.)

5. "We have patriarchy for economic reasons." This is a confusion of cause and function. The realities I discuss no doubt play an economic role. But to ascribe patriarchy to economic factors is akin to ascribing the human need to eat to McDonald's need to make a profit. At least with reference to sex differences, economies primarily exploit our natures, not cause them. That is why every economic system--communal, slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist, etc.--works within the limits of patriarchy.

6. "Patriarchy is a result of the requirements of a hunting culture, or Christianity, or capitalism, etc" If it is to be at all persuasive, an explanation of universality must invoke the same causal factor to explain the universality, the explanation must be parsimonious. Just as the explanation in terms of capitalism fails to explain patriarchy in the many non-capitalist societies, so do explanations in terms of any single factor other than the physiological fail to explain the host of societies for which that factor does not apply. Non-hunting, non-Christian, non-capitalist, etc. societies are all patriarchal.

7. "Societies are patriarchal because women are tied down with giving birth and raising children and men are bigger than women." We can ignore the fact that physiology accounts for the fact that women bare and raise children, because there are many societies in which women work harder and longer outside the home--doing objectively more important economic work--than do men, (though, as we have seen, however objectively unimportant the roles played by men, the highest-status non-maternal roles will be played by men). However, whatever the roles played by women, these never include primary responsibility for hierarchical position. Similarly, while males are everywhere bigger and stronger, all evidence from both human beings and experimental animals imply that it is the CNS difference relevant to dominance behavior, not physical size, that is primarily responsible. A one-generation, experimentally-created society stocked with infant daughters of large parents and infant sons of small parents would develop into a patriarchy of small men and large women.

8. "We have patriarchy because we have patriarchal values'." All societies are patriarchal and all have patriarchal values, just as all societies associate the ability to give birth with women and have values reflecting this. Just as a population's observation of women's physiologically-rooted maternal behavior explains why maternal values and expectations are associated with women, so does observation of male's physiologically-rooted dominance behavior explain why dominance values and expectations are associated with men. Those who "explain" patriarchy in terms of "patriarchal values" must, without invoking physiological differentiation, explain why every society has patriarchal values.

9. "Attitudes have changed tremendously." Yes, at least those people are willing to acknowledge, they have. But the very point is that, with reference to the behaviors relevant here, attitudes are not much more causally important than they are to the sex difference in height. For much behavior, of course, attitude is crucial. The decline of the sanction against premarital sexual activity has resulted in a lot more premarital sexual activity. But, while attitude is dramatically important in how people claim to feel about the sex differences of which we speak, there is no evidence whatever that they make significantly more likely a society lacking the universals we discuss.

10. "Modernization and Technology Render Physiology Irrelevant". There is not a scintilla of evidence that modernization renders likely the demise of the universals. To be sure, no modern society could preclude women's playing any suprafamilial role as some non-modern societies did. But it is also true that no modern society is likely to give women the high status some other non-modern societies gave the woman's maternal roles. In any case, even the Scandinavian societies often claimed to be "non-patriarchal" (despite the fact that they feel the need of cabinet departments to deal with the "inequality of women") are, in fact, overwhelmingly patriarchal.

11. "Slavery was universal." No it wasn't. Many societies never had slavery and only one society lacking slavery is necessary to demonstrate that physiology does not render slavery inevitable. Had slavery been universal, this would not demonstrate slavery to be inevitable, but it would certainly increase the likelihood that this were the case.