Re: HUMOR: Anti-cryonics philosophy

Dan Fabulich (
Wed, 22 Jan 1997 20:06:56 -0800

Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> *This* counterargument is too much even for me. SAT scores are one
> thing, but it seems to me that the pool of scientists is a reasonable
> place to look for genius. If there's a gender bias in the number of
> scientists, it may reflect encouragement or harassment or desire to
> become a scientist - rather than intelligence - but even so, until
> otherwise demonstrated, I think that associating the sample set of
> "scientists" with "genius" is a perfectly valid leap.

Argh. Here I go jumping in and defining terms again...

The argument is male/female genius, with a group of people arguing that
there are "fewer" female geniuses.

If we make the assumption that a genius is simply a person who is
extremely intelligent, then we've got to define intelligence in order to
have a debate. ( )

Once we've made that leap, we've still got to clarify the resolution.
Are we are we arguing whether there is something genetically different
between men/women which would make men fundamentally smarter than women?
Then it's time to start using some published scientific data to prove
your point. Both sides.

Are we simply suggesting that there are more men geniuses out there in
the world right now, perhaps due to social stereotyping of the past
which have encouraged male genius? Then perhaps we'd best define
intelligence very clearly and find some statistical data. If we can't
do that, then there's no facts behind this argument.

As for my POV, my experience has shown me a great number of women who
are very intelligent, IMHO. Based on my experience, I think that the Y
chromosome has little to do with intelligence, but more to do with
social stereotyping which might discourage women from displaying or
making public use of their intelligence. This has no validity in a
debate whatsoever, but it is my opinion. Carry on. :)

-He who laughs last thinks slowest-