<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_06_2228210</id>
	<title>How Men and Women Badly Estimate Their Own Intelligence</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260096180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"In investigating the question of whether men are smarter than women, British researcher Adrian Furnham came up with some startling results. His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ, but <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/101079">women underestimate their own intelligence while men overestimate theirs</a>. Surprisingly, both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations &mdash; both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers. And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " In investigating the question of whether men are smarter than women , British researcher Adrian Furnham came up with some startling results .
His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ , but women underestimate their own intelligence while men overestimate theirs .
Surprisingly , both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations    both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers .
And if there are children , both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "In investigating the question of whether men are smarter than women, British researcher Adrian Furnham came up with some startling results.
His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ, but women underestimate their own intelligence while men overestimate theirs.
Surprisingly, both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations — both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers.
And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356180</id>
	<title>Re:Stopped reading after the first sentence.</title>
	<author>Gabrosin</author>
	<datestamp>1260215640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So only hermaphrodites and androgynes are qualified to write on topics which may involve gender bias?

Congrats, I think you just killed the mainstream media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So only hermaphrodites and androgynes are qualified to write on topics which may involve gender bias ?
Congrats , I think you just killed the mainstream media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So only hermaphrodites and androgynes are qualified to write on topics which may involve gender bias?
Congrats, I think you just killed the mainstream media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>story645</author>
	<datestamp>1260106200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.</p></div><p>Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender, (<a href="http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/male-victims-of-sexual-abuse.html" title="child-abuse-effects.com">citations at bottom</a> [child-abuse-effects.com]), though I agree the numbers probably are equal, and may even be higher for boys because of the expectation that they won't report it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman</p></div><p>Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Men don't get any say in how a pregnancy turns out</p></div><p>In cases of having the kid, I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy. In  cases of aborting the kid, only if the guy legally obligates himself to raising and supporting  the kid. Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body. That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Blaming men for things like female insecurity over looks, is just bigoted, that's not something that has anything at all to do with men, that's something that women do to each other.</p></div><p>Both genders are at fault here. Women drive each other crazy in part because men keep making it matter. Granted, even if men didn't care, women would still fight over looks, but men are still a big part of the picture. I've got friends in a religious community-the major reason they get drama about looks is 'cause of marriage. Hell, a bunch of comments on this thread basically say "me want hawt girl."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical , women just do n't admit that that happens to men as well.Actually , guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it does n't fit with the traditional notions of gender , ( citations at bottom [ child-abuse-effects.com ] ) , though I agree the numbers probably are equal , and may even be higher for boys because of the expectation that they wo n't report it.Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive womanMost police are male , so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Men do n't get any say in how a pregnancy turns outIn cases of having the kid , I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy .
In cases of aborting the kid , only if the guy legally obligates himself to raising and supporting the kid .
Yes , the woman gets more say 'cause it 's her body , so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she does n't want is a violation of her rights over her own body .
That 's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.Blaming men for things like female insecurity over looks , is just bigoted , that 's not something that has anything at all to do with men , that 's something that women do to each other.Both genders are at fault here .
Women drive each other crazy in part because men keep making it matter .
Granted , even if men did n't care , women would still fight over looks , but men are still a big part of the picture .
I 've got friends in a religious community-the major reason they get drama about looks is 'cause of marriage .
Hell , a bunch of comments on this thread basically say " me want hawt girl .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender, (citations at bottom [child-abuse-effects.com]), though I agree the numbers probably are equal, and may even be higher for boys because of the expectation that they won't report it.Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive womanMost police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Men don't get any say in how a pregnancy turns outIn cases of having the kid, I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy.
In  cases of aborting the kid, only if the guy legally obligates himself to raising and supporting  the kid.
Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body.
That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.Blaming men for things like female insecurity over looks, is just bigoted, that's not something that has anything at all to do with men, that's something that women do to each other.Both genders are at fault here.
Women drive each other crazy in part because men keep making it matter.
Granted, even if men didn't care, women would still fight over looks, but men are still a big part of the picture.
I've got friends in a religious community-the major reason they get drama about looks is 'cause of marriage.
Hell, a bunch of comments on this thread basically say "me want hawt girl.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348232</id>
	<title>Slashdot itself is a perfect example...</title>
	<author>matty619</author>
	<datestamp>1260110880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if anyone keeps stats on the male/female membership for Slashdot, but I'm guessing relatively few women would find themselves interested in taking part in what is essentially an intellectual pissing contest.  Doesn't mean they're not smart, just means they don't feel the need to beat their chests and try to be the intellectual 800 lb gorilla in the forum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if anyone keeps stats on the male/female membership for Slashdot , but I 'm guessing relatively few women would find themselves interested in taking part in what is essentially an intellectual pissing contest .
Does n't mean they 're not smart , just means they do n't feel the need to beat their chests and try to be the intellectual 800 lb gorilla in the forum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if anyone keeps stats on the male/female membership for Slashdot, but I'm guessing relatively few women would find themselves interested in taking part in what is essentially an intellectual pissing contest.
Doesn't mean they're not smart, just means they don't feel the need to beat their chests and try to be the intellectual 800 lb gorilla in the forum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356864</id>
	<title>Re:Bold = Smart</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1260218940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Time to get me some +5 insightful. I never knew it was so easy!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to get me some + 5 insightful .
I never knew it was so easy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to get me some +5 insightful.
I never knew it was so easy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350860</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260183300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So the evil liberals and their oppressive egalitarian agenda are leading to the downfall of society</i> </p><p>Nope; just the downfall of civilization.  "Society" is doing just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the evil liberals and their oppressive egalitarian agenda are leading to the downfall of society Nope ; just the downfall of civilization .
" Society " is doing just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the evil liberals and their oppressive egalitarian agenda are leading to the downfall of society Nope; just the downfall of civilization.
"Society" is doing just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347882</id>
	<title>male genital mutilation</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1260108180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget that in the United States, some 60\% of male babies undergo brutal genital mutilation, and nobody gives 2 shits. Female genital mutilation is thoroughly illegal, regardless of any and all cultural, religious, or imagined justifications (as it should be). Slicing off bits of babies is allowed and even encouraged as long as they are male babies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that in the United States , some 60 \ % of male babies undergo brutal genital mutilation , and nobody gives 2 shits .
Female genital mutilation is thoroughly illegal , regardless of any and all cultural , religious , or imagined justifications ( as it should be ) .
Slicing off bits of babies is allowed and even encouraged as long as they are male babies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that in the United States, some 60\% of male babies undergo brutal genital mutilation, and nobody gives 2 shits.
Female genital mutilation is thoroughly illegal, regardless of any and all cultural, religious, or imagined justifications (as it should be).
Slicing off bits of babies is allowed and even encouraged as long as they are male babies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348898</id>
	<title>There are reasons for misreported abuse stats</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1260117180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It goes beyond the stereotypes, because men tend to be more physically abusive while women tend to be more socially abusive.  It's much easier to get evidence of the former, and there's a bigger stigma associated with it.  Women are as likely to be abusive as men, but the kind of abuse they're likely to indulge in is not so obvious to a court of law or a jury.  This tracks with developmental psychology's learning about children: as boys grow toward puberty they tend to be physically agressive, while as girls grow toward puberty they tend to be socially agressive.  In both cases, there are people who never grow out of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It goes beyond the stereotypes , because men tend to be more physically abusive while women tend to be more socially abusive .
It 's much easier to get evidence of the former , and there 's a bigger stigma associated with it .
Women are as likely to be abusive as men , but the kind of abuse they 're likely to indulge in is not so obvious to a court of law or a jury .
This tracks with developmental psychology 's learning about children : as boys grow toward puberty they tend to be physically agressive , while as girls grow toward puberty they tend to be socially agressive .
In both cases , there are people who never grow out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It goes beyond the stereotypes, because men tend to be more physically abusive while women tend to be more socially abusive.
It's much easier to get evidence of the former, and there's a bigger stigma associated with it.
Women are as likely to be abusive as men, but the kind of abuse they're likely to indulge in is not so obvious to a court of law or a jury.
This tracks with developmental psychology's learning about children: as boys grow toward puberty they tend to be physically agressive, while as girls grow toward puberty they tend to be socially agressive.
In both cases, there are people who never grow out of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351046</id>
	<title>Stupid is as stupid does.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1260186060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with women is that while many of them are quite intelligent and -able- to draw correct conclusions and make connections, they rarely act upon their intelligence, often needing people (men) to try really hard to make them use their heads. Almost as if thinking hurt.</p><p>It's not that they can't act smart, it's that they don't like to. They tend to depend on their intuition and "hunches" ignoring and disregarding the logical conclusions completely. They can come up with an optimal solution to a problem, then apply a suboptimal one because they "like it better". Or they make completely unreasonable demands, being fully aware that the demands are impossible - possibly enjoying seeing the logical man trying to twist his brain around the paradox they force upon him, and deranging him for his inability to solve the impossible (as if it was the most obvious and easy thing in the world).</p><p>Truly evil and twisted creatures they are...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with women is that while many of them are quite intelligent and -able- to draw correct conclusions and make connections , they rarely act upon their intelligence , often needing people ( men ) to try really hard to make them use their heads .
Almost as if thinking hurt.It 's not that they ca n't act smart , it 's that they do n't like to .
They tend to depend on their intuition and " hunches " ignoring and disregarding the logical conclusions completely .
They can come up with an optimal solution to a problem , then apply a suboptimal one because they " like it better " .
Or they make completely unreasonable demands , being fully aware that the demands are impossible - possibly enjoying seeing the logical man trying to twist his brain around the paradox they force upon him , and deranging him for his inability to solve the impossible ( as if it was the most obvious and easy thing in the world ) .Truly evil and twisted creatures they are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with women is that while many of them are quite intelligent and -able- to draw correct conclusions and make connections, they rarely act upon their intelligence, often needing people (men) to try really hard to make them use their heads.
Almost as if thinking hurt.It's not that they can't act smart, it's that they don't like to.
They tend to depend on their intuition and "hunches" ignoring and disregarding the logical conclusions completely.
They can come up with an optimal solution to a problem, then apply a suboptimal one because they "like it better".
Or they make completely unreasonable demands, being fully aware that the demands are impossible - possibly enjoying seeing the logical man trying to twist his brain around the paradox they force upon him, and deranging him for his inability to solve the impossible (as if it was the most obvious and easy thing in the world).Truly evil and twisted creatures they are...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349862</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1260127800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe you were modded up so far.</p><p>It's a well-accepted and researched fact that there is more variance in male IQs than in females. The slightest shred of research (aka googleing iq variance) would have supported this.</p><p>Your whole other assertion is ridiculous. Do you actually think *MOST* women died by age 30?? I'd give you a citation but I can't even tell if you're serious. Again, googling historical life expectancy should help you.</p><p>Not to mention that by 1900 childbirth was relatively safe. Working in a factory (almost exclusively male) killed far more.</p><p>Advances in the "new era" don't disregard the fact that communication alone doesn't get anything done. Let alone that, for example, male scientists have no issue collaborating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe you were modded up so far.It 's a well-accepted and researched fact that there is more variance in male IQs than in females .
The slightest shred of research ( aka googleing iq variance ) would have supported this.Your whole other assertion is ridiculous .
Do you actually think * MOST * women died by age 30 ? ?
I 'd give you a citation but I ca n't even tell if you 're serious .
Again , googling historical life expectancy should help you.Not to mention that by 1900 childbirth was relatively safe .
Working in a factory ( almost exclusively male ) killed far more.Advances in the " new era " do n't disregard the fact that communication alone does n't get anything done .
Let alone that , for example , male scientists have no issue collaborating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe you were modded up so far.It's a well-accepted and researched fact that there is more variance in male IQs than in females.
The slightest shred of research (aka googleing iq variance) would have supported this.Your whole other assertion is ridiculous.
Do you actually think *MOST* women died by age 30??
I'd give you a citation but I can't even tell if you're serious.
Again, googling historical life expectancy should help you.Not to mention that by 1900 childbirth was relatively safe.
Working in a factory (almost exclusively male) killed far more.Advances in the "new era" don't disregard the fact that communication alone doesn't get anything done.
Let alone that, for example, male scientists have no issue collaborating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348108</id>
	<title>Re:Also, they don't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260109920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Believe it or not, I live with a women...</p></div><p>We're on Slashdot, so I'm going to go with "not"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , I live with a women...We 're on Slashdot , so I 'm going to go with " not "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, I live with a women...We're on Slashdot, so I'm going to go with "not"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349438</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>StrategicIrony</author>
	<datestamp>1260123060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's hard to imagine, since there are VERY few species of animal, from tiny fish, up to elephants, where there isn't a size difference between sexes.  Quite often, the females are larger, sometimes massively so, though with primates and a few other higher order mammals, males are almost always larger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's hard to imagine , since there are VERY few species of animal , from tiny fish , up to elephants , where there is n't a size difference between sexes .
Quite often , the females are larger , sometimes massively so , though with primates and a few other higher order mammals , males are almost always larger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's hard to imagine, since there are VERY few species of animal, from tiny fish, up to elephants, where there isn't a size difference between sexes.
Quite often, the females are larger, sometimes massively so, though with primates and a few other higher order mammals, males are almost always larger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351366</id>
	<title>I have the opposite impression</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1260190740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly enough, in my family the wives are often the more intelligent ones. This is more so in the previous generation (i.e. amongst my aunts and uncles).</p><p>Given my cultural background (Portuguese) and the fact that most of my family comes from the countryside and has a low average level of education, it's interesting enough to see that while the men are "the man in the house" and supposedly make the decisions, the women do a lot of "convincing" on them and in some couples are the actual main decision makers.</p><p>Certainly in the social and cultural environment for the previous generation, it's often in the woman's best interest to not be seen by the men as "visibly" intelligent.</p><p>In my own generation, where pretty much all of us are city-folk with a degree, things seem more balanced. Certainly my female cousins expect (and often get) an environment where they are co-decision-makers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly enough , in my family the wives are often the more intelligent ones .
This is more so in the previous generation ( i.e .
amongst my aunts and uncles ) .Given my cultural background ( Portuguese ) and the fact that most of my family comes from the countryside and has a low average level of education , it 's interesting enough to see that while the men are " the man in the house " and supposedly make the decisions , the women do a lot of " convincing " on them and in some couples are the actual main decision makers.Certainly in the social and cultural environment for the previous generation , it 's often in the woman 's best interest to not be seen by the men as " visibly " intelligent.In my own generation , where pretty much all of us are city-folk with a degree , things seem more balanced .
Certainly my female cousins expect ( and often get ) an environment where they are co-decision-makers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly enough, in my family the wives are often the more intelligent ones.
This is more so in the previous generation (i.e.
amongst my aunts and uncles).Given my cultural background (Portuguese) and the fact that most of my family comes from the countryside and has a low average level of education, it's interesting enough to see that while the men are "the man in the house" and supposedly make the decisions, the women do a lot of "convincing" on them and in some couples are the actual main decision makers.Certainly in the social and cultural environment for the previous generation, it's often in the woman's best interest to not be seen by the men as "visibly" intelligent.In my own generation, where pretty much all of us are city-folk with a degree, things seem more balanced.
Certainly my female cousins expect (and often get) an environment where they are co-decision-makers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064</id>
	<title>Allegedly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Allegedly GWBush has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+)</p></div><p>(Allegedly there, I FTFY.) That's alleged by people who allegedly have an allegedly low IQ themselves (well at least 80-, allegedly) and will, I allege, show up shortly to allege otherwise. I'll also allege that I'd like to hear what new alleged topics Bush allegedly had the capacity to allegedly understand.<br> <br>They allegedly always allege that Bush was allegedly smarter than Obama (allegedly our new president, although he allegedly has some alleged paperwork problem allegedly involving his alleged birth in the State allegedly of Hawaii- allegedly one of the States which are themselves alleged to be United- that magically [allegedly] transports his alleged birth to the alleged nation of Kenya as if that would allegedly make them alleged victims even if it were allegedly true in the alleged first place).<br> <br>Now before anyone allegedly jumps on me, please allegedly remember that I allegedly only alleged these things were alleged, so I'm allegedly sorry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allegedly GWBush has a fairly high IQ ( well at least 120 + ) ( Allegedly there , I FTFY .
) That 's alleged by people who allegedly have an allegedly low IQ themselves ( well at least 80- , allegedly ) and will , I allege , show up shortly to allege otherwise .
I 'll also allege that I 'd like to hear what new alleged topics Bush allegedly had the capacity to allegedly understand .
They allegedly always allege that Bush was allegedly smarter than Obama ( allegedly our new president , although he allegedly has some alleged paperwork problem allegedly involving his alleged birth in the State allegedly of Hawaii- allegedly one of the States which are themselves alleged to be United- that magically [ allegedly ] transports his alleged birth to the alleged nation of Kenya as if that would allegedly make them alleged victims even if it were allegedly true in the alleged first place ) .
Now before anyone allegedly jumps on me , please allegedly remember that I allegedly only alleged these things were alleged , so I 'm allegedly sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allegedly GWBush has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+)(Allegedly there, I FTFY.
) That's alleged by people who allegedly have an allegedly low IQ themselves (well at least 80-, allegedly) and will, I allege, show up shortly to allege otherwise.
I'll also allege that I'd like to hear what new alleged topics Bush allegedly had the capacity to allegedly understand.
They allegedly always allege that Bush was allegedly smarter than Obama (allegedly our new president, although he allegedly has some alleged paperwork problem allegedly involving his alleged birth in the State allegedly of Hawaii- allegedly one of the States which are themselves alleged to be United- that magically [allegedly] transports his alleged birth to the alleged nation of Kenya as if that would allegedly make them alleged victims even if it were allegedly true in the alleged first place).
Now before anyone allegedly jumps on me, please allegedly remember that I allegedly only alleged these things were alleged, so I'm allegedly sorry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not at all, when men's issues are taken as seriously as women's are in the US, then you can call it a glib interpretation.<br> <br>

Try finding room at a shelter if you're a man that's been abused in general, especially so if the abuser is a woman. Or having to wait in line after the women have had their shot at the local homeless shelter. Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman. Or how mysteriously 1/5 of boys being sexually abused is conveniently rounded to virtually nothing when 1/3 of girls being molested is rounded up to most. Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.<br> <br>

It's really easy to claim that women are getting an unfair deal when you write off all the things which men have to put up with. Men are subject to conscription when there's a draft, women aren't. Men don't get any say in how a pregnancy turns out, but are still required to pay up in full, even in cases where the woman intentionally got herself pregnant. Including a shockingly common occurrence for her to stick him with the tab fore somebody else's kid.<br> <br>

The bias isn't going to go away until, women as a group decide to grow up and take responsibility for the crap they do to men. Men have taken much more responsibility for what they've done than what women have. Blaming men for things like female insecurity over looks, is just bigoted, that's not something that has anything at all to do with men, that's something that women do to each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not at all , when men 's issues are taken as seriously as women 's are in the US , then you can call it a glib interpretation .
Try finding room at a shelter if you 're a man that 's been abused in general , especially so if the abuser is a woman .
Or having to wait in line after the women have had their shot at the local homeless shelter .
Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman .
Or how mysteriously 1/5 of boys being sexually abused is conveniently rounded to virtually nothing when 1/3 of girls being molested is rounded up to most .
Here 's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical , women just do n't admit that that happens to men as well .
It 's really easy to claim that women are getting an unfair deal when you write off all the things which men have to put up with .
Men are subject to conscription when there 's a draft , women are n't .
Men do n't get any say in how a pregnancy turns out , but are still required to pay up in full , even in cases where the woman intentionally got herself pregnant .
Including a shockingly common occurrence for her to stick him with the tab fore somebody else 's kid .
The bias is n't going to go away until , women as a group decide to grow up and take responsibility for the crap they do to men .
Men have taken much more responsibility for what they 've done than what women have .
Blaming men for things like female insecurity over looks , is just bigoted , that 's not something that has anything at all to do with men , that 's something that women do to each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not at all, when men's issues are taken as seriously as women's are in the US, then you can call it a glib interpretation.
Try finding room at a shelter if you're a man that's been abused in general, especially so if the abuser is a woman.
Or having to wait in line after the women have had their shot at the local homeless shelter.
Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman.
Or how mysteriously 1/5 of boys being sexually abused is conveniently rounded to virtually nothing when 1/3 of girls being molested is rounded up to most.
Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.
It's really easy to claim that women are getting an unfair deal when you write off all the things which men have to put up with.
Men are subject to conscription when there's a draft, women aren't.
Men don't get any say in how a pregnancy turns out, but are still required to pay up in full, even in cases where the woman intentionally got herself pregnant.
Including a shockingly common occurrence for her to stick him with the tab fore somebody else's kid.
The bias isn't going to go away until, women as a group decide to grow up and take responsibility for the crap they do to men.
Men have taken much more responsibility for what they've done than what women have.
Blaming men for things like female insecurity over looks, is just bigoted, that's not something that has anything at all to do with men, that's something that women do to each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350824</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Mycroft\_VIII</author>
	<datestamp>1260183000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For some reason that first statement just shouted for a googling. First link:<br><br>http://www.outsports.com/os/index.php/component/content/article/50-cowgirl-revolution?start=1<br><br>partial caption on included photo:<br>1920s champion Bonnie McCarroll<br><br>Apparently Women have been competing in rodeos and such for over a hundred years.<br><br>Mycroft</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason that first statement just shouted for a googling .
First link : http : //www.outsports.com/os/index.php/component/content/article/50-cowgirl-revolution ? start = 1partial caption on included photo : 1920s champion Bonnie McCarrollApparently Women have been competing in rodeos and such for over a hundred years.Mycroft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason that first statement just shouted for a googling.
First link:http://www.outsports.com/os/index.php/component/content/article/50-cowgirl-revolution?start=1partial caption on included photo:1920s champion Bonnie McCarrollApparently Women have been competing in rodeos and such for over a hundred years.Mycroft</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347314</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>defaria</author>
	<datestamp>1260104400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you miss Leykis too...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you miss Leykis too... : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you miss Leykis too... :-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1260107340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe you were modded up so far.</p><p>Are men and women innately different? Yes. Does that have any relevance in terms of modern society? Probably. Do their ideal roles in any way reflect their current societal roles? Not in any way shape or form.</p><p>There is one reason, and one reason only that you didn't see women in higher education before this past century: childbirth. Not child rearing, not pregnancy. Childbirth killed most women before they reach 30. Men, on the other hand, so long as they were kept out of the {mines, war, boats, etc.} would likely live to a ripe old age. These evolutionary pressures are gone, as are most of the unskilled tasks usually reserved for women. (You don't believe that, try doing laundry by hand. It's practically a full time job in and of itself.)</p><p>Keeping women in their old roles as housekeepers is a massive waste of brain power. By your (bullshit unverified) claim that women are average and men are at the extremes, it doesn't matter. In fact it's likely that genius and idiot alike are unsuited to making advances in the new era, which rely on hours and hours of work by large teams of people. Both geniuses and idiots work badly on teams.</p><p>But in any case, the issue of childbirth is the only reason for the old roles. We've solved that problem, and it's time to redefine the roles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe you were modded up so far.Are men and women innately different ?
Yes. Does that have any relevance in terms of modern society ?
Probably. Do their ideal roles in any way reflect their current societal roles ?
Not in any way shape or form.There is one reason , and one reason only that you did n't see women in higher education before this past century : childbirth .
Not child rearing , not pregnancy .
Childbirth killed most women before they reach 30 .
Men , on the other hand , so long as they were kept out of the { mines , war , boats , etc .
} would likely live to a ripe old age .
These evolutionary pressures are gone , as are most of the unskilled tasks usually reserved for women .
( You do n't believe that , try doing laundry by hand .
It 's practically a full time job in and of itself .
) Keeping women in their old roles as housekeepers is a massive waste of brain power .
By your ( bullshit unverified ) claim that women are average and men are at the extremes , it does n't matter .
In fact it 's likely that genius and idiot alike are unsuited to making advances in the new era , which rely on hours and hours of work by large teams of people .
Both geniuses and idiots work badly on teams.But in any case , the issue of childbirth is the only reason for the old roles .
We 've solved that problem , and it 's time to redefine the roles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe you were modded up so far.Are men and women innately different?
Yes. Does that have any relevance in terms of modern society?
Probably. Do their ideal roles in any way reflect their current societal roles?
Not in any way shape or form.There is one reason, and one reason only that you didn't see women in higher education before this past century: childbirth.
Not child rearing, not pregnancy.
Childbirth killed most women before they reach 30.
Men, on the other hand, so long as they were kept out of the {mines, war, boats, etc.
} would likely live to a ripe old age.
These evolutionary pressures are gone, as are most of the unskilled tasks usually reserved for women.
(You don't believe that, try doing laundry by hand.
It's practically a full time job in and of itself.
)Keeping women in their old roles as housekeepers is a massive waste of brain power.
By your (bullshit unverified) claim that women are average and men are at the extremes, it doesn't matter.
In fact it's likely that genius and idiot alike are unsuited to making advances in the new era, which rely on hours and hours of work by large teams of people.
Both geniuses and idiots work badly on teams.But in any case, the issue of childbirth is the only reason for the old roles.
We've solved that problem, and it's time to redefine the roles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347256</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Common Sense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260104040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've found that most hyper-intellectuals don't have a lick of Common Sense. <b>It's funny how God works that way.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>that's funny, because i'd say you have no common sense either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found that most hyper-intellectuals do n't have a lick of Common Sense .
It 's funny how God works that way .
that 's funny , because i 'd say you have no common sense either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found that most hyper-intellectuals don't have a lick of Common Sense.
It's funny how God works that way.
that's funny, because i'd say you have no common sense either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348252</id>
	<title>Troll Bait</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1260111060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>These kinds of articles are always just troll bait.  We now live in a male bashing society that is constantly trying to show how men are not really smart, and that women are really the smart ones.  I suppose that we can say that this one isn't so bad because at least it claims we are women's peers.  While there very well may be an intelligence difference between men and women, there is enough environmental difference that one is unlikely to be able to find it even with the best of tests.<br> <br>

The biggest factor is that if you take any group of people and split them into two groups.  One gets taught that they don't have to provide for themselves, so anything they accomplish is just for their own gratification, and the other is taught that no one is ever going to hand them a free lunch, so they better figure out how they will support themselves, I think we can all figure out which group is going to end up smarter.<br> <br>

It is made abundantly clear to very small children that men need to earn their livings, and women earn a living if they want to.  Even in today's society, little girls are informed that they can marry/sleep their way into being supported.  No doubt, there will be a certain percentage of people that will end up dumb even if they believe they will need to support themselves, and some people will end up smart even if they don't NEED to be.  The reason that it appears that there are more smart men then women isn't because women are not given credit.  It isn't because evil men keep them down.  It is because the group of smart women consist of the women that WANT to be smart, and the group of smart men include the men that WANT to be smart combined with the group of men that feel they NEED to be smart for survival.  It should be no surprise that you get better results from the group that needs it for survival.<br> <br>

If women want to become men's intellectual peers, they need to start sleeping with men for their looks instead of their wallets.  They need to make sure that starting at a young age, little girls are taught that they should pay for everything when they date men.  Both young boys and young girls need to be taught that it is a woman's responsibility to financially support men, and that if a man supports them financially, the woman is a bum, and unworthy of being in a relationship.<br> <br>

Get these ideas instilled in our youth, and you will see more smart women and fewer smart men.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These kinds of articles are always just troll bait .
We now live in a male bashing society that is constantly trying to show how men are not really smart , and that women are really the smart ones .
I suppose that we can say that this one is n't so bad because at least it claims we are women 's peers .
While there very well may be an intelligence difference between men and women , there is enough environmental difference that one is unlikely to be able to find it even with the best of tests .
The biggest factor is that if you take any group of people and split them into two groups .
One gets taught that they do n't have to provide for themselves , so anything they accomplish is just for their own gratification , and the other is taught that no one is ever going to hand them a free lunch , so they better figure out how they will support themselves , I think we can all figure out which group is going to end up smarter .
It is made abundantly clear to very small children that men need to earn their livings , and women earn a living if they want to .
Even in today 's society , little girls are informed that they can marry/sleep their way into being supported .
No doubt , there will be a certain percentage of people that will end up dumb even if they believe they will need to support themselves , and some people will end up smart even if they do n't NEED to be .
The reason that it appears that there are more smart men then women is n't because women are not given credit .
It is n't because evil men keep them down .
It is because the group of smart women consist of the women that WANT to be smart , and the group of smart men include the men that WANT to be smart combined with the group of men that feel they NEED to be smart for survival .
It should be no surprise that you get better results from the group that needs it for survival .
If women want to become men 's intellectual peers , they need to start sleeping with men for their looks instead of their wallets .
They need to make sure that starting at a young age , little girls are taught that they should pay for everything when they date men .
Both young boys and young girls need to be taught that it is a woman 's responsibility to financially support men , and that if a man supports them financially , the woman is a bum , and unworthy of being in a relationship .
Get these ideas instilled in our youth , and you will see more smart women and fewer smart men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These kinds of articles are always just troll bait.
We now live in a male bashing society that is constantly trying to show how men are not really smart, and that women are really the smart ones.
I suppose that we can say that this one isn't so bad because at least it claims we are women's peers.
While there very well may be an intelligence difference between men and women, there is enough environmental difference that one is unlikely to be able to find it even with the best of tests.
The biggest factor is that if you take any group of people and split them into two groups.
One gets taught that they don't have to provide for themselves, so anything they accomplish is just for their own gratification, and the other is taught that no one is ever going to hand them a free lunch, so they better figure out how they will support themselves, I think we can all figure out which group is going to end up smarter.
It is made abundantly clear to very small children that men need to earn their livings, and women earn a living if they want to.
Even in today's society, little girls are informed that they can marry/sleep their way into being supported.
No doubt, there will be a certain percentage of people that will end up dumb even if they believe they will need to support themselves, and some people will end up smart even if they don't NEED to be.
The reason that it appears that there are more smart men then women isn't because women are not given credit.
It isn't because evil men keep them down.
It is because the group of smart women consist of the women that WANT to be smart, and the group of smart men include the men that WANT to be smart combined with the group of men that feel they NEED to be smart for survival.
It should be no surprise that you get better results from the group that needs it for survival.
If women want to become men's intellectual peers, they need to start sleeping with men for their looks instead of their wallets.
They need to make sure that starting at a young age, little girls are taught that they should pay for everything when they date men.
Both young boys and young girls need to be taught that it is a woman's responsibility to financially support men, and that if a man supports them financially, the woman is a bum, and unworthy of being in a relationship.
Get these ideas instilled in our youth, and you will see more smart women and fewer smart men.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353146</id>
	<title>smart girl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260202260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, to blow the curve here.  My son is not dumb.  However..... my daughter is going to do whatever she puts her mind to.  Her brain is wired in a very argeeable fashion.  She 5 and is showing interest in cursive writing, the art museum, music (she saw The Bettys on Phneous and Ferb and told me, "see daddy, girl can rock too." daddy's little headbanger). she is reading doing various math problem for fun etc.</p><p>I'm gonna have my hands full keeping her intelectually stimulated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , to blow the curve here .
My son is not dumb .
However..... my daughter is going to do whatever she puts her mind to .
Her brain is wired in a very argeeable fashion .
She 5 and is showing interest in cursive writing , the art museum , music ( she saw The Bettys on Phneous and Ferb and told me , " see daddy , girl can rock too .
" daddy 's little headbanger ) .
she is reading doing various math problem for fun etc.I 'm gon na have my hands full keeping her intelectually stimulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, to blow the curve here.
My son is not dumb.
However..... my daughter is going to do whatever she puts her mind to.
Her brain is wired in a very argeeable fashion.
She 5 and is showing interest in cursive writing, the art museum, music (she saw The Bettys on Phneous and Ferb and told me, "see daddy, girl can rock too.
" daddy's little headbanger).
she is reading doing various math problem for fun etc.I'm gonna have my hands full keeping her intelectually stimulated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348184</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1260110460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  The bias isn't going to go away until, women as a group decide to grow up and take responsibility</p></div><p>Women don't really want to be equal partners, and men usually find being the superior partner pleasing. Seems like the only problem is women's bitching--but maybe that means they're happy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bias is n't going to go away until , women as a group decide to grow up and take responsibilityWomen do n't really want to be equal partners , and men usually find being the superior partner pleasing .
Seems like the only problem is women 's bitching--but maybe that means they 're happy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  The bias isn't going to go away until, women as a group decide to grow up and take responsibilityWomen don't really want to be equal partners, and men usually find being the superior partner pleasing.
Seems like the only problem is women's bitching--but maybe that means they're happy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353210</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1260202500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender,</p></div><p>Let's cut the victim-blaming and be frank. Guys don't report it because they don't expect to be taken seriously. (Probably correctly so.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.</p></div><p>Partly, but they're also trained to act this way at the request of anti-domestic violence groups. The idea is that domestic violence is fundamentally gendered, and that women just don't attack their male partner - the real cause must be that he's abusing her. Therefore, if the police are called, they should automatically arrest the man. Even if (for example), she's uninjured and attacking him with a kitchen knife, and he's covered in defensive wounds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it does n't fit with the traditional notions of gender,Let 's cut the victim-blaming and be frank .
Guys do n't report it because they do n't expect to be taken seriously .
( Probably correctly so .
) Most police are male , so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Partly , but they 're also trained to act this way at the request of anti-domestic violence groups .
The idea is that domestic violence is fundamentally gendered , and that women just do n't attack their male partner - the real cause must be that he 's abusing her .
Therefore , if the police are called , they should automatically arrest the man .
Even if ( for example ) , she 's uninjured and attacking him with a kitchen knife , and he 's covered in defensive wounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender,Let's cut the victim-blaming and be frank.
Guys don't report it because they don't expect to be taken seriously.
(Probably correctly so.
)Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Partly, but they're also trained to act this way at the request of anti-domestic violence groups.
The idea is that domestic violence is fundamentally gendered, and that women just don't attack their male partner - the real cause must be that he's abusing her.
Therefore, if the police are called, they should automatically arrest the man.
Even if (for example), she's uninjured and attacking him with a kitchen knife, and he's covered in defensive wounds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350526</id>
	<title>Re:I think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260179460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"emotion != intelligence/reasoning"</p><p>This is where you are wrong... it is now widely accepted that one cannot function without the other, and it is my personal experience that people with high IQ but low emotional intelligence are lousy leaders, that take decisions based purely in 'work that needs to be done', and forget people's motivations. End result: teams of unmotivated people doing an awfull job.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes\%27\_Error:\_Emotion,\_Reason,\_and\_the\_Human\_Brain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" emotion ! = intelligence/reasoning " This is where you are wrong... it is now widely accepted that one can not function without the other , and it is my personal experience that people with high IQ but low emotional intelligence are lousy leaders , that take decisions based purely in 'work that needs to be done ' , and forget people 's motivations .
End result : teams of unmotivated people doing an awfull job.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes \ % 27 \ _Error : \ _Emotion , \ _Reason , \ _and \ _the \ _Human \ _Brain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"emotion != intelligence/reasoning"This is where you are wrong... it is now widely accepted that one cannot function without the other, and it is my personal experience that people with high IQ but low emotional intelligence are lousy leaders, that take decisions based purely in 'work that needs to be done', and forget people's motivations.
End result: teams of unmotivated people doing an awfull job.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes\%27\_Error:\_Emotion,\_Reason,\_and\_the\_Human\_Brain</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351018</id>
	<title>Re:Different intelligence:</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1260185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Emotional intelligence is a load of bull.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, the sort of qualities it encompasses are valuable. Empathy and diplomacy are essential abilities for any civilized society. But calling it "emotional intelligence" is nothing but a marketing scam. It's trying to hijack the term "intelligence" because "intelligence" is seen as something valuable.</p><p>People are good at various things. Some are talented emotionally, some are musical, some are good at working with their hands, and some excel at manipulating abstract symbols.</p><p>If you try and lump it all under "intelligence", you make the term meaningless. Saying something is intelligent in that scenario doesn't mean a thing. You have to specify that they're "intelligence in music". At that point, "intelligence" has lost any meaning of it's own, and become just a synonym for "good at".</p><p>If you want to convince people that those that are talented in understanding and responding to emotion are just as valuable as those gifted with intelligence, by all means, go ahead - I agree. But don't do it by playing tricks with the language - it proves nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Emotional intelligence is a load of bull.Do n't get me wrong , the sort of qualities it encompasses are valuable .
Empathy and diplomacy are essential abilities for any civilized society .
But calling it " emotional intelligence " is nothing but a marketing scam .
It 's trying to hijack the term " intelligence " because " intelligence " is seen as something valuable.People are good at various things .
Some are talented emotionally , some are musical , some are good at working with their hands , and some excel at manipulating abstract symbols.If you try and lump it all under " intelligence " , you make the term meaningless .
Saying something is intelligent in that scenario does n't mean a thing .
You have to specify that they 're " intelligence in music " .
At that point , " intelligence " has lost any meaning of it 's own , and become just a synonym for " good at " .If you want to convince people that those that are talented in understanding and responding to emotion are just as valuable as those gifted with intelligence , by all means , go ahead - I agree .
But do n't do it by playing tricks with the language - it proves nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emotional intelligence is a load of bull.Don't get me wrong, the sort of qualities it encompasses are valuable.
Empathy and diplomacy are essential abilities for any civilized society.
But calling it "emotional intelligence" is nothing but a marketing scam.
It's trying to hijack the term "intelligence" because "intelligence" is seen as something valuable.People are good at various things.
Some are talented emotionally, some are musical, some are good at working with their hands, and some excel at manipulating abstract symbols.If you try and lump it all under "intelligence", you make the term meaningless.
Saying something is intelligent in that scenario doesn't mean a thing.
You have to specify that they're "intelligence in music".
At that point, "intelligence" has lost any meaning of it's own, and become just a synonym for "good at".If you want to convince people that those that are talented in understanding and responding to emotion are just as valuable as those gifted with intelligence, by all means, go ahead - I agree.
But don't do it by playing tricks with the language - it proves nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349810</id>
	<title>Re:IQ tests are outdated</title>
	<author>StrategicIrony</author>
	<datestamp>1260127080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they are also highly correlated with economic success.</p><p>Is that just random dumb luck?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they are also highly correlated with economic success.Is that just random dumb luck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they are also highly correlated with economic success.Is that just random dumb luck?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354212</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260206880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, an alternative metric that means just as much: pulled numbers out of a hat. Your assertion that IQ tests are meaningful in some context flies in the face of established psychometry -- it is well known that they (and many other standardized tests) are meaningless, but they (IQ tests, honesty tests, etc.) sell well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , an alternative metric that means just as much : pulled numbers out of a hat .
Your assertion that IQ tests are meaningful in some context flies in the face of established psychometry -- it is well known that they ( and many other standardized tests ) are meaningless , but they ( IQ tests , honesty tests , etc .
) sell well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, an alternative metric that means just as much: pulled numbers out of a hat.
Your assertion that IQ tests are meaningful in some context flies in the face of established psychometry -- it is well known that they (and many other standardized tests) are meaningless, but they (IQ tests, honesty tests, etc.
) sell well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350766</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260182100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I didn't know Sarah Palin posted on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I did n't know Sarah Palin posted on / .
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I didn't know Sarah Palin posted on /.
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356572</id>
	<title>Scores</title>
	<author>binaryartist</author>
	<datestamp>1260217560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am surprised  that many of my postings on slashdot or not scored 5 by others( which I was expecting ). Sigh... This study about male ego explains it I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am surprised that many of my postings on slashdot or not scored 5 by others ( which I was expecting ) .
Sigh... This study about male ego explains it I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am surprised  that many of my postings on slashdot or not scored 5 by others( which I was expecting ).
Sigh... This study about male ego explains it I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347514</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260105900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sounds so enlightened with your implied bigotry (calling Muslims, Catholics, &amp; others barbarians). You seem to be at the lower end of the scale for intelligence, so why should we trust you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sounds so enlightened with your implied bigotry ( calling Muslims , Catholics , &amp; others barbarians ) .
You seem to be at the lower end of the scale for intelligence , so why should we trust you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sounds so enlightened with your implied bigotry (calling Muslims, Catholics, &amp; others barbarians).
You seem to be at the lower end of the scale for intelligence, so why should we trust you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347112</id>
	<title>Personality types</title>
	<author>robwgibbons</author>
	<datestamp>1260102960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're familiar with the Myers-Briggs/Carl Jung personality type system, I believe it can apply to this discussion, in connecting certain personality types with society's views of "intelligence."

For example, I am an INTP (a "Thinker"), and consider myself to be fairly intelligent. Most who are familiar with the system would also agree that INTPs tend to exhibit traits typically viewed as "intelligent." However, I am constantly reminding my girlfriend, who is an ISFJ (a "Nurturer") that she is a very intelligent person. She seems to have an ingrained notion that she is less intelligent than others around her, and a general lack of self-confidence when it comes to intellectual pursuits. She is actually much better than I am at various mental tasks, specifically factual memory, recalling dates, multitasking, numbers, etc.

My understanding is that the same societal and environmental influences which contribute to the development of one's personality are the same that give that person their sense of self-understanding, and transitively their sense of self-worth and intelligence.

I may have a more developed "intuition" trait, which allows me to make conceptual connections very easily (ie. inventing, engineering, programming), but I will never be quite as good at recalling dates, or at being very aware of my immediate surroundings as she is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're familiar with the Myers-Briggs/Carl Jung personality type system , I believe it can apply to this discussion , in connecting certain personality types with society 's views of " intelligence .
" For example , I am an INTP ( a " Thinker " ) , and consider myself to be fairly intelligent .
Most who are familiar with the system would also agree that INTPs tend to exhibit traits typically viewed as " intelligent .
" However , I am constantly reminding my girlfriend , who is an ISFJ ( a " Nurturer " ) that she is a very intelligent person .
She seems to have an ingrained notion that she is less intelligent than others around her , and a general lack of self-confidence when it comes to intellectual pursuits .
She is actually much better than I am at various mental tasks , specifically factual memory , recalling dates , multitasking , numbers , etc .
My understanding is that the same societal and environmental influences which contribute to the development of one 's personality are the same that give that person their sense of self-understanding , and transitively their sense of self-worth and intelligence .
I may have a more developed " intuition " trait , which allows me to make conceptual connections very easily ( ie .
inventing , engineering , programming ) , but I will never be quite as good at recalling dates , or at being very aware of my immediate surroundings as she is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're familiar with the Myers-Briggs/Carl Jung personality type system, I believe it can apply to this discussion, in connecting certain personality types with society's views of "intelligence.
"

For example, I am an INTP (a "Thinker"), and consider myself to be fairly intelligent.
Most who are familiar with the system would also agree that INTPs tend to exhibit traits typically viewed as "intelligent.
" However, I am constantly reminding my girlfriend, who is an ISFJ (a "Nurturer") that she is a very intelligent person.
She seems to have an ingrained notion that she is less intelligent than others around her, and a general lack of self-confidence when it comes to intellectual pursuits.
She is actually much better than I am at various mental tasks, specifically factual memory, recalling dates, multitasking, numbers, etc.
My understanding is that the same societal and environmental influences which contribute to the development of one's personality are the same that give that person their sense of self-understanding, and transitively their sense of self-worth and intelligence.
I may have a more developed "intuition" trait, which allows me to make conceptual connections very easily (ie.
inventing, engineering, programming), but I will never be quite as good at recalling dates, or at being very aware of my immediate surroundings as she is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347878</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1260108120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Ironically, civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.</i> <br> <br>Political correctness was invented by the conservatives to make a boogie man.  <i> <br> <br>Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99\% of the inventing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Furthermore, in many situations in real life, it's usually a male co-worker that invents a new solution to a technical problem. IQ tests can only measure the ability of a person's brain to apply existing, canned solutions to problems.</i> <br> <br>And just think what would have happened if the brain power of the women wasn't wasted by culture keeping them uneducated and out of the workplace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology .
Political correctness was invented by the conservatives to make a boogie man .
Anyways , as far as I know , men have done around 95-99 \ % of the inventing .
Correct me if I 'm wrong .
Furthermore , in many situations in real life , it 's usually a male co-worker that invents a new solution to a technical problem .
IQ tests can only measure the ability of a person 's brain to apply existing , canned solutions to problems .
And just think what would have happened if the brain power of the women was n't wasted by culture keeping them uneducated and out of the workplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.
Political correctness was invented by the conservatives to make a boogie man.
Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99\% of the inventing.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Furthermore, in many situations in real life, it's usually a male co-worker that invents a new solution to a technical problem.
IQ tests can only measure the ability of a person's brain to apply existing, canned solutions to problems.
And just think what would have happened if the brain power of the women wasn't wasted by culture keeping them uneducated and out of the workplace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350186</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260218580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IQ tests are calibrated to have an outcome that presents a predefined concept of what normal intelligence is.  Some kinds questions males tend to better on and vice versa -- the IQ test creators make the mix evens the scores out. I.e., the questions are intentionally rigged to show women are as smart as men.  In other words claiming that men and women are equally intelligent based on their average I.Q. scores is basically circular logic.</p><p>People's impressions about gender intelligence are not similarly calibrated.  However, perception is clearly affected by observed active risk taking and leadership (more male behaviors) supported by confirmation bias.  So clearly perception based intelligence estimates are nearly worthless.</p><p>IMHO, the only real way to test intelligence is to put equally trained people in mentally challenging situations (like flying a space shuttle) and measure how many incidental errors or problems are correctly solved by the participants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IQ tests are calibrated to have an outcome that presents a predefined concept of what normal intelligence is .
Some kinds questions males tend to better on and vice versa -- the IQ test creators make the mix evens the scores out .
I.e. , the questions are intentionally rigged to show women are as smart as men .
In other words claiming that men and women are equally intelligent based on their average I.Q .
scores is basically circular logic.People 's impressions about gender intelligence are not similarly calibrated .
However , perception is clearly affected by observed active risk taking and leadership ( more male behaviors ) supported by confirmation bias .
So clearly perception based intelligence estimates are nearly worthless.IMHO , the only real way to test intelligence is to put equally trained people in mentally challenging situations ( like flying a space shuttle ) and measure how many incidental errors or problems are correctly solved by the participants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IQ tests are calibrated to have an outcome that presents a predefined concept of what normal intelligence is.
Some kinds questions males tend to better on and vice versa -- the IQ test creators make the mix evens the scores out.
I.e., the questions are intentionally rigged to show women are as smart as men.
In other words claiming that men and women are equally intelligent based on their average I.Q.
scores is basically circular logic.People's impressions about gender intelligence are not similarly calibrated.
However, perception is clearly affected by observed active risk taking and leadership (more male behaviors) supported by confirmation bias.
So clearly perception based intelligence estimates are nearly worthless.IMHO, the only real way to test intelligence is to put equally trained people in mentally challenging situations (like flying a space shuttle) and measure how many incidental errors or problems are correctly solved by the participants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350116</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>shiftless</author>
	<datestamp>1260217560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Good luck getting a cop to take a report.</i></p><p>Cops never have a problem taking a report, it's the actual investigation and doing something about it they always skip out on. It doesn't matter if you've been "abused" or if your house was robbed and car stolen, if you rely on the police to fix your problems then you are bound to be disappointed.</p><p><i>Is this intended as an excuse?</i></p><p>I don't think it was, but I'll go ahead and say it. If you, as as an able bodied man, allow yourself to be beaten by a woman, then you are a pussy. No man or woman will respect you. You <b>deserve</b> to have your ass kicked for being a disgrace to your gender and mankind in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck getting a cop to take a report.Cops never have a problem taking a report , it 's the actual investigation and doing something about it they always skip out on .
It does n't matter if you 've been " abused " or if your house was robbed and car stolen , if you rely on the police to fix your problems then you are bound to be disappointed.Is this intended as an excuse ? I do n't think it was , but I 'll go ahead and say it .
If you , as as an able bodied man , allow yourself to be beaten by a woman , then you are a pussy .
No man or woman will respect you .
You deserve to have your ass kicked for being a disgrace to your gender and mankind in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck getting a cop to take a report.Cops never have a problem taking a report, it's the actual investigation and doing something about it they always skip out on.
It doesn't matter if you've been "abused" or if your house was robbed and car stolen, if you rely on the police to fix your problems then you are bound to be disappointed.Is this intended as an excuse?I don't think it was, but I'll go ahead and say it.
If you, as as an able bodied man, allow yourself to be beaten by a woman, then you are a pussy.
No man or woman will respect you.
You deserve to have your ass kicked for being a disgrace to your gender and mankind in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347136</id>
	<title>I think</title>
	<author>ILongForDarkness</author>
	<datestamp>1260103140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>we go out of our way to always make it sound like the sexes are equal. We can't ever just say a negative we have to find some way of qualifying it. For example the article says that men are better at spatial recognization but then says but women are better at "emotional intelligence". Since when is emotional a type of intelligence? The way I've seen the term used it has been to mean being able to correctly identify what you or others are feeling. Well good for you. It is similar to awarding points for being able to identify smells. "Sure your son is as dumb as a brick but his aroma intelligence is off the charts."
<br>
Also, they can't say that the way an average man thinks makes him more suited for work life and the way a woman thinks makes her more suited for nurturing tasks. When they want to say something like that they have to find a way around it by saying something like "men tend to have a logical/rational thinking process, whereas women tend to have a more empathetic thinking process". emotion != intelligence/reasoning. One is subjective and one is objective. I can reason with you and prove that my ideas are right, however I can't ever prove to you that my feelings are right. One way you are open to being persuaded the other way you just state that you have a right to feel that way and so what you've chosen to do is right.
<br>
These are also obviously averages. I personally think my mother is more intelligent than my father, even though my dad finished highschool and my mother dropped out. Similarly in university I took physics and I think the girls in the class were on average smarter than the guys. This could be due to a selection bias though: for a girl to go into physics she has to overcome the society stereotype that it is a men's profession and women can't do it, so it could lead to only the most gifted women trying the field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we go out of our way to always make it sound like the sexes are equal .
We ca n't ever just say a negative we have to find some way of qualifying it .
For example the article says that men are better at spatial recognization but then says but women are better at " emotional intelligence " .
Since when is emotional a type of intelligence ?
The way I 've seen the term used it has been to mean being able to correctly identify what you or others are feeling .
Well good for you .
It is similar to awarding points for being able to identify smells .
" Sure your son is as dumb as a brick but his aroma intelligence is off the charts .
" Also , they ca n't say that the way an average man thinks makes him more suited for work life and the way a woman thinks makes her more suited for nurturing tasks .
When they want to say something like that they have to find a way around it by saying something like " men tend to have a logical/rational thinking process , whereas women tend to have a more empathetic thinking process " .
emotion ! = intelligence/reasoning .
One is subjective and one is objective .
I can reason with you and prove that my ideas are right , however I ca n't ever prove to you that my feelings are right .
One way you are open to being persuaded the other way you just state that you have a right to feel that way and so what you 've chosen to do is right .
These are also obviously averages .
I personally think my mother is more intelligent than my father , even though my dad finished highschool and my mother dropped out .
Similarly in university I took physics and I think the girls in the class were on average smarter than the guys .
This could be due to a selection bias though : for a girl to go into physics she has to overcome the society stereotype that it is a men 's profession and women ca n't do it , so it could lead to only the most gifted women trying the field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we go out of our way to always make it sound like the sexes are equal.
We can't ever just say a negative we have to find some way of qualifying it.
For example the article says that men are better at spatial recognization but then says but women are better at "emotional intelligence".
Since when is emotional a type of intelligence?
The way I've seen the term used it has been to mean being able to correctly identify what you or others are feeling.
Well good for you.
It is similar to awarding points for being able to identify smells.
"Sure your son is as dumb as a brick but his aroma intelligence is off the charts.
"

Also, they can't say that the way an average man thinks makes him more suited for work life and the way a woman thinks makes her more suited for nurturing tasks.
When they want to say something like that they have to find a way around it by saying something like "men tend to have a logical/rational thinking process, whereas women tend to have a more empathetic thinking process".
emotion != intelligence/reasoning.
One is subjective and one is objective.
I can reason with you and prove that my ideas are right, however I can't ever prove to you that my feelings are right.
One way you are open to being persuaded the other way you just state that you have a right to feel that way and so what you've chosen to do is right.
These are also obviously averages.
I personally think my mother is more intelligent than my father, even though my dad finished highschool and my mother dropped out.
Similarly in university I took physics and I think the girls in the class were on average smarter than the guys.
This could be due to a selection bias though: for a girl to go into physics she has to overcome the society stereotype that it is a men's profession and women can't do it, so it could lead to only the most gifted women trying the field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347352</id>
	<title>basic biology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260104760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this will upset alotta folks, but here goes anyway. This is not SPECIFIC, but speaking in GENERAL terms. Specific individuals can be larger, smarter, more beautiful, ad nauseum.</p><p>Women, on average, are smaller than men. The smaller individuals, male or female, within a species usually fares better by NOT advertising that they are smarter, stronger, quicker, etc. They may be the same as their larger counterparts in almost every way, but will generally try NOT to draw attention to themselves until mating time.</p><p>I do not believe that most women actually believe that their intelligence level is less than that of their male counterparts. I do believe that they have an ingrained, almost instinctual, need to allow others to believe that they genuinely believe that their larger and stronger male counterparts are also smarter. Women flatter men shamelessly to their faces, but if you ever get the chance to listen in to any gaggle of women when they believe there are no men around...well, that's quite an eye-opener.</p><p>Finally, in most western societies, women generally have more control over mate selection than men do. Why would a woman pick a mate she believed was stupid? Even if she did, she is unlikely to admit that she chose poorly until after she has ended the relationship (ex-whatever). There is no advantage to telling the world that your mate is a moron unless you are getting rid of them. All of these factors combined would probably be more than enough to skew the findings of this study severely, if it was done well to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this will upset alotta folks , but here goes anyway .
This is not SPECIFIC , but speaking in GENERAL terms .
Specific individuals can be larger , smarter , more beautiful , ad nauseum.Women , on average , are smaller than men .
The smaller individuals , male or female , within a species usually fares better by NOT advertising that they are smarter , stronger , quicker , etc .
They may be the same as their larger counterparts in almost every way , but will generally try NOT to draw attention to themselves until mating time.I do not believe that most women actually believe that their intelligence level is less than that of their male counterparts .
I do believe that they have an ingrained , almost instinctual , need to allow others to believe that they genuinely believe that their larger and stronger male counterparts are also smarter .
Women flatter men shamelessly to their faces , but if you ever get the chance to listen in to any gaggle of women when they believe there are no men around...well , that 's quite an eye-opener.Finally , in most western societies , women generally have more control over mate selection than men do .
Why would a woman pick a mate she believed was stupid ?
Even if she did , she is unlikely to admit that she chose poorly until after she has ended the relationship ( ex-whatever ) .
There is no advantage to telling the world that your mate is a moron unless you are getting rid of them .
All of these factors combined would probably be more than enough to skew the findings of this study severely , if it was done well to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this will upset alotta folks, but here goes anyway.
This is not SPECIFIC, but speaking in GENERAL terms.
Specific individuals can be larger, smarter, more beautiful, ad nauseum.Women, on average, are smaller than men.
The smaller individuals, male or female, within a species usually fares better by NOT advertising that they are smarter, stronger, quicker, etc.
They may be the same as their larger counterparts in almost every way, but will generally try NOT to draw attention to themselves until mating time.I do not believe that most women actually believe that their intelligence level is less than that of their male counterparts.
I do believe that they have an ingrained, almost instinctual, need to allow others to believe that they genuinely believe that their larger and stronger male counterparts are also smarter.
Women flatter men shamelessly to their faces, but if you ever get the chance to listen in to any gaggle of women when they believe there are no men around...well, that's quite an eye-opener.Finally, in most western societies, women generally have more control over mate selection than men do.
Why would a woman pick a mate she believed was stupid?
Even if she did, she is unlikely to admit that she chose poorly until after she has ended the relationship (ex-whatever).
There is no advantage to telling the world that your mate is a moron unless you are getting rid of them.
All of these factors combined would probably be more than enough to skew the findings of this study severely, if it was done well to begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>evanbd</author>
	<datestamp>1260101820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, IQ does a remarkably good job at what it's intended to do: correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence, in the context of a statistical study.  Sure, there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ; on average, though, it works well.</p><p>This is yet another case of people who know what IQ is actually supposed to be used for using it that way, and then the uninformed public complaining that it doesn't perfectly match something else.</p><p>Did you have some alternate metric that this study could have used in place of IQ that would do a better job?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , IQ does a remarkably good job at what it 's intended to do : correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence , in the context of a statistical study .
Sure , there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ ; on average , though , it works well.This is yet another case of people who know what IQ is actually supposed to be used for using it that way , and then the uninformed public complaining that it does n't perfectly match something else.Did you have some alternate metric that this study could have used in place of IQ that would do a better job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, IQ does a remarkably good job at what it's intended to do: correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence, in the context of a statistical study.
Sure, there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ; on average, though, it works well.This is yet another case of people who know what IQ is actually supposed to be used for using it that way, and then the uninformed public complaining that it doesn't perfectly match something else.Did you have some alternate metric that this study could have used in place of IQ that would do a better job?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346732</id>
	<title>Women have better observational skills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260100200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Women underestimating their intelligence proves their own theory while us males overestimating our intelligence also proves their theories. Another case where women are always right even when they are wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Women underestimating their intelligence proves their own theory while us males overestimating our intelligence also proves their theories .
Another case where women are always right even when they are wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women underestimating their intelligence proves their own theory while us males overestimating our intelligence also proves their theories.
Another case where women are always right even when they are wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351250</id>
	<title>IQ is "normed" to be 100 for men and women</title>
	<author>RobinH</author>
	<datestamp>1260189360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the point of saying that men and women have equal IQs?  IQ tests were designed so the average IQ is 100 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence\_quotient#Sex\_.28Gender.29" title="wikipedia.org">across genders</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><blockquote><div><p>IQ tests are weighted on these sex differences so there is no bias on average in favor of one sex, however the consistent difference in variance is not removed. <strong>Because the tests are defined so there is no average difference</strong> it is difficult to put any meaning on a statement that one sex has a higher intelligence than the other.</p></div></blockquote><p>(Emphasis mine.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the point of saying that men and women have equal IQs ?
IQ tests were designed so the average IQ is 100 across genders [ wikipedia.org ] .IQ tests are weighted on these sex differences so there is no bias on average in favor of one sex , however the consistent difference in variance is not removed .
Because the tests are defined so there is no average difference it is difficult to put any meaning on a statement that one sex has a higher intelligence than the other .
( Emphasis mine .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the point of saying that men and women have equal IQs?
IQ tests were designed so the average IQ is 100 across genders [wikipedia.org].IQ tests are weighted on these sex differences so there is no bias on average in favor of one sex, however the consistent difference in variance is not removed.
Because the tests are defined so there is no average difference it is difficult to put any meaning on a statement that one sex has a higher intelligence than the other.
(Emphasis mine.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348690</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260115200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please. Men are on average about 12kg larger than women and are much more prone to spousal abuse - It's because of men that domestic violence is framed as a women's issue. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, women are <a href="http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html" title="umn.edu" rel="nofollow">7 to 10 times more likely to be injured during an act of violence,</a> [umn.edu] while men commit 90\% of domestic homicides, and before you start complaining about the unfair treatment men get from public institutions, maybe you should have taken the time to find out that women are much more likely to be convicted for murdering their spouses than men. </p><p>Also, could you please cite statistics for the "commonly shocking occurrence" of women tricking men into raising children that arent' their own, especially in regards to the other "shockingly common occurrence" of men skipping town after getting their partner pregnant? Or women forced to raise children conceived by rape - how's that for "having no say in how the pregnancy turns out"? Just try to tell me with a straight face that men get raped by women as much as women get raped by men. You mentioned molested boys, but do you really think that it's women that are abusing them?</p><p>Your indignation at Americans not taking "men's issues seriously" and then citing examples like rape and domestic violence is absurd since those areas in particular lay bare the fact that men and women's issues are inherently different. If anything, Americans elevate "men's issues" (crime, unemployment, war) disproportionately over other pressing issues, like equality, which you seem to have a seething disdain for (is your solution to racism for minorities to "grow up and take responsibility for all the crap they do" to white people?). Nice straw man, but your meaningless call for women to "as a group decide to grow up" is childish especially since all the "crap" you mentioned is a much worse problem for women.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please .
Men are on average about 12kg larger than women and are much more prone to spousal abuse - It 's because of men that domestic violence is framed as a women 's issue .
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured during an act of violence , [ umn.edu ] while men commit 90 \ % of domestic homicides , and before you start complaining about the unfair treatment men get from public institutions , maybe you should have taken the time to find out that women are much more likely to be convicted for murdering their spouses than men .
Also , could you please cite statistics for the " commonly shocking occurrence " of women tricking men into raising children that arent ' their own , especially in regards to the other " shockingly common occurrence " of men skipping town after getting their partner pregnant ?
Or women forced to raise children conceived by rape - how 's that for " having no say in how the pregnancy turns out " ?
Just try to tell me with a straight face that men get raped by women as much as women get raped by men .
You mentioned molested boys , but do you really think that it 's women that are abusing them ? Your indignation at Americans not taking " men 's issues seriously " and then citing examples like rape and domestic violence is absurd since those areas in particular lay bare the fact that men and women 's issues are inherently different .
If anything , Americans elevate " men 's issues " ( crime , unemployment , war ) disproportionately over other pressing issues , like equality , which you seem to have a seething disdain for ( is your solution to racism for minorities to " grow up and take responsibility for all the crap they do " to white people ? ) .
Nice straw man , but your meaningless call for women to " as a group decide to grow up " is childish especially since all the " crap " you mentioned is a much worse problem for women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please.
Men are on average about 12kg larger than women and are much more prone to spousal abuse - It's because of men that domestic violence is framed as a women's issue.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured during an act of violence, [umn.edu] while men commit 90\% of domestic homicides, and before you start complaining about the unfair treatment men get from public institutions, maybe you should have taken the time to find out that women are much more likely to be convicted for murdering their spouses than men.
Also, could you please cite statistics for the "commonly shocking occurrence" of women tricking men into raising children that arent' their own, especially in regards to the other "shockingly common occurrence" of men skipping town after getting their partner pregnant?
Or women forced to raise children conceived by rape - how's that for "having no say in how the pregnancy turns out"?
Just try to tell me with a straight face that men get raped by women as much as women get raped by men.
You mentioned molested boys, but do you really think that it's women that are abusing them?Your indignation at Americans not taking "men's issues seriously" and then citing examples like rape and domestic violence is absurd since those areas in particular lay bare the fact that men and women's issues are inherently different.
If anything, Americans elevate "men's issues" (crime, unemployment, war) disproportionately over other pressing issues, like equality, which you seem to have a seething disdain for (is your solution to racism for minorities to "grow up and take responsibility for all the crap they do" to white people?).
Nice straw man, but your meaningless call for women to "as a group decide to grow up" is childish especially since all the "crap" you mentioned is a much worse problem for women.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354078</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260206160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1...</p></div><div><p>I await in eager anticipation.</p></div></blockquote></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1...I await in eager anticipation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1...I await in eager anticipation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354640</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>hazah</author>
	<datestamp>1260208380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife has a good 5 inches on me (height).</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife has a good 5 inches on me ( height ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife has a good 5 inches on me (height).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348370</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1260112080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummm... no. You're wrong. Absolutely fucking retardedly wrong. Women breed MUCH more often than men, and much more successfully. We wouldn't exist as a species if most women didn't successfully reproduce:<br>
<a href="http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/" title="nytimes.com">http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/</a> [nytimes.com] <br> <br>
Really... killing most women before 30? Where did that stupidity come from? Childbirth did not oppress women. Men died by the scores in wars, and just general work, much more so as a percentage of the population than women did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... no. You 're wrong .
Absolutely fucking retardedly wrong .
Women breed MUCH more often than men , and much more successfully .
We would n't exist as a species if most women did n't successfully reproduce : http : //tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/ [ nytimes.com ] Really... killing most women before 30 ?
Where did that stupidity come from ?
Childbirth did not oppress women .
Men died by the scores in wars , and just general work , much more so as a percentage of the population than women did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... no. You're wrong.
Absolutely fucking retardedly wrong.
Women breed MUCH more often than men, and much more successfully.
We wouldn't exist as a species if most women didn't successfully reproduce:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/ [nytimes.com]  
Really... killing most women before 30?
Where did that stupidity come from?
Childbirth did not oppress women.
Men died by the scores in wars, and just general work, much more so as a percentage of the population than women did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348978</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260118140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is Crime, Unemployment, and War a male problem? I believe those issues affect women too. I am sure African American Males as well as Females saw equality as not only a female problem. Stop spewing your anti-male bullshit here. Your whole argument just sounds like "Men do bad things so you deserve it" crap. It's because of people like you that social problems are segregated between genders rather than a problem between people as a whole. I love how when a male goes and tells females to "grow up" they are seen as a sexist but how many times have I heard that men need to grow up from people like you because society allows you to talk shit about Men and get away with it.</p><p>And before you start responding back with your venomous tone think about this. Do you really think that the Men AND Women at the top 1\% of the wealth pyramid give 2 shits? They are laughing at both sides. It's people like you who think that equality is "Lets take what happened before and reverse it".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is Crime , Unemployment , and War a male problem ?
I believe those issues affect women too .
I am sure African American Males as well as Females saw equality as not only a female problem .
Stop spewing your anti-male bullshit here .
Your whole argument just sounds like " Men do bad things so you deserve it " crap .
It 's because of people like you that social problems are segregated between genders rather than a problem between people as a whole .
I love how when a male goes and tells females to " grow up " they are seen as a sexist but how many times have I heard that men need to grow up from people like you because society allows you to talk shit about Men and get away with it.And before you start responding back with your venomous tone think about this .
Do you really think that the Men AND Women at the top 1 \ % of the wealth pyramid give 2 shits ?
They are laughing at both sides .
It 's people like you who think that equality is " Lets take what happened before and reverse it " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is Crime, Unemployment, and War a male problem?
I believe those issues affect women too.
I am sure African American Males as well as Females saw equality as not only a female problem.
Stop spewing your anti-male bullshit here.
Your whole argument just sounds like "Men do bad things so you deserve it" crap.
It's because of people like you that social problems are segregated between genders rather than a problem between people as a whole.
I love how when a male goes and tells females to "grow up" they are seen as a sexist but how many times have I heard that men need to grow up from people like you because society allows you to talk shit about Men and get away with it.And before you start responding back with your venomous tone think about this.
Do you really think that the Men AND Women at the top 1\% of the wealth pyramid give 2 shits?
They are laughing at both sides.
It's people like you who think that equality is "Lets take what happened before and reverse it".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347306</id>
	<title>Important for gender roles.</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260104340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order for a culture to be sustainable across many generations, it absolutely must maintain a rate of population growth that is competitive with other cultures.  Since, try as they might, men still just don't seem to be able to birth as many children as women birth, some specialization of labor is unavoidable.  Women are also hormonally predisposed for superhuman patience, kindness, multitasking abilities, and other faculties necessary for raising children,  while men have evolved to have, on average, a greater spirit of materialistic achievement, beer consumption, upper body strength, and other skills essential to "bring home the bacon".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for a culture to be sustainable across many generations , it absolutely must maintain a rate of population growth that is competitive with other cultures .
Since , try as they might , men still just do n't seem to be able to birth as many children as women birth , some specialization of labor is unavoidable .
Women are also hormonally predisposed for superhuman patience , kindness , multitasking abilities , and other faculties necessary for raising children , while men have evolved to have , on average , a greater spirit of materialistic achievement , beer consumption , upper body strength , and other skills essential to " bring home the bacon " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order for a culture to be sustainable across many generations, it absolutely must maintain a rate of population growth that is competitive with other cultures.
Since, try as they might, men still just don't seem to be able to birth as many children as women birth, some specialization of labor is unavoidable.
Women are also hormonally predisposed for superhuman patience, kindness, multitasking abilities, and other faculties necessary for raising children,  while men have evolved to have, on average, a greater spirit of materialistic achievement, beer consumption, upper body strength, and other skills essential to "bring home the bacon".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349098</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1260119460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intellegence has to have survival ramifications.  In the early days there is no other explanation how relatively slow, weak men managed to not be eaten into extinction by a wilderness full of fast, strong predators.</p><p>Also, I'm guessing that "the single largest loss of life on US soil" thing is supposed to be read as "the single largest loss of civilian life."  If not, then I agree the statue is ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intellegence has to have survival ramifications .
In the early days there is no other explanation how relatively slow , weak men managed to not be eaten into extinction by a wilderness full of fast , strong predators.Also , I 'm guessing that " the single largest loss of life on US soil " thing is supposed to be read as " the single largest loss of civilian life .
" If not , then I agree the statue is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intellegence has to have survival ramifications.
In the early days there is no other explanation how relatively slow, weak men managed to not be eaten into extinction by a wilderness full of fast, strong predators.Also, I'm guessing that "the single largest loss of life on US soil" thing is supposed to be read as "the single largest loss of civilian life.
"  If not, then I agree the statue is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351546</id>
	<title>Look its this way........</title>
	<author>anticharisma</author>
	<datestamp>1260193440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look, the central fact is obvious: In nature's assigned gender attributes, Mens' core function is to impress women; Womens' core function is to judge men.

Males fight and perform to their best capability and subsequently, the watching females choose the best man. The best man is always the most attractive to females. Men/males compete and women/females choose.

Thats the method by which evolution has manipulated animals and humans alike and it manifests itself in our society as high performing bread-winning men and the women that choose them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , the central fact is obvious : In nature 's assigned gender attributes , Mens ' core function is to impress women ; Womens ' core function is to judge men .
Males fight and perform to their best capability and subsequently , the watching females choose the best man .
The best man is always the most attractive to females .
Men/males compete and women/females choose .
Thats the method by which evolution has manipulated animals and humans alike and it manifests itself in our society as high performing bread-winning men and the women that choose them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, the central fact is obvious: In nature's assigned gender attributes, Mens' core function is to impress women; Womens' core function is to judge men.
Males fight and perform to their best capability and subsequently, the watching females choose the best man.
The best man is always the most attractive to females.
Men/males compete and women/females choose.
Thats the method by which evolution has manipulated animals and humans alike and it manifests itself in our society as high performing bread-winning men and the women that choose them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348428</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>i\_liek\_turtles</author>
	<datestamp>1260112560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has it ever occurred to you that women being perceived as the weaker, more helpless sex might be one of the sources of your not being taken seriously as an abused male, especially if the abuse was perpetrated by a woman?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has it ever occurred to you that women being perceived as the weaker , more helpless sex might be one of the sources of your not being taken seriously as an abused male , especially if the abuse was perpetrated by a woman ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has it ever occurred to you that women being perceived as the weaker, more helpless sex might be one of the sources of your not being taken seriously as an abused male, especially if the abuse was perpetrated by a woman?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352458</id>
	<title>flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260198840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...further proof that the IQ test is flawed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...further proof that the IQ test is flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...further proof that the IQ test is flawed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346788</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1260100620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You fell into the trap and pattern of sounding like a bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You fell into the trap and pattern of sounding like a bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You fell into the trap and pattern of sounding like a bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349274</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1260121200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.</p></div><p>Except that large brains are <em>expensive</em> (large energy requirements, cause a bit of difficulty with giving birth), so if they didn't give a significant advantage we should have been out-competed and died out by the stone age. Now, maybe it's a <em>collective</em> advantage rather than individual (nerds don't get laid / can't defend themselves, but can be doctors or design weapons), at least at today's human intelligence levels...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.Except that large brains are expensive ( large energy requirements , cause a bit of difficulty with giving birth ) , so if they did n't give a significant advantage we should have been out-competed and died out by the stone age .
Now , maybe it 's a collective advantage rather than individual ( nerds do n't get laid / ca n't defend themselves , but can be doctors or design weapons ) , at least at today 's human intelligence levels.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.Except that large brains are expensive (large energy requirements, cause a bit of difficulty with giving birth), so if they didn't give a significant advantage we should have been out-competed and died out by the stone age.
Now, maybe it's a collective advantage rather than individual (nerds don't get laid / can't defend themselves, but can be doctors or design weapons), at least at today's human intelligence levels...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356870</id>
	<title>Re:Different intelligence:</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1260219000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You live in the basement don't you?  Emotional intelligence is only less valuable if you don't want to interact with other real people, face to face.  If you value human interaction, it holds value.  Monetary value isn't the only type of value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You live in the basement do n't you ?
Emotional intelligence is only less valuable if you do n't want to interact with other real people , face to face .
If you value human interaction , it holds value .
Monetary value is n't the only type of value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You live in the basement don't you?
Emotional intelligence is only less valuable if you don't want to interact with other real people, face to face.
If you value human interaction, it holds value.
Monetary value isn't the only type of value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349616</id>
	<title>Nurture vs Nature</title>
	<author>friedfrank</author>
	<datestamp>1260124800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It appears that nature has a lot more to do with gender roles than society does:

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452921" title="nih.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452921</a> [nih.gov]

I couldn't believe it either, but monkeys seem to have the same toy preferences that little boys are girls do.

Abstract:<p><div class="quote"><p>Sex differences in toy preferences in children are marked, with boys expressing stronger and more rigid toy preferences than girls, whose preferences are more flexible. Socialization processes, parents, or peers encouraging play with gender-specific toys are thought to be the primary force shaping sex differences in toy preference. A contrast in view is that toy preferences reflect biologically-determined preferences for specific activities facilitated by specific toys. Sex differences in juvenile activities, such as rough-and-tumble play, peer preferences, and infant interest, share similarities in humans and monkeys. Thus if activity preferences shape toy preferences, male and female monkeys may show toy preferences similar to those seen in boys and girls. We compared the interactions of 34 rhesus monkeys, living within a 135 monkey troop, with human wheeled toys and plush toys. Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences. Thus, the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females. The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization. We offer the hypothesis that toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and cognitive biases which are sculpted by social processes into the sex differences seen in monkeys and humans.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears that nature has a lot more to do with gender roles than society does : http : //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452921 [ nih.gov ] I could n't believe it either , but monkeys seem to have the same toy preferences that little boys are girls do .
Abstract : Sex differences in toy preferences in children are marked , with boys expressing stronger and more rigid toy preferences than girls , whose preferences are more flexible .
Socialization processes , parents , or peers encouraging play with gender-specific toys are thought to be the primary force shaping sex differences in toy preference .
A contrast in view is that toy preferences reflect biologically-determined preferences for specific activities facilitated by specific toys .
Sex differences in juvenile activities , such as rough-and-tumble play , peer preferences , and infant interest , share similarities in humans and monkeys .
Thus if activity preferences shape toy preferences , male and female monkeys may show toy preferences similar to those seen in boys and girls .
We compared the interactions of 34 rhesus monkeys , living within a 135 monkey troop , with human wheeled toys and plush toys .
Male monkeys , like boys , showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys , while female monkeys , like girls , showed greater variability in preferences .
Thus , the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females .
The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization .
We offer the hypothesis that toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and cognitive biases which are sculpted by social processes into the sex differences seen in monkeys and humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears that nature has a lot more to do with gender roles than society does:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18452921 [nih.gov]

I couldn't believe it either, but monkeys seem to have the same toy preferences that little boys are girls do.
Abstract:Sex differences in toy preferences in children are marked, with boys expressing stronger and more rigid toy preferences than girls, whose preferences are more flexible.
Socialization processes, parents, or peers encouraging play with gender-specific toys are thought to be the primary force shaping sex differences in toy preference.
A contrast in view is that toy preferences reflect biologically-determined preferences for specific activities facilitated by specific toys.
Sex differences in juvenile activities, such as rough-and-tumble play, peer preferences, and infant interest, share similarities in humans and monkeys.
Thus if activity preferences shape toy preferences, male and female monkeys may show toy preferences similar to those seen in boys and girls.
We compared the interactions of 34 rhesus monkeys, living within a 135 monkey troop, with human wheeled toys and plush toys.
Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences.
Thus, the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females.
The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization.
We offer the hypothesis that toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and cognitive biases which are sculpted by social processes into the sex differences seen in monkeys and humans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347630</id>
	<title>Where's the data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260106680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a BS article (but what do you expect from Newsweek).  The "researcher" doesn't even answer half the questions, but goes off on tangents.  There is only mention of "on average" with no discussion of how the data is distributed.  This idiot probably just thew the data in Excel's "average" and "stddev" functions  without even looking to see what kind of distribution it might be.  Given the types of differences in upbringings that lead to self perception issues, I'd expect at least a bimodal distribution, if not something more non-Gaussian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a BS article ( but what do you expect from Newsweek ) .
The " researcher " does n't even answer half the questions , but goes off on tangents .
There is only mention of " on average " with no discussion of how the data is distributed .
This idiot probably just thew the data in Excel 's " average " and " stddev " functions without even looking to see what kind of distribution it might be .
Given the types of differences in upbringings that lead to self perception issues , I 'd expect at least a bimodal distribution , if not something more non-Gaussian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a BS article (but what do you expect from Newsweek).
The "researcher" doesn't even answer half the questions, but goes off on tangents.
There is only mention of "on average" with no discussion of how the data is distributed.
This idiot probably just thew the data in Excel's "average" and "stddev" functions  without even looking to see what kind of distribution it might be.
Given the types of differences in upbringings that lead to self perception issues, I'd expect at least a bimodal distribution, if not something more non-Gaussian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347242</id>
	<title>Re:Different intelligence:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260103920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Men generally fared well in the more science and maths based questions, while women fared significantly better at sociology and understanding emotions in others.</p></div><p>Unfortunately for women, emotional intelligence doesn't build rocket ships.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Men generally fared well in the more science and maths based questions , while women fared significantly better at sociology and understanding emotions in others.Unfortunately for women , emotional intelligence does n't build rocket ships .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Men generally fared well in the more science and maths based questions, while women fared significantly better at sociology and understanding emotions in others.Unfortunately for women, emotional intelligence doesn't build rocket ships.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30357336</id>
	<title>Re:Intelligence is over-rated</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1260178200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about chronic addicts? What about persons that suffer from Down syndrome? What about people with Alzheimer?</p><p>I'm rather compelled to live in the world you are living in, where each and every person has something of intelligence about them. Unfortunately I think it requires wearing pink colored glasses.</p><p>Not everybody's brain has evolved in such a way that it is suitable to solve problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about chronic addicts ?
What about persons that suffer from Down syndrome ?
What about people with Alzheimer ? I 'm rather compelled to live in the world you are living in , where each and every person has something of intelligence about them .
Unfortunately I think it requires wearing pink colored glasses.Not everybody 's brain has evolved in such a way that it is suitable to solve problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about chronic addicts?
What about persons that suffer from Down syndrome?
What about people with Alzheimer?I'm rather compelled to live in the world you are living in, where each and every person has something of intelligence about them.
Unfortunately I think it requires wearing pink colored glasses.Not everybody's brain has evolved in such a way that it is suitable to solve problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347506</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>caluml</author>
	<datestamp>1260105840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.flagworld.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bernie-slavica-ecclestone.jpg" title="flagworld.com">Unless they're billionaires.</a> [flagworld.com] What's that? She's with him for his looks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they 're billionaires .
[ flagworld.com ] What 's that ?
She 's with him for his looks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they're billionaires.
[flagworld.com] What's that?
She's with him for his looks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348038</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260109380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IQ is more a measure of your 'working' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topics, it doesn't necessarily to what a person would call 'intelligent'. Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.</p></div><p>That he is smarter than most people who voted for him is not that hard to believe, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IQ is more a measure of your 'working ' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topics , it does n't necessarily to what a person would call 'intelligent' .
Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ ( well at least 120 + ) yet , outwardly at least , he may not seem it.That he is smarter than most people who voted for him is not that hard to believe , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IQ is more a measure of your 'working' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topics, it doesn't necessarily to what a person would call 'intelligent'.
Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.That he is smarter than most people who voted for him is not that hard to believe, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798</id>
	<title>Different intelligence:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260100680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recall reading an article earlier (no idea where it is now) that looked at exactly what the different genders "know" and are "smart at". Men generally fared well in the more science and maths based questions, while women fared significantly better at sociology and understanding emotions in others. Assuming this is true (and it seems accurate based on the people I know) then this may support the "men think they are smarter article". People generally associate intelligence with the sciences, while paying less detail to other parts that make up a persons intelligence. <b>I would say that if the association with sciences and intelligence wasn't there, women would certainly see themselves as being quite smart.</b> After all, how many women would say "oh, yes, my partner is so much better than me when dealing with an emotional crisis over the phone" and by the same token, not many males would say "My partner is certainly smarter than me, she knew just the right thing to say when I was arguing with my brother...".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall reading an article earlier ( no idea where it is now ) that looked at exactly what the different genders " know " and are " smart at " .
Men generally fared well in the more science and maths based questions , while women fared significantly better at sociology and understanding emotions in others .
Assuming this is true ( and it seems accurate based on the people I know ) then this may support the " men think they are smarter article " .
People generally associate intelligence with the sciences , while paying less detail to other parts that make up a persons intelligence .
I would say that if the association with sciences and intelligence was n't there , women would certainly see themselves as being quite smart .
After all , how many women would say " oh , yes , my partner is so much better than me when dealing with an emotional crisis over the phone " and by the same token , not many males would say " My partner is certainly smarter than me , she knew just the right thing to say when I was arguing with my brother... " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall reading an article earlier (no idea where it is now) that looked at exactly what the different genders "know" and are "smart at".
Men generally fared well in the more science and maths based questions, while women fared significantly better at sociology and understanding emotions in others.
Assuming this is true (and it seems accurate based on the people I know) then this may support the "men think they are smarter article".
People generally associate intelligence with the sciences, while paying less detail to other parts that make up a persons intelligence.
I would say that if the association with sciences and intelligence wasn't there, women would certainly see themselves as being quite smart.
After all, how many women would say "oh, yes, my partner is so much better than me when dealing with an emotional crisis over the phone" and by the same token, not many males would say "My partner is certainly smarter than me, she knew just the right thing to say when I was arguing with my brother...".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347060</id>
	<title>YUO FAIL IT?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you answered bben many, not the</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you answered bben many , not the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you answered bben many, not the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347104</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>Eevee</author>
	<datestamp>1260102900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Let me see. For eight years, he did whatever he wanted with no regards to what anyone else would say, left the consequences for his successor to clean up, and 'one-upped' his dad by killing off Saddam. His friends made enormous amounts off the government in no-bid contracts that will never be investigated. The administration showed an almost unbelievable amount of utter disregard for the the constitution but never had to face the courts. Yep, that sounds like he was too stupid to plan things out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ ( well at least 120 + ) yet , outwardly at least , he may not seem it.Let me see .
For eight years , he did whatever he wanted with no regards to what anyone else would say , left the consequences for his successor to clean up , and 'one-upped ' his dad by killing off Saddam .
His friends made enormous amounts off the government in no-bid contracts that will never be investigated .
The administration showed an almost unbelievable amount of utter disregard for the the constitution but never had to face the courts .
Yep , that sounds like he was too stupid to plan things out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.Let me see.
For eight years, he did whatever he wanted with no regards to what anyone else would say, left the consequences for his successor to clean up, and 'one-upped' his dad by killing off Saddam.
His friends made enormous amounts off the government in no-bid contracts that will never be investigated.
The administration showed an almost unbelievable amount of utter disregard for the the constitution but never had to face the courts.
Yep, that sounds like he was too stupid to plan things out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349682</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>mackyrae</author>
	<datestamp>1260125640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The patriarchy does harm men, yes.  Without the patriarchy, more men would be willing to admit that they'd been beaten, and other men wouldn't ridicule them "for being beat up by a girl."  Until it's ok for men to admit that they'd been beaten by a woman and not suffer for it, this won't change.  Think about that next time you say or hear someone say "dude, I can't believe that bitch owned you!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patriarchy does harm men , yes .
Without the patriarchy , more men would be willing to admit that they 'd been beaten , and other men would n't ridicule them " for being beat up by a girl .
" Until it 's ok for men to admit that they 'd been beaten by a woman and not suffer for it , this wo n't change .
Think about that next time you say or hear someone say " dude , I ca n't believe that bitch owned you !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patriarchy does harm men, yes.
Without the patriarchy, more men would be willing to admit that they'd been beaten, and other men wouldn't ridicule them "for being beat up by a girl.
"  Until it's ok for men to admit that they'd been beaten by a woman and not suffer for it, this won't change.
Think about that next time you say or hear someone say "dude, I can't believe that bitch owned you!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346944</id>
	<title>Hmm. Maybe a woman conducted the study.</title>
	<author>jmbeck15</author>
	<datestamp>1260101760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not that I think you intentionally screwed up the results, darling. It's just I'd feel better if a man looked over the numbers real quick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that I think you intentionally screwed up the results , darling .
It 's just I 'd feel better if a man looked over the numbers real quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that I think you intentionally screwed up the results, darling.
It's just I'd feel better if a man looked over the numbers real quick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347730</id>
	<title>The problem with IQ testing...</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1260107340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are different sets of mental abilities that people of both genders have, and while some people will be very strong in some, they also can end up very weak in others.    It is also the perception of the word "intelligent" that can also differ from person to person, or from ethnic group to ethnic group.    As a result, you can have people who score very high in certain types of tests, yet if you throw them into an unusual situation, they won't have the slightest idea how to handle it.</p><p>The ability to come up with solutions to different problems is the perfect example of this.   You can take someone with amazing abilities in mathematics or physics, but they might not be able to come up with a good solution on how to improve the functional efficiency of a business, group, or come up with other solutions outside their area of expertise.   In this regard, their high intelligence is limited to a narrow area.</p><p>Being able to evaluate problems with systems of doing things may also be an area where people considered to be intelligent might have trouble, but at the same time they can handle very advanced scientific problems quickly and easily.      A part of this is that people tend to either focus on specifics, or generalities.   While some will really dig deep to find a detailed solution to a problem thrown at them, others will look at the situation from a "big picture" perspective and figure out a USE for what the detail oriented people come up with.   Women and men both have the ability to fall into either group, but this idea that intelligence can be easily evaluated without looking at other mental strengths and weaknesses of the individual is what is flawed.</p><p>You can also break things down into areas such as memorization ability, the ability and speed to learn a new concept, and the ability to analyze and apply knowledge to various very different situations.    If you take some Math majors from MIT and try to throw them into a situation that calls for a solution that does not call for a mathematical solution, would they be able to find the solution?    Knowledge and Wisdom.....one is how much a person knows and can recall, and the other is the application of knowledge.   One without the other tends to be fairly useless, but without wisdom, knowledge becomes useless.    How many people do YOU consider to be idiots because they can't come up with good solutions to problems, even though they have very obvious mental strengths?    It also requires a certain type of thinking to see systematic flaws in different areas, and it is unfortunate that many people don't understand this.</p><p>And finally, it takes the cooperation of DIFFERENT people with different mental strengths to come up with solutions to many things.   The problem is that too many people fail to see their own weaknesses, and where they NEED the help of people with a very different way of approaching problem solving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are different sets of mental abilities that people of both genders have , and while some people will be very strong in some , they also can end up very weak in others .
It is also the perception of the word " intelligent " that can also differ from person to person , or from ethnic group to ethnic group .
As a result , you can have people who score very high in certain types of tests , yet if you throw them into an unusual situation , they wo n't have the slightest idea how to handle it.The ability to come up with solutions to different problems is the perfect example of this .
You can take someone with amazing abilities in mathematics or physics , but they might not be able to come up with a good solution on how to improve the functional efficiency of a business , group , or come up with other solutions outside their area of expertise .
In this regard , their high intelligence is limited to a narrow area.Being able to evaluate problems with systems of doing things may also be an area where people considered to be intelligent might have trouble , but at the same time they can handle very advanced scientific problems quickly and easily .
A part of this is that people tend to either focus on specifics , or generalities .
While some will really dig deep to find a detailed solution to a problem thrown at them , others will look at the situation from a " big picture " perspective and figure out a USE for what the detail oriented people come up with .
Women and men both have the ability to fall into either group , but this idea that intelligence can be easily evaluated without looking at other mental strengths and weaknesses of the individual is what is flawed.You can also break things down into areas such as memorization ability , the ability and speed to learn a new concept , and the ability to analyze and apply knowledge to various very different situations .
If you take some Math majors from MIT and try to throw them into a situation that calls for a solution that does not call for a mathematical solution , would they be able to find the solution ?
Knowledge and Wisdom.....one is how much a person knows and can recall , and the other is the application of knowledge .
One without the other tends to be fairly useless , but without wisdom , knowledge becomes useless .
How many people do YOU consider to be idiots because they ca n't come up with good solutions to problems , even though they have very obvious mental strengths ?
It also requires a certain type of thinking to see systematic flaws in different areas , and it is unfortunate that many people do n't understand this.And finally , it takes the cooperation of DIFFERENT people with different mental strengths to come up with solutions to many things .
The problem is that too many people fail to see their own weaknesses , and where they NEED the help of people with a very different way of approaching problem solving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are different sets of mental abilities that people of both genders have, and while some people will be very strong in some, they also can end up very weak in others.
It is also the perception of the word "intelligent" that can also differ from person to person, or from ethnic group to ethnic group.
As a result, you can have people who score very high in certain types of tests, yet if you throw them into an unusual situation, they won't have the slightest idea how to handle it.The ability to come up with solutions to different problems is the perfect example of this.
You can take someone with amazing abilities in mathematics or physics, but they might not be able to come up with a good solution on how to improve the functional efficiency of a business, group, or come up with other solutions outside their area of expertise.
In this regard, their high intelligence is limited to a narrow area.Being able to evaluate problems with systems of doing things may also be an area where people considered to be intelligent might have trouble, but at the same time they can handle very advanced scientific problems quickly and easily.
A part of this is that people tend to either focus on specifics, or generalities.
While some will really dig deep to find a detailed solution to a problem thrown at them, others will look at the situation from a "big picture" perspective and figure out a USE for what the detail oriented people come up with.
Women and men both have the ability to fall into either group, but this idea that intelligence can be easily evaluated without looking at other mental strengths and weaknesses of the individual is what is flawed.You can also break things down into areas such as memorization ability, the ability and speed to learn a new concept, and the ability to analyze and apply knowledge to various very different situations.
If you take some Math majors from MIT and try to throw them into a situation that calls for a solution that does not call for a mathematical solution, would they be able to find the solution?
Knowledge and Wisdom.....one is how much a person knows and can recall, and the other is the application of knowledge.
One without the other tends to be fairly useless, but without wisdom, knowledge becomes useless.
How many people do YOU consider to be idiots because they can't come up with good solutions to problems, even though they have very obvious mental strengths?
It also requires a certain type of thinking to see systematic flaws in different areas, and it is unfortunate that many people don't understand this.And finally, it takes the cooperation of DIFFERENT people with different mental strengths to come up with solutions to many things.
The problem is that too many people fail to see their own weaknesses, and where they NEED the help of people with a very different way of approaching problem solving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349636</id>
	<title>Women would rather work?</title>
	<author>MasaMuneCyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1260124980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what world you live in, but the one I live in, regardless of whether or not they go to school or have a career, most (not all) women eventually want to raise children of their own. In an ideal world, women could raise children AND have a career. We live far away from an ideal world on a place called Earth, where months out of work are a serious setback, and where raising kids well AND dealing with workplace responsibilities is impossible unless you sleep 2 hours a day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what world you live in , but the one I live in , regardless of whether or not they go to school or have a career , most ( not all ) women eventually want to raise children of their own .
In an ideal world , women could raise children AND have a career .
We live far away from an ideal world on a place called Earth , where months out of work are a serious setback , and where raising kids well AND dealing with workplace responsibilities is impossible unless you sleep 2 hours a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what world you live in, but the one I live in, regardless of whether or not they go to school or have a career, most (not all) women eventually want to raise children of their own.
In an ideal world, women could raise children AND have a career.
We live far away from an ideal world on a place called Earth, where months out of work are a serious setback, and where raising kids well AND dealing with workplace responsibilities is impossible unless you sleep 2 hours a day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30381156</id>
	<title>What society says, goes...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1259576760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Women aren't any less intelligent than men, and they think they are less intelligent because they spend their entire lives being told (overtly and subliminally) that the aren't as smart as men.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Women are n't any less intelligent than men , and they think they are less intelligent because they spend their entire lives being told ( overtly and subliminally ) that the are n't as smart as men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women aren't any less intelligent than men, and they think they are less intelligent because they spend their entire lives being told (overtly and subliminally) that the aren't as smart as men.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348524</id>
	<title>Re:The concept of an intelligence measure is absur</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1260113400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With statistics. Is there anything they can't do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With statistics .
Is there anything they ca n't do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With statistics.
Is there anything they can't do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347492</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1260105780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading your post I am forced to conclude that men are actually far stupider than women. At least, I certainly feel stupider after reading that nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading your post I am forced to conclude that men are actually far stupider than women .
At least , I certainly feel stupider after reading that nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading your post I am forced to conclude that men are actually far stupider than women.
At least, I certainly feel stupider after reading that nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353004</id>
	<title>Re:Intelligence is over-rated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...my theory is that everyone is intelligent at least at something."</p><p>That's because you're dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...my theory is that everyone is intelligent at least at something .
" That 's because you 're dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...my theory is that everyone is intelligent at least at something.
"That's because you're dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351312</id>
	<title>DNA studies of children in marriage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260189900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DNA studies of children in marriage show IIRC, over 1/3 of children are of untenable paternity: genetically there's no way the putative dad can be the father.</p><p>You know, for every single man that cheats on his wife, there's a woman involved (excepting same-sex affairs which unless the wife has a sex change is neithers' fault). Either a few women are REALLY slutty or women are just as bad as men.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DNA studies of children in marriage show IIRC , over 1/3 of children are of untenable paternity : genetically there 's no way the putative dad can be the father.You know , for every single man that cheats on his wife , there 's a woman involved ( excepting same-sex affairs which unless the wife has a sex change is neithers ' fault ) .
Either a few women are REALLY slutty or women are just as bad as men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DNA studies of children in marriage show IIRC, over 1/3 of children are of untenable paternity: genetically there's no way the putative dad can be the father.You know, for every single man that cheats on his wife, there's a woman involved (excepting same-sex affairs which unless the wife has a sex change is neithers' fault).
Either a few women are REALLY slutty or women are just as bad as men.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347778</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Trillian\_1138</author>
	<datestamp>1260107640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually don't entirely disagree with your post, but feel the need to object to a few key points. First, something I do agree with:</p><blockquote><div><p>No matter how much some would like to pretend that there is no difference between men and women, it remains a fallacy.</p></div></blockquote><p>Quite honestly, I agree: Looking at a broad, statistical picture, men and women tend to be different.</p><p>Where I strongly object is moving from there to saying that every <i>individual</i> man and woman should conform to those gender roles; shouldn't be allowed to deviate from the statistical average.</p><blockquote><div><p>Gender roles? Since we've spent millions of years LEARNING our gender roles, I see nothing wrong with them. They work. They have ensured the survival of our species all this time.</p><p>Go ahead - mess with the roles, and teach the kids new ways. Tell the little girls that they don't have to be little girls, and little boys don't have to grow up to be men.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And yet, civilization itself is a glorious testament to the idea that we don't always need to fall into the instinctual patterns of behavior that served us so well on the savanna. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman choosing to stay home and raise the kids while her husband goes out and make money, there's nothing wrong with the reverse, either. (Or with a woman staying home while her <i>wife</i> goes out to earn money. Or both partners doing some share of child-raising and money-earning.)</p><p>The point of feminism is <i>not</i> to redefine what men and women are. It's to expand egalitarian ideals. That, maybe, when prejudging individuals based on race, or religion, height, disability, whatever is a poor way to run a society,  that idea should also apply to prejudging men and women.</p><p>And while you're right, there are feminists who claim culture to be 100\% responsible for gender differences, that brand of feminism is falling out of style with younger feminists. Because little girls <i>don't</i> have to grow up to be women, nor little boys men. Most will - almost all, certainly - and that's perfectly fine. But to encourage children to conform, to confine their horizons to what we're "evolved" to expect, seems tragic and an absolutely criminal way to raise a child.</p><p>Quite frankly, it's the same type of thinking that says boys should be out playing "healthy" sports, not inside playing fantasy make-believe with wizards and dragons. It's always easy to redefine what being a "real" man or woman means to suit an individual's values, which is why I so strongly believe that it's a dangerous road to travel to say girls need to be girls and boys need to be boys, end of story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually do n't entirely disagree with your post , but feel the need to object to a few key points .
First , something I do agree with : No matter how much some would like to pretend that there is no difference between men and women , it remains a fallacy.Quite honestly , I agree : Looking at a broad , statistical picture , men and women tend to be different.Where I strongly object is moving from there to saying that every individual man and woman should conform to those gender roles ; should n't be allowed to deviate from the statistical average.Gender roles ?
Since we 've spent millions of years LEARNING our gender roles , I see nothing wrong with them .
They work .
They have ensured the survival of our species all this time.Go ahead - mess with the roles , and teach the kids new ways .
Tell the little girls that they do n't have to be little girls , and little boys do n't have to grow up to be men .
And yet , civilization itself is a glorious testament to the idea that we do n't always need to fall into the instinctual patterns of behavior that served us so well on the savanna .
While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman choosing to stay home and raise the kids while her husband goes out and make money , there 's nothing wrong with the reverse , either .
( Or with a woman staying home while her wife goes out to earn money .
Or both partners doing some share of child-raising and money-earning .
) The point of feminism is not to redefine what men and women are .
It 's to expand egalitarian ideals .
That , maybe , when prejudging individuals based on race , or religion , height , disability , whatever is a poor way to run a society , that idea should also apply to prejudging men and women.And while you 're right , there are feminists who claim culture to be 100 \ % responsible for gender differences , that brand of feminism is falling out of style with younger feminists .
Because little girls do n't have to grow up to be women , nor little boys men .
Most will - almost all , certainly - and that 's perfectly fine .
But to encourage children to conform , to confine their horizons to what we 're " evolved " to expect , seems tragic and an absolutely criminal way to raise a child.Quite frankly , it 's the same type of thinking that says boys should be out playing " healthy " sports , not inside playing fantasy make-believe with wizards and dragons .
It 's always easy to redefine what being a " real " man or woman means to suit an individual 's values , which is why I so strongly believe that it 's a dangerous road to travel to say girls need to be girls and boys need to be boys , end of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually don't entirely disagree with your post, but feel the need to object to a few key points.
First, something I do agree with:No matter how much some would like to pretend that there is no difference between men and women, it remains a fallacy.Quite honestly, I agree: Looking at a broad, statistical picture, men and women tend to be different.Where I strongly object is moving from there to saying that every individual man and woman should conform to those gender roles; shouldn't be allowed to deviate from the statistical average.Gender roles?
Since we've spent millions of years LEARNING our gender roles, I see nothing wrong with them.
They work.
They have ensured the survival of our species all this time.Go ahead - mess with the roles, and teach the kids new ways.
Tell the little girls that they don't have to be little girls, and little boys don't have to grow up to be men.
And yet, civilization itself is a glorious testament to the idea that we don't always need to fall into the instinctual patterns of behavior that served us so well on the savanna.
While there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman choosing to stay home and raise the kids while her husband goes out and make money, there's nothing wrong with the reverse, either.
(Or with a woman staying home while her wife goes out to earn money.
Or both partners doing some share of child-raising and money-earning.
)The point of feminism is not to redefine what men and women are.
It's to expand egalitarian ideals.
That, maybe, when prejudging individuals based on race, or religion, height, disability, whatever is a poor way to run a society,  that idea should also apply to prejudging men and women.And while you're right, there are feminists who claim culture to be 100\% responsible for gender differences, that brand of feminism is falling out of style with younger feminists.
Because little girls don't have to grow up to be women, nor little boys men.
Most will - almost all, certainly - and that's perfectly fine.
But to encourage children to conform, to confine their horizons to what we're "evolved" to expect, seems tragic and an absolutely criminal way to raise a child.Quite frankly, it's the same type of thinking that says boys should be out playing "healthy" sports, not inside playing fantasy make-believe with wizards and dragons.
It's always easy to redefine what being a "real" man or woman means to suit an individual's values, which is why I so strongly believe that it's a dangerous road to travel to say girls need to be girls and boys need to be boys, end of story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347764</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260107580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IQ is more a measure of your 'working' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topics</p></div><p>even that is in question. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/RUStupidCBC#p/u/8/a1JnmLeAQj0" title="youtube.com">here</a> [youtube.com] is a really cool documenatry on stupidity on cbc.</p><p>they place some random artist, a rocket scientist, and a member of mensa before a novel problem, and the random artist is the first to solve it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IQ is more a measure of your 'working ' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topicseven that is in question .
here [ youtube.com ] is a really cool documenatry on stupidity on cbc.they place some random artist , a rocket scientist , and a member of mensa before a novel problem , and the random artist is the first to solve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IQ is more a measure of your 'working' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topicseven that is in question.
here [youtube.com] is a really cool documenatry on stupidity on cbc.they place some random artist, a rocket scientist, and a member of mensa before a novel problem, and the random artist is the first to solve it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347216</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1260103800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But he wasn't arguing that woman are equal; he was arguing that they are <i>not inferior</i>.</p><p>Huge difference, especially in context of a study that looks at perceptions.</p><p>No, "equal" is not the same as "not inferior". Sure, we're different, not equal, certain things work better in certain scenarios, worse in others (you provide your own example at the beginning), but that doesn't mean one is universally inferior to the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But he was n't arguing that woman are equal ; he was arguing that they are not inferior.Huge difference , especially in context of a study that looks at perceptions.No , " equal " is not the same as " not inferior " .
Sure , we 're different , not equal , certain things work better in certain scenarios , worse in others ( you provide your own example at the beginning ) , but that does n't mean one is universally inferior to the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But he wasn't arguing that woman are equal; he was arguing that they are not inferior.Huge difference, especially in context of a study that looks at perceptions.No, "equal" is not the same as "not inferior".
Sure, we're different, not equal, certain things work better in certain scenarios, worse in others (you provide your own example at the beginning), but that doesn't mean one is universally inferior to the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1260104640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"14th-century gender roles"</p><p>Mankind didn't evolve in the 14th century.  Mankind evolved over millions of years.  Feminists, today, are trying to redefine what men and women are.  They blame culture for all the differences between men and women.  But, various drugs have measurable different effects on males and females.  Similar experiences in sports have vastly different results on their bodies.  No matter how much some would like to pretend that there is no difference between men and women, it remains a fallacy.</p><p>As for intelligence - I've read many an article over the years, both before and after the advent of the internet.  More women's intelligence are closer to the center of any scale, while more men are found at the far ends of any scale.  Meaning, an idiot is more likely to be a male, and a genius is more likely to be a male.</p><p>Granted, IQ tests reflect whatever the authors consider to be important.  Design a test that places greater importance on remembering actor's names, recognizing colors, remembering details of friend's and family's vital details, women will almost ALWAYS score higher than men.  Design a test that places greater importance on spatial recognition, mechanical skills, and computing RBI's and such, men will almost ALWAYS score higher.</p><p>Gender roles?  Since we've spent millions of years LEARNING our gender roles, I see nothing wrong with them.  They work.  They have ensured the survival of our species all this time.</p><p>Go ahead - mess with the roles, and teach the kids new ways.  Tell the little girls that they don't have to be little girls, and little boys don't have to grow up to be men.</p><p>Has anyone noticed that the most "modern", "advance", "civilized", and "liberal" nations in the world have a decreasing fertility rate, while the barbarians continue to breed?  Has anyone noticed the invasion of those "civilized" nations taking place all around us?</p><p>Let's wait another 100 years or so, and see how this all works out.  Change those roles, and experiment, while the rest of the world retains the old roles.  Don't be at all surprised if the Muslims and the Catholics inherit the world.  The old fashioned roles WORK!  Damn fools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 14th-century gender roles " Mankind did n't evolve in the 14th century .
Mankind evolved over millions of years .
Feminists , today , are trying to redefine what men and women are .
They blame culture for all the differences between men and women .
But , various drugs have measurable different effects on males and females .
Similar experiences in sports have vastly different results on their bodies .
No matter how much some would like to pretend that there is no difference between men and women , it remains a fallacy.As for intelligence - I 've read many an article over the years , both before and after the advent of the internet .
More women 's intelligence are closer to the center of any scale , while more men are found at the far ends of any scale .
Meaning , an idiot is more likely to be a male , and a genius is more likely to be a male.Granted , IQ tests reflect whatever the authors consider to be important .
Design a test that places greater importance on remembering actor 's names , recognizing colors , remembering details of friend 's and family 's vital details , women will almost ALWAYS score higher than men .
Design a test that places greater importance on spatial recognition , mechanical skills , and computing RBI 's and such , men will almost ALWAYS score higher.Gender roles ?
Since we 've spent millions of years LEARNING our gender roles , I see nothing wrong with them .
They work .
They have ensured the survival of our species all this time.Go ahead - mess with the roles , and teach the kids new ways .
Tell the little girls that they do n't have to be little girls , and little boys do n't have to grow up to be men.Has anyone noticed that the most " modern " , " advance " , " civilized " , and " liberal " nations in the world have a decreasing fertility rate , while the barbarians continue to breed ?
Has anyone noticed the invasion of those " civilized " nations taking place all around us ? Let 's wait another 100 years or so , and see how this all works out .
Change those roles , and experiment , while the rest of the world retains the old roles .
Do n't be at all surprised if the Muslims and the Catholics inherit the world .
The old fashioned roles WORK !
Damn fools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"14th-century gender roles"Mankind didn't evolve in the 14th century.
Mankind evolved over millions of years.
Feminists, today, are trying to redefine what men and women are.
They blame culture for all the differences between men and women.
But, various drugs have measurable different effects on males and females.
Similar experiences in sports have vastly different results on their bodies.
No matter how much some would like to pretend that there is no difference between men and women, it remains a fallacy.As for intelligence - I've read many an article over the years, both before and after the advent of the internet.
More women's intelligence are closer to the center of any scale, while more men are found at the far ends of any scale.
Meaning, an idiot is more likely to be a male, and a genius is more likely to be a male.Granted, IQ tests reflect whatever the authors consider to be important.
Design a test that places greater importance on remembering actor's names, recognizing colors, remembering details of friend's and family's vital details, women will almost ALWAYS score higher than men.
Design a test that places greater importance on spatial recognition, mechanical skills, and computing RBI's and such, men will almost ALWAYS score higher.Gender roles?
Since we've spent millions of years LEARNING our gender roles, I see nothing wrong with them.
They work.
They have ensured the survival of our species all this time.Go ahead - mess with the roles, and teach the kids new ways.
Tell the little girls that they don't have to be little girls, and little boys don't have to grow up to be men.Has anyone noticed that the most "modern", "advance", "civilized", and "liberal" nations in the world have a decreasing fertility rate, while the barbarians continue to breed?
Has anyone noticed the invasion of those "civilized" nations taking place all around us?Let's wait another 100 years or so, and see how this all works out.
Change those roles, and experiment, while the rest of the world retains the old roles.
Don't be at all surprised if the Muslims and the Catholics inherit the world.
The old fashioned roles WORK!
Damn fools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349776</id>
	<title>Show me exceptions all day...</title>
	<author>MasaMuneCyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1260126600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fundamentally the question cannot be answered as long as we cling to preconceived notions of what it means to be a man or a woman. "Man" is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate(sp?) between male and female. You can claim genetics determines that, and I'll show you XX men and XY women. You claim genitalia, I'll reply with birth defects. Any such distinction is arbitrary, and claims to the contrary are unscientific. The either/or proposition of gender and sex are social constructs. I'd also like to remind you that <b>there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever</b>.</p></div><p>You can show me exceptions all day to what is usually defined as "males" and "females", but that's exactly what they are -- <i>exceptions</i>. If you have a room with one million classical "males", one million classical "females", and an XX male and an XY female, it doesn't mean that "male" and "female" have no meaning because the latter two exist. Biology is not Mathematics. One example of a falsehood doesn't collapse the whole idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fundamentally the question can not be answered as long as we cling to preconceived notions of what it means to be a man or a woman .
" Man " is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate ( sp ?
) between male and female .
You can claim genetics determines that , and I 'll show you XX men and XY women .
You claim genitalia , I 'll reply with birth defects .
Any such distinction is arbitrary , and claims to the contrary are unscientific .
The either/or proposition of gender and sex are social constructs .
I 'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.You can show me exceptions all day to what is usually defined as " males " and " females " , but that 's exactly what they are -- exceptions .
If you have a room with one million classical " males " , one million classical " females " , and an XX male and an XY female , it does n't mean that " male " and " female " have no meaning because the latter two exist .
Biology is not Mathematics .
One example of a falsehood does n't collapse the whole idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fundamentally the question cannot be answered as long as we cling to preconceived notions of what it means to be a man or a woman.
"Man" is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate(sp?
) between male and female.
You can claim genetics determines that, and I'll show you XX men and XY women.
You claim genitalia, I'll reply with birth defects.
Any such distinction is arbitrary, and claims to the contrary are unscientific.
The either/or proposition of gender and sex are social constructs.
I'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.You can show me exceptions all day to what is usually defined as "males" and "females", but that's exactly what they are -- exceptions.
If you have a room with one million classical "males", one million classical "females", and an XX male and an XY female, it doesn't mean that "male" and "female" have no meaning because the latter two exist.
Biology is not Mathematics.
One example of a falsehood doesn't collapse the whole idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348304</id>
	<title>Re:Extroverted people are rated as 'smarter'</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1260111480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't be thought smart OR dumb if you don't say anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't be thought smart OR dumb if you do n't say anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't be thought smart OR dumb if you don't say anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351776</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>professionalfurryele</author>
	<datestamp>1260195660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He makes the point that society is sexist and that the feminist movement has done virtually nothing to protest or correct imbalances against men and you argue that society is sexist as some kind of counter point? I don't understand.</p><p>Women contribute to the glass ceiling. They do things like taking degrees that are perceived as easier and this has an impact later in life. No one would dare say that the glass ceiling is women's fault because they collectively reinforce a sexist culture Nor should they. Culture is at fault. Yet you are quite happy to collectively punish men.</p><p>The problem is culture. And you aren't going to fix culture by piece meal addressing only the parts of society and social order that discriminate against women.</p><p>I tell my female friends, most of whom would describe themselves as feminists, that I think things like the draft and parental rights should be applied equally and I get accused of being an arsehole for it.</p><p>We have to fix culture collectively. The egalitarian movement can no longer confine itself to just fixing the glaring inequality against women. We have to work to overhaul our entire culture to one which starts with equality for all as it's basis and not simply correcting the injustices perpetrated against the female gender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He makes the point that society is sexist and that the feminist movement has done virtually nothing to protest or correct imbalances against men and you argue that society is sexist as some kind of counter point ?
I do n't understand.Women contribute to the glass ceiling .
They do things like taking degrees that are perceived as easier and this has an impact later in life .
No one would dare say that the glass ceiling is women 's fault because they collectively reinforce a sexist culture Nor should they .
Culture is at fault .
Yet you are quite happy to collectively punish men.The problem is culture .
And you are n't going to fix culture by piece meal addressing only the parts of society and social order that discriminate against women.I tell my female friends , most of whom would describe themselves as feminists , that I think things like the draft and parental rights should be applied equally and I get accused of being an arsehole for it.We have to fix culture collectively .
The egalitarian movement can no longer confine itself to just fixing the glaring inequality against women .
We have to work to overhaul our entire culture to one which starts with equality for all as it 's basis and not simply correcting the injustices perpetrated against the female gender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He makes the point that society is sexist and that the feminist movement has done virtually nothing to protest or correct imbalances against men and you argue that society is sexist as some kind of counter point?
I don't understand.Women contribute to the glass ceiling.
They do things like taking degrees that are perceived as easier and this has an impact later in life.
No one would dare say that the glass ceiling is women's fault because they collectively reinforce a sexist culture Nor should they.
Culture is at fault.
Yet you are quite happy to collectively punish men.The problem is culture.
And you aren't going to fix culture by piece meal addressing only the parts of society and social order that discriminate against women.I tell my female friends, most of whom would describe themselves as feminists, that I think things like the draft and parental rights should be applied equally and I get accused of being an arsehole for it.We have to fix culture collectively.
The egalitarian movement can no longer confine itself to just fixing the glaring inequality against women.
We have to work to overhaul our entire culture to one which starts with equality for all as it's basis and not simply correcting the injustices perpetrated against the female gender.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260107640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One possibility is that men really are smarter, just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.</p></div><p>Fundamentally the question cannot be answered as long as we cling to preconceived notions of what it means to be a man or a woman. "Man" is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate(sp?) between male and female. You can claim genetics determines that, and I'll show you XX men and XY women. You claim genitalia, I'll reply with birth defects. Any such distinction is arbitrary, and claims to the contrary are unscientific. The either/or proposition of gender and sex are social constructs. I'd also like to remind you that <b>there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever</b>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Our entire civilization exists because of bright men...</p></div><p> <b>No, it doesn't.</b> Civilization exists because of a pair of genetic mutations that greatly increased the folds (surface area) of the brain and a refinement of our tongues, which allowed us to develop language. Technology exists because we have the ability to communicate knowledge of our environment more efficiently, and remember that knowledge for longer periods, than any other animal. We couldn't have evolved if we couldn't speak to each other, or put another way: Logic and reason presuppose, at their origin, emotion. Lab rats do smarter things than people in many situations -- and if monkeys could speak in words (instead of merely understand them), we'd probably be quite humbled by how much less of a difference there really is.</p><p>But I can make this a whole lot simpler with a Douglas Adams quote: We've always thought we were smarter than dolphins because we built cities and live in them, whereas the dolphins think they're smarter for the same reason. You think civilization exist because of bright men -- I'd argue it's more accurate to say that men engage in risk-taking behavior more often, and statistically that's going to eventually lead to a beneficial discovery (which society then commits to the collective memory). Of course, this behavior more often leads to horrible failure -- and that's okay. Because from an evolutionary standpoint, men are disposable: they fight and die in wars, experiments gone wrong, and more -- as long as the women survive, society rebuilds and we raise another generation of risk-taking men. Women don't take risks as often as men do, because that behavior risks the future of the human race, ie. the children. Intelligence has nothing to do with any potential benefits from how men and women think: It's how they act that determines the outcome.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ironically, civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.</p></div><p>Feminism, if we define it as advocating equal social/legal protection and rights for women, has been around since before you had the technology to write such sexist scribes on public forums. Historically, societies which have greater equality between various groups (men, women, gays, blacks, slaves, whatever) has occurred during periods of economic and material prosperity. As resources diminish, competition increases and society favors characteristics that give individuals a greater portion of those limited resources. During periods of scarcity, civilization dissolves into "thog smash head with rock, take food." Women can't compete with men on physical strength. Intelligence has nothing to do with that difference.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99\% of the inventing. Correct me if I'm wrong.</p> </div><p>History also says Columbus discovered America, nevermind that there were millions of native americans here first. History is written by the dominant society. Just last week I was at the Mall of America and there is a statue there honoring 9/11 -- and it claimed that it was "the single largest loss of life on US soil." That's a lie -- I'm sure that the civil war had bloodier battles. And the revisionist history didn't stop there -- the plaque also claimed the guy on Flight 93 who said he was "going to do something" was responsible for downing the plane. The truth is -- we don't know that, we're guessing. But there it is, on an official plaque. I can't correct you, but I can say you haven't eliminated the null hypothesis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One possibility is that men really are smarter , just that IQ tests do n't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.Fundamentally the question can not be answered as long as we cling to preconceived notions of what it means to be a man or a woman .
" Man " is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate ( sp ?
) between male and female .
You can claim genetics determines that , and I 'll show you XX men and XY women .
You claim genitalia , I 'll reply with birth defects .
Any such distinction is arbitrary , and claims to the contrary are unscientific .
The either/or proposition of gender and sex are social constructs .
I 'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.Our entire civilization exists because of bright men... No , it does n't .
Civilization exists because of a pair of genetic mutations that greatly increased the folds ( surface area ) of the brain and a refinement of our tongues , which allowed us to develop language .
Technology exists because we have the ability to communicate knowledge of our environment more efficiently , and remember that knowledge for longer periods , than any other animal .
We could n't have evolved if we could n't speak to each other , or put another way : Logic and reason presuppose , at their origin , emotion .
Lab rats do smarter things than people in many situations -- and if monkeys could speak in words ( instead of merely understand them ) , we 'd probably be quite humbled by how much less of a difference there really is.But I can make this a whole lot simpler with a Douglas Adams quote : We 've always thought we were smarter than dolphins because we built cities and live in them , whereas the dolphins think they 're smarter for the same reason .
You think civilization exist because of bright men -- I 'd argue it 's more accurate to say that men engage in risk-taking behavior more often , and statistically that 's going to eventually lead to a beneficial discovery ( which society then commits to the collective memory ) .
Of course , this behavior more often leads to horrible failure -- and that 's okay .
Because from an evolutionary standpoint , men are disposable : they fight and die in wars , experiments gone wrong , and more -- as long as the women survive , society rebuilds and we raise another generation of risk-taking men .
Women do n't take risks as often as men do , because that behavior risks the future of the human race , ie .
the children .
Intelligence has nothing to do with any potential benefits from how men and women think : It 's how they act that determines the outcome.Ironically , civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.Feminism , if we define it as advocating equal social/legal protection and rights for women , has been around since before you had the technology to write such sexist scribes on public forums .
Historically , societies which have greater equality between various groups ( men , women , gays , blacks , slaves , whatever ) has occurred during periods of economic and material prosperity .
As resources diminish , competition increases and society favors characteristics that give individuals a greater portion of those limited resources .
During periods of scarcity , civilization dissolves into " thog smash head with rock , take food .
" Women ca n't compete with men on physical strength .
Intelligence has nothing to do with that difference.Anyways , as far as I know , men have done around 95-99 \ % of the inventing .
Correct me if I 'm wrong .
History also says Columbus discovered America , nevermind that there were millions of native americans here first .
History is written by the dominant society .
Just last week I was at the Mall of America and there is a statue there honoring 9/11 -- and it claimed that it was " the single largest loss of life on US soil .
" That 's a lie -- I 'm sure that the civil war had bloodier battles .
And the revisionist history did n't stop there -- the plaque also claimed the guy on Flight 93 who said he was " going to do something " was responsible for downing the plane .
The truth is -- we do n't know that , we 're guessing .
But there it is , on an official plaque .
I ca n't correct you , but I can say you have n't eliminated the null hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One possibility is that men really are smarter, just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.Fundamentally the question cannot be answered as long as we cling to preconceived notions of what it means to be a man or a woman.
"Man" is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate(sp?
) between male and female.
You can claim genetics determines that, and I'll show you XX men and XY women.
You claim genitalia, I'll reply with birth defects.
Any such distinction is arbitrary, and claims to the contrary are unscientific.
The either/or proposition of gender and sex are social constructs.
I'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.Our entire civilization exists because of bright men... No, it doesn't.
Civilization exists because of a pair of genetic mutations that greatly increased the folds (surface area) of the brain and a refinement of our tongues, which allowed us to develop language.
Technology exists because we have the ability to communicate knowledge of our environment more efficiently, and remember that knowledge for longer periods, than any other animal.
We couldn't have evolved if we couldn't speak to each other, or put another way: Logic and reason presuppose, at their origin, emotion.
Lab rats do smarter things than people in many situations -- and if monkeys could speak in words (instead of merely understand them), we'd probably be quite humbled by how much less of a difference there really is.But I can make this a whole lot simpler with a Douglas Adams quote: We've always thought we were smarter than dolphins because we built cities and live in them, whereas the dolphins think they're smarter for the same reason.
You think civilization exist because of bright men -- I'd argue it's more accurate to say that men engage in risk-taking behavior more often, and statistically that's going to eventually lead to a beneficial discovery (which society then commits to the collective memory).
Of course, this behavior more often leads to horrible failure -- and that's okay.
Because from an evolutionary standpoint, men are disposable: they fight and die in wars, experiments gone wrong, and more -- as long as the women survive, society rebuilds and we raise another generation of risk-taking men.
Women don't take risks as often as men do, because that behavior risks the future of the human race, ie.
the children.
Intelligence has nothing to do with any potential benefits from how men and women think: It's how they act that determines the outcome.Ironically, civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.Feminism, if we define it as advocating equal social/legal protection and rights for women, has been around since before you had the technology to write such sexist scribes on public forums.
Historically, societies which have greater equality between various groups (men, women, gays, blacks, slaves, whatever) has occurred during periods of economic and material prosperity.
As resources diminish, competition increases and society favors characteristics that give individuals a greater portion of those limited resources.
During periods of scarcity, civilization dissolves into "thog smash head with rock, take food.
" Women can't compete with men on physical strength.
Intelligence has nothing to do with that difference.Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99\% of the inventing.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
History also says Columbus discovered America, nevermind that there were millions of native americans here first.
History is written by the dominant society.
Just last week I was at the Mall of America and there is a statue there honoring 9/11 -- and it claimed that it was "the single largest loss of life on US soil.
" That's a lie -- I'm sure that the civil war had bloodier battles.
And the revisionist history didn't stop there -- the plaque also claimed the guy on Flight 93 who said he was "going to do something" was responsible for downing the plane.
The truth is -- we don't know that, we're guessing.
But there it is, on an official plaque.
I can't correct you, but I can say you haven't eliminated the null hypothesis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347032</id>
	<title>Extroverted people are rated as 'smarter'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another study of teachers, asked to estimate the IQ of their students, found they overestimated the IQ of extroverted kids, and underestimated the IQ of quiet kids.

Males tend to be more extroverted than females, so that could explain the perception of males as 'smarter'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another study of teachers , asked to estimate the IQ of their students , found they overestimated the IQ of extroverted kids , and underestimated the IQ of quiet kids .
Males tend to be more extroverted than females , so that could explain the perception of males as 'smarter' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another study of teachers, asked to estimate the IQ of their students, found they overestimated the IQ of extroverted kids, and underestimated the IQ of quiet kids.
Males tend to be more extroverted than females, so that could explain the perception of males as 'smarter'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349416</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>StrategicIrony</author>
	<datestamp>1260122880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There has never been a woman who can compete with elite men in athletics.</p><p>The Women's world record in sprinting is regularly surpassed by male high school students.</p><p>The women's US National hockey team, in training for world cup events, plays competitvely in an ordinary league of "midget" aged boys (15-17yo)</p><p>There is one woman in the last 50 years of professional hockey who was thought to have a shot at playing on a mens team, but she got the pink slip on the second day of training camp, and not because of some bias.  It wasn't her physical size, as she was taller and heavier than at least two of the players who made the team  - it was mjust a matter of quickness and stamina and "power".</p><p>Even sports that are not strictly power, like golf, have never had a woman compete in a men's event.  Anika Sorenstam played in several mens events and even hit the ball further than the reigning mens US Open Champion of fthe time (Cory Pavin), but she was never able to make the cut, even in minor-league mens events.</p><p>HOWEVER, there is no evidence that intellectually, that's the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There has never been a woman who can compete with elite men in athletics.The Women 's world record in sprinting is regularly surpassed by male high school students.The women 's US National hockey team , in training for world cup events , plays competitvely in an ordinary league of " midget " aged boys ( 15-17yo ) There is one woman in the last 50 years of professional hockey who was thought to have a shot at playing on a mens team , but she got the pink slip on the second day of training camp , and not because of some bias .
It was n't her physical size , as she was taller and heavier than at least two of the players who made the team - it was mjust a matter of quickness and stamina and " power " .Even sports that are not strictly power , like golf , have never had a woman compete in a men 's event .
Anika Sorenstam played in several mens events and even hit the ball further than the reigning mens US Open Champion of fthe time ( Cory Pavin ) , but she was never able to make the cut , even in minor-league mens events.HOWEVER , there is no evidence that intellectually , that 's the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has never been a woman who can compete with elite men in athletics.The Women's world record in sprinting is regularly surpassed by male high school students.The women's US National hockey team, in training for world cup events, plays competitvely in an ordinary league of "midget" aged boys (15-17yo)There is one woman in the last 50 years of professional hockey who was thought to have a shot at playing on a mens team, but she got the pink slip on the second day of training camp, and not because of some bias.
It wasn't her physical size, as she was taller and heavier than at least two of the players who made the team  - it was mjust a matter of quickness and stamina and "power".Even sports that are not strictly power, like golf, have never had a woman compete in a men's event.
Anika Sorenstam played in several mens events and even hit the ball further than the reigning mens US Open Champion of fthe time (Cory Pavin), but she was never able to make the cut, even in minor-league mens events.HOWEVER, there is no evidence that intellectually, that's the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348850</id>
	<title>Re:You're forgetting</title>
	<author>penguin\_dance</author>
	<datestamp>1260116520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you're forgetting that this story has nothing to do with IQ scores, but the PERCEPTION of one's own intelligence. Being that women started working outside of the home more during WWII, then only recently began to see gains in the workplace regarding promotions and leadership, it really shouldn't be surprising that most people judged their father smarter than their mother and grandfathers smarter than grandmothers. And stay at home moms have not been lauded or really appreciated for years, even by those who claim to support women.</p><p>I have noticed recently that younger women in their 20s and early 30s who have more confidence and expectations to get ahead. So lets see where we are 50 years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 're forgetting that this story has nothing to do with IQ scores , but the PERCEPTION of one 's own intelligence .
Being that women started working outside of the home more during WWII , then only recently began to see gains in the workplace regarding promotions and leadership , it really should n't be surprising that most people judged their father smarter than their mother and grandfathers smarter than grandmothers .
And stay at home moms have not been lauded or really appreciated for years , even by those who claim to support women.I have noticed recently that younger women in their 20s and early 30s who have more confidence and expectations to get ahead .
So lets see where we are 50 years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you're forgetting that this story has nothing to do with IQ scores, but the PERCEPTION of one's own intelligence.
Being that women started working outside of the home more during WWII, then only recently began to see gains in the workplace regarding promotions and leadership, it really shouldn't be surprising that most people judged their father smarter than their mother and grandfathers smarter than grandmothers.
And stay at home moms have not been lauded or really appreciated for years, even by those who claim to support women.I have noticed recently that younger women in their 20s and early 30s who have more confidence and expectations to get ahead.
So lets see where we are 50 years later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349588</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260124500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You raise some valid issues, but then it all goes to hell with your generalisations about responsibility.</p><p>It seems like you really do have some issues you need to deal with. Perhaps you get to work on them, and I'll try to make sure all these women start taking some responsibility!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You raise some valid issues , but then it all goes to hell with your generalisations about responsibility.It seems like you really do have some issues you need to deal with .
Perhaps you get to work on them , and I 'll try to make sure all these women start taking some responsibility !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You raise some valid issues, but then it all goes to hell with your generalisations about responsibility.It seems like you really do have some issues you need to deal with.
Perhaps you get to work on them, and I'll try to make sure all these women start taking some responsibility!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350646</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1260180900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd listen to your arguments but I noticed that way too many of them focused on things that weren't relevant by the time even my father was born, and several wouldn't even have been relevant by the time my grandfather was born. Now, if they didn't apply to neither my father nor my grandfather, why should I have to take the blame? And do you really think most men were very privileged back in the days when things like slavery, indentured servitude and the like were common? do you think all men were lords in high castles who lived lives of grandeur? Most men back in those days had it far worse than most women have now, hell they had it worse than women had 50 or even 100 years ago (but then to be honest I don't know what backwards hellhole you're from, please take note of where I'm from before replying).</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd listen to your arguments but I noticed that way too many of them focused on things that were n't relevant by the time even my father was born , and several would n't even have been relevant by the time my grandfather was born .
Now , if they did n't apply to neither my father nor my grandfather , why should I have to take the blame ?
And do you really think most men were very privileged back in the days when things like slavery , indentured servitude and the like were common ?
do you think all men were lords in high castles who lived lives of grandeur ?
Most men back in those days had it far worse than most women have now , hell they had it worse than women had 50 or even 100 years ago ( but then to be honest I do n't know what backwards hellhole you 're from , please take note of where I 'm from before replying ) ./Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd listen to your arguments but I noticed that way too many of them focused on things that weren't relevant by the time even my father was born, and several wouldn't even have been relevant by the time my grandfather was born.
Now, if they didn't apply to neither my father nor my grandfather, why should I have to take the blame?
And do you really think most men were very privileged back in the days when things like slavery, indentured servitude and the like were common?
do you think all men were lords in high castles who lived lives of grandeur?
Most men back in those days had it far worse than most women have now, hell they had it worse than women had 50 or even 100 years ago (but then to be honest I don't know what backwards hellhole you're from, please take note of where I'm from before replying)./Mikael</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347546</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1260106080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it."</p></div></blockquote><p>... you mean like this apple <b> <i>may</i></b>  fall to the ground if I drop it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ ( well at least 120 + ) yet , outwardly at least , he may not seem it. " .. .
you mean like this apple may fall to the ground if I drop it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it."...
you mean like this apple  may  fall to the ground if I drop it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349310</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260121680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Condom shouldn't be necessary in the eyes of the law. It's much more common than it should be for women to go on a contraceptive course, genuinely or just to get the man to let his guard down, then secretly stop taking the pills when they decide they want a baby.</p><p>All that should be necessary for a man to get out of all child obligations should be that he registers his opposition to having the child as soon as he knows the woman is pregnant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Condom should n't be necessary in the eyes of the law .
It 's much more common than it should be for women to go on a contraceptive course , genuinely or just to get the man to let his guard down , then secretly stop taking the pills when they decide they want a baby.All that should be necessary for a man to get out of all child obligations should be that he registers his opposition to having the child as soon as he knows the woman is pregnant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Condom shouldn't be necessary in the eyes of the law.
It's much more common than it should be for women to go on a contraceptive course, genuinely or just to get the man to let his guard down, then secretly stop taking the pills when they decide they want a baby.All that should be necessary for a man to get out of all child obligations should be that he registers his opposition to having the child as soon as he knows the woman is pregnant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348052</id>
	<title>IQ tests are outdated</title>
	<author>spyder-implee</author>
	<datestamp>1260109500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And a very narrow-minded measure of intelligence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And a very narrow-minded measure of intelligence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And a very narrow-minded measure of intelligence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349850</id>
	<title>Dunning&ndash;Kruger</title>
	<author>assert(0)</author>
	<datestamp>1260127620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the cognitive bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetetent individuals overestimate their competence (did anybody say middle manager?) while the truly competent underestimate their competence (aka. depressive realism). Maybe competent women are more vulnerable to depressive realism?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger\_effect" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger\_effect</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive\_realism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive\_realism</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the cognitive bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect , which describes how incompetetent individuals overestimate their competence ( did anybody say middle manager ?
) while the truly competent underestimate their competence ( aka .
depressive realism ) .
Maybe competent women are more vulnerable to depressive realism ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger \ _effect [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive \ _realism [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the cognitive bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes how incompetetent individuals overestimate their competence (did anybody say middle manager?
) while the truly competent underestimate their competence (aka.
depressive realism).
Maybe competent women are more vulnerable to depressive realism?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger\_effect [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive\_realism [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347280</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>oqaqiq</author>
	<datestamp>1260104220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>G. W. Bush has a high IQ among the general population, but he has a low IQ among the population of people who lead countries and big organizations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>G. W. Bush has a high IQ among the general population , but he has a low IQ among the population of people who lead countries and big organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>G. W. Bush has a high IQ among the general population, but he has a low IQ among the population of people who lead countries and big organizations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349334</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Worthless\_Comments</author>
	<datestamp>1260121860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"By your (bullshit unverified) claim that women are average and men are at the extremes, it doesn't matter."
<br> <br>
Citation is in TFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" By your ( bullshit unverified ) claim that women are average and men are at the extremes , it does n't matter .
" Citation is in TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"By your (bullshit unverified) claim that women are average and men are at the extremes, it doesn't matter.
"
 
Citation is in TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347960</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1260108780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender,</p></div><p>Good luck getting a cop to take a report.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.</p></div><p>Is this intended as an excuse?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Women drive each other crazy in part because men keep making it matter</p></div><p>Right. You yourself said that women do it without prodding from men. The worst thing to deal with at work is a female boss and a female report - change either one to male and you're fine, but women in charge of women seems to bring out the bitch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it does n't fit with the traditional notions of gender,Good luck getting a cop to take a report.Most police are male , so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Is this intended as an excuse ? Women drive each other crazy in part because men keep making it matterRight .
You yourself said that women do it without prodding from men .
The worst thing to deal with at work is a female boss and a female report - change either one to male and you 're fine , but women in charge of women seems to bring out the bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender,Good luck getting a cop to take a report.Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Is this intended as an excuse?Women drive each other crazy in part because men keep making it matterRight.
You yourself said that women do it without prodding from men.
The worst thing to deal with at work is a female boss and a female report - change either one to male and you're fine, but women in charge of women seems to bring out the bitch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347156</id>
	<title>Re:Obviously</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1260103260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has been a terrible 40 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been a terrible 40 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been a terrible 40 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30378320</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly...</title>
	<author>Sally Forth</author>
	<datestamp>1259604600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the people who "allegedly alleged" Bush's IQ as averaging around 120-126 have been estimating presidential IQ based on available documentation for decades. Most of them are licensed, educated psychologists, and would probably take offense (or at least amusement) at the notion that they have IQ's lower than 80.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the people who " allegedly alleged " Bush 's IQ as averaging around 120-126 have been estimating presidential IQ based on available documentation for decades .
Most of them are licensed , educated psychologists , and would probably take offense ( or at least amusement ) at the notion that they have IQ 's lower than 80 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the people who "allegedly alleged" Bush's IQ as averaging around 120-126 have been estimating presidential IQ based on available documentation for decades.
Most of them are licensed, educated psychologists, and would probably take offense (or at least amusement) at the notion that they have IQ's lower than 80.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352848</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260200700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK woman, you've had enough time on the computer. Now get me a beer and make me a sandwich pronto.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK woman , you 've had enough time on the computer .
Now get me a beer and make me a sandwich pronto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK woman, you've had enough time on the computer.
Now get me a beer and make me a sandwich pronto.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347166</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>zorro-z</author>
	<datestamp>1260103380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It always strikes me that, just as the SAT is primarily a good test of how well you will take the SAT, the IQ test is primarily a test of how well you do on the IQ test. In other words, don't read too much into it.</p><p>I always disliked the idea of what I term 'Big I' Intelligence; the notion that a single measurement can capture an individual's total mental capacity. I'm much more fond of Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory\_of\_multiple\_intelligences). To broadly summarize, the idea is that a person may be better in one thing than another; a genius in math, for instance, but mediocre at writing. Or a physical genius- Michael Jordan, for instance- but not terribly good at science. And so forth.</p><p>To apply it to TFA, the average woman's particular set of intelligences are likely to be different from those of the average man. This is not meant as an insult, and there are surely exceptions (my Aunt Sharon is as brilliant a science + math teacher as I've ever known). As a society, we tend to place more value on those intelligences which tend to be more sterotypically male, while de-emphasizing those which are sterotypically female.</p><p>As usual, YMMVW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It always strikes me that , just as the SAT is primarily a good test of how well you will take the SAT , the IQ test is primarily a test of how well you do on the IQ test .
In other words , do n't read too much into it.I always disliked the idea of what I term 'Big I ' Intelligence ; the notion that a single measurement can capture an individual 's total mental capacity .
I 'm much more fond of Howard Gardner 's Theory of Multiple Intelligences ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory \ _of \ _multiple \ _intelligences ) .
To broadly summarize , the idea is that a person may be better in one thing than another ; a genius in math , for instance , but mediocre at writing .
Or a physical genius- Michael Jordan , for instance- but not terribly good at science .
And so forth.To apply it to TFA , the average woman 's particular set of intelligences are likely to be different from those of the average man .
This is not meant as an insult , and there are surely exceptions ( my Aunt Sharon is as brilliant a science + math teacher as I 've ever known ) .
As a society , we tend to place more value on those intelligences which tend to be more sterotypically male , while de-emphasizing those which are sterotypically female.As usual , YMMVW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always strikes me that, just as the SAT is primarily a good test of how well you will take the SAT, the IQ test is primarily a test of how well you do on the IQ test.
In other words, don't read too much into it.I always disliked the idea of what I term 'Big I' Intelligence; the notion that a single measurement can capture an individual's total mental capacity.
I'm much more fond of Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory\_of\_multiple\_intelligences).
To broadly summarize, the idea is that a person may be better in one thing than another; a genius in math, for instance, but mediocre at writing.
Or a physical genius- Michael Jordan, for instance- but not terribly good at science.
And so forth.To apply it to TFA, the average woman's particular set of intelligences are likely to be different from those of the average man.
This is not meant as an insult, and there are surely exceptions (my Aunt Sharon is as brilliant a science + math teacher as I've ever known).
As a society, we tend to place more value on those intelligences which tend to be more sterotypically male, while de-emphasizing those which are sterotypically female.As usual, YMMVW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347076</id>
	<title>TFA's generalization isn't scientific</title>
	<author>kylebarbour</author>
	<datestamp>1260102660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surprisingly, [both] men and women perceive men being smarter across generations. Both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers.</p></div><p>The second sentence doesn't necessarily support the first. There's a lot of things that could be going on here, like valuing male relatives more, for example, or the participants' views could be affected by their belief in familial gender roles. Family is special - you can't just say that since people feel this way about their relatives that they feel this way about all men and women.</p><p>It might be true, of course, but this doesn't prove it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprisingly , [ both ] men and women perceive men being smarter across generations .
Both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers.The second sentence does n't necessarily support the first .
There 's a lot of things that could be going on here , like valuing male relatives more , for example , or the participants ' views could be affected by their belief in familial gender roles .
Family is special - you ca n't just say that since people feel this way about their relatives that they feel this way about all men and women.It might be true , of course , but this does n't prove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprisingly, [both] men and women perceive men being smarter across generations.
Both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers.The second sentence doesn't necessarily support the first.
There's a lot of things that could be going on here, like valuing male relatives more, for example, or the participants' views could be affected by their belief in familial gender roles.
Family is special - you can't just say that since people feel this way about their relatives that they feel this way about all men and women.It might be true, of course, but this doesn't prove it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347460</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1260105540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, what?</p><p>It was never widely accepted by society that women were "inferior" to men, not in a general fashion, except for a very short period of time prior to women's suffrage. Throughout most of experience, the general gender strengths women hold have been acknowledged: emotional intelligence which leads to their general ability to be more compassionate than men, to be good mothers/parents (the "go to" when dad's being an ass), and yes, so they can be better catty bitches and politicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , what ? It was never widely accepted by society that women were " inferior " to men , not in a general fashion , except for a very short period of time prior to women 's suffrage .
Throughout most of experience , the general gender strengths women hold have been acknowledged : emotional intelligence which leads to their general ability to be more compassionate than men , to be good mothers/parents ( the " go to " when dad 's being an ass ) , and yes , so they can be better catty bitches and politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, what?It was never widely accepted by society that women were "inferior" to men, not in a general fashion, except for a very short period of time prior to women's suffrage.
Throughout most of experience, the general gender strengths women hold have been acknowledged: emotional intelligence which leads to their general ability to be more compassionate than men, to be good mothers/parents (the "go to" when dad's being an ass), and yes, so they can be better catty bitches and politicians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350518</id>
	<title>I find this reading very</title>
	<author>Evtim</author>
	<datestamp>1260179460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>enlightening.<br><br>http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm<br><br>Understanding in general demolishes stereotypes and laughs in the face of political correctness and auto censorship. I love science....<br><br>Cheers,<br>Evtim</htmltext>
<tokenext>enlightening.http : //www.psy.fsu.edu/ ~ baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htmUnderstanding in general demolishes stereotypes and laughs in the face of political correctness and auto censorship .
I love science....Cheers,Evtim</tokentext>
<sentencetext>enlightening.http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htmUnderstanding in general demolishes stereotypes and laughs in the face of political correctness and auto censorship.
I love science....Cheers,Evtim</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348390</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1260112260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
120 is top 9\%, near enough to 1/10. That's not even 2 standard deviations. For a clerk, it's on the high end. For a president, it's low, unless you want a puppet. There are roughly 28 million people in the US with a higher IQ than 120.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ ( well at least 120 + ) yet , outwardly at least , he may not seem it .
120 is top 9 \ % , near enough to 1/10 .
That 's not even 2 standard deviations .
For a clerk , it 's on the high end .
For a president , it 's low , unless you want a puppet .
There are roughly 28 million people in the US with a higher IQ than 120 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.
120 is top 9\%, near enough to 1/10.
That's not even 2 standard deviations.
For a clerk, it's on the high end.
For a president, it's low, unless you want a puppet.
There are roughly 28 million people in the US with a higher IQ than 120.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349036</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260118740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supposedly George Barnard Shaw asked his wife, Charlotte, whether she agreed that men were smarter than women.  She replied, "Of course, you married me and I married you."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supposedly George Barnard Shaw asked his wife , Charlotte , whether she agreed that men were smarter than women .
She replied , " Of course , you married me and I married you .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supposedly George Barnard Shaw asked his wife, Charlotte, whether she agreed that men were smarter than women.
She replied, "Of course, you married me and I married you.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698</id>
	<title>They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1260099900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Odds are your father or grand father are smarter than their partners. Sure you mom may have a vast wealth of knowledge about shoes or Oprah but that's not of any real use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Odds are your father or grand father are smarter than their partners .
Sure you mom may have a vast wealth of knowledge about shoes or Oprah but that 's not of any real use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odds are your father or grand father are smarter than their partners.
Sure you mom may have a vast wealth of knowledge about shoes or Oprah but that's not of any real use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348278</id>
	<title>Watching the mods is fun...</title>
	<author>ChinggisK</author>
	<datestamp>1260111240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been watching this topic for a few hours and if nothing else, it's entertaining to see the more inflammatory posts rise and fall and rise and fall again.  Someone should perform a study on it and tell us what it means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been watching this topic for a few hours and if nothing else , it 's entertaining to see the more inflammatory posts rise and fall and rise and fall again .
Someone should perform a study on it and tell us what it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been watching this topic for a few hours and if nothing else, it's entertaining to see the more inflammatory posts rise and fall and rise and fall again.
Someone should perform a study on it and tell us what it means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347336</id>
	<title>self-esteem, estrogen, and testosterone /drive</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1260104640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to wonder how much a person's self-esteem has to do with their self-perception. I usually don't think that people with externally-visible low self-esteem are terribly bright. People who are unable to address and/or deal with their inner troubles, for instance, get a very low rating with me. More commonly than not, these "frail" people tend to be women, in my experience (though there are certainly some strong ones). Kinda interesting looking at these observations in writing, and thinking back to how things "used to be" where women were considered the weaker sex - not as mentally bright, not as intrepid, etc. (Contrary to the status quo belief of the 'sexism' of yore, the 'weakness' of women was generally considered to be mental/emotional, not physical.)</p><p>Also, testosterone (resulting in an more forward inner drive) probably has something to do with it, I imagine. If someone is driven, they are more likely to manifest their dreams, or to even have those dreams. From what I've seen, guys with more testosterone are not only more extroverted and have higher self-esteem, but also tend to accomplish more than their peers if they're the least bit intelligent.</p><p>I've got two children - a daughter, 3, and a son, 6. I don't think my son is more intelligent than my daughter, and don't necessarily think the inverse is true, either. I'm unsure due to age and gender related development. I do know that my daughter tends to learn better: she listens more carefully, and is generally more attentive to what's being told to her. But she's also nowhere near as headstrong or driven as my son, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to wonder how much a person 's self-esteem has to do with their self-perception .
I usually do n't think that people with externally-visible low self-esteem are terribly bright .
People who are unable to address and/or deal with their inner troubles , for instance , get a very low rating with me .
More commonly than not , these " frail " people tend to be women , in my experience ( though there are certainly some strong ones ) .
Kinda interesting looking at these observations in writing , and thinking back to how things " used to be " where women were considered the weaker sex - not as mentally bright , not as intrepid , etc .
( Contrary to the status quo belief of the 'sexism ' of yore , the 'weakness ' of women was generally considered to be mental/emotional , not physical .
) Also , testosterone ( resulting in an more forward inner drive ) probably has something to do with it , I imagine .
If someone is driven , they are more likely to manifest their dreams , or to even have those dreams .
From what I 've seen , guys with more testosterone are not only more extroverted and have higher self-esteem , but also tend to accomplish more than their peers if they 're the least bit intelligent.I 've got two children - a daughter , 3 , and a son , 6 .
I do n't think my son is more intelligent than my daughter , and do n't necessarily think the inverse is true , either .
I 'm unsure due to age and gender related development .
I do know that my daughter tends to learn better : she listens more carefully , and is generally more attentive to what 's being told to her .
But she 's also nowhere near as headstrong or driven as my son , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to wonder how much a person's self-esteem has to do with their self-perception.
I usually don't think that people with externally-visible low self-esteem are terribly bright.
People who are unable to address and/or deal with their inner troubles, for instance, get a very low rating with me.
More commonly than not, these "frail" people tend to be women, in my experience (though there are certainly some strong ones).
Kinda interesting looking at these observations in writing, and thinking back to how things "used to be" where women were considered the weaker sex - not as mentally bright, not as intrepid, etc.
(Contrary to the status quo belief of the 'sexism' of yore, the 'weakness' of women was generally considered to be mental/emotional, not physical.
)Also, testosterone (resulting in an more forward inner drive) probably has something to do with it, I imagine.
If someone is driven, they are more likely to manifest their dreams, or to even have those dreams.
From what I've seen, guys with more testosterone are not only more extroverted and have higher self-esteem, but also tend to accomplish more than their peers if they're the least bit intelligent.I've got two children - a daughter, 3, and a son, 6.
I don't think my son is more intelligent than my daughter, and don't necessarily think the inverse is true, either.
I'm unsure due to age and gender related development.
I do know that my daughter tends to learn better: she listens more carefully, and is generally more attentive to what's being told to her.
But she's also nowhere near as headstrong or driven as my son, either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348688</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260115140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Anon because I already modded in this discussion)<br>I interpreted it differently, that Muslims, Catholics, and barbarians are three separate groups that all have higher fertility rates<br>Sure, there's some overlap, but I don't think GP meant to imply complete overlap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Anon because I already modded in this discussion ) I interpreted it differently , that Muslims , Catholics , and barbarians are three separate groups that all have higher fertility ratesSure , there 's some overlap , but I do n't think GP meant to imply complete overlap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Anon because I already modded in this discussion)I interpreted it differently, that Muslims, Catholics, and barbarians are three separate groups that all have higher fertility ratesSure, there's some overlap, but I don't think GP meant to imply complete overlap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30357400</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260178560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IQ = How good you are at taking IQ tests and the number is not static</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IQ = How good you are at taking IQ tests and the number is not static</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IQ = How good you are at taking IQ tests and the number is not static</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356020</id>
	<title>OT - your sig</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260214920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're brave. Be proud!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're brave .
Be proud !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're brave.
Be proud!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347948</id>
	<title>Re: Emotional Intelligence</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1260108660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smart men build weapons.<br>Smart women know not to use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smart men build weapons.Smart women know not to use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smart men build weapons.Smart women know not to use them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350154</id>
	<title>Children having sons &amp; daughters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260218160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters."</p></div></blockquote><p>This was written by a woman, no doubt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if there are children , both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters .
" This was written by a woman , no doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters.
"This was written by a woman, no doubt.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348100</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Common Sense.</title>
	<author>haruharaharu</author>
	<datestamp>1260109860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Take money management for example. Brilliant individual, six-figure salary to boot, and so damn broke he/she can't afford to change their mind. Freaking kills me.</p></div><p>Speaking for myself, I'm impulsive, so I bought a lot of toys. Of course, I also put 8\% + match in a 401k and have stopped buying crap, so it'll work out in a year or two.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take money management for example .
Brilliant individual , six-figure salary to boot , and so damn broke he/she ca n't afford to change their mind .
Freaking kills me.Speaking for myself , I 'm impulsive , so I bought a lot of toys .
Of course , I also put 8 \ % + match in a 401k and have stopped buying crap , so it 'll work out in a year or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take money management for example.
Brilliant individual, six-figure salary to boot, and so damn broke he/she can't afford to change their mind.
Freaking kills me.Speaking for myself, I'm impulsive, so I bought a lot of toys.
Of course, I also put 8\% + match in a 401k and have stopped buying crap, so it'll work out in a year or two.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347028</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because you are a weak mindiidiot too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you are a weak mindiidiot too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you are a weak mindiidiot too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348822</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260116220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Man" is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate(sp?) between male and female. You can claim genetics determines that, and I'll show you XX men and XY women. You claim genitalia, I'll reply with birth defects.</p></div></blockquote><p>By that same logic, water is a social construct, since there's all kinds of fabulous variations on H2O and all kinds of muck in fluids which are still called "water" (in fact, more often than not). But most right-thinking people reject that, just as most right-thinking people reject the claim that there's such a thing as "men" and "women". Keep in mind though that having "men" and "women" does not preclude people who don't fall into either category existing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Man " is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate ( sp ?
) between male and female .
You can claim genetics determines that , and I 'll show you XX men and XY women .
You claim genitalia , I 'll reply with birth defects.By that same logic , water is a social construct , since there 's all kinds of fabulous variations on H2O and all kinds of muck in fluids which are still called " water " ( in fact , more often than not ) .
But most right-thinking people reject that , just as most right-thinking people reject the claim that there 's such a thing as " men " and " women " .
Keep in mind though that having " men " and " women " does not preclude people who do n't fall into either category existing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Man" is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate(sp?
) between male and female.
You can claim genetics determines that, and I'll show you XX men and XY women.
You claim genitalia, I'll reply with birth defects.By that same logic, water is a social construct, since there's all kinds of fabulous variations on H2O and all kinds of muck in fluids which are still called "water" (in fact, more often than not).
But most right-thinking people reject that, just as most right-thinking people reject the claim that there's such a thing as "men" and "women".
Keep in mind though that having "men" and "women" does not preclude people who don't fall into either category existing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346854</id>
	<title>Violently unsurprising</title>
	<author>John Guilt</author>
	<datestamp>1260101220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Male primates seem more interested in territory than females, very generally speaking (we're talking about two, highly-overlapping, Gaussians, with peaks more than a  but less than two away, not two spikes three  away).
<p>

Believing you're smart, and acting on it, can be considered as a claim to an higher amount of psychic territory.  Social forces are such that women have been less likely to use intelligence as a basis for this for this, but I think that's changing...but I wonder how a sample of "Mad Men"-era housewives would have treated assessing their own 'prettiness' or 'perkiness' compared with their husbands' self-assessments.
</p><p>
It can also be a tactic for feeling better about your own place in the actual hierarchy, even as it breeds resentment (it doesn't work for me, but I see people seemingly <i>sustained</i> by the 'knowledge' that they're smarter than everyone else).
</p><p>
Women can also be extremely concerned about hierarchy, but again there seem to be differences in how they get their places in it, less 'Look at me, I can make an intensely loud threat-display!' than 'Girls, you all know how much I've groomed all of you....'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Male primates seem more interested in territory than females , very generally speaking ( we 're talking about two , highly-overlapping , Gaussians , with peaks more than a but less than two away , not two spikes three away ) .
Believing you 're smart , and acting on it , can be considered as a claim to an higher amount of psychic territory .
Social forces are such that women have been less likely to use intelligence as a basis for this for this , but I think that 's changing...but I wonder how a sample of " Mad Men " -era housewives would have treated assessing their own 'prettiness ' or 'perkiness ' compared with their husbands ' self-assessments .
It can also be a tactic for feeling better about your own place in the actual hierarchy , even as it breeds resentment ( it does n't work for me , but I see people seemingly sustained by the 'knowledge ' that they 're smarter than everyone else ) .
Women can also be extremely concerned about hierarchy , but again there seem to be differences in how they get their places in it , less 'Look at me , I can make an intensely loud threat-display !
' than 'Girls , you all know how much I 've groomed all of you....'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Male primates seem more interested in territory than females, very generally speaking (we're talking about two, highly-overlapping, Gaussians, with peaks more than a  but less than two away, not two spikes three  away).
Believing you're smart, and acting on it, can be considered as a claim to an higher amount of psychic territory.
Social forces are such that women have been less likely to use intelligence as a basis for this for this, but I think that's changing...but I wonder how a sample of "Mad Men"-era housewives would have treated assessing their own 'prettiness' or 'perkiness' compared with their husbands' self-assessments.
It can also be a tactic for feeling better about your own place in the actual hierarchy, even as it breeds resentment (it doesn't work for me, but I see people seemingly sustained by the 'knowledge' that they're smarter than everyone else).
Women can also be extremely concerned about hierarchy, but again there seem to be differences in how they get their places in it, less 'Look at me, I can make an intensely loud threat-display!
' than 'Girls, you all know how much I've groomed all of you....'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351062</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260186360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who didn't get to vote for who knows how long?</p></div><p>How long did you have to wait for the right to vote? No time at all?</p><p>So who has the real persecution complex here?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who did n't get to vote for who knows how long ? How long did you have to wait for the right to vote ?
No time at all ? So who has the real persecution complex here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who didn't get to vote for who knows how long?How long did you have to wait for the right to vote?
No time at all?So who has the real persecution complex here?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350628</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1260180780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>120 in US would be average in Europe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>120 in US would be average in Europe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>120 in US would be average in Europe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347528</id>
	<title>real reason</title>
	<author>Kebis</author>
	<datestamp>1260105960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the real reason men feel they're more intelligent than women can be summed up in two words: "Twilight Saga".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real reason men feel they 're more intelligent than women can be summed up in two words : " Twilight Saga " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real reason men feel they're more intelligent than women can be summed up in two words: "Twilight Saga".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354728</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260208740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In cases of having the kid, I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy. </i></p><p>Women have a plethora of birth control choices; pills, IUDs, implants, the list goes on. Men have only three:</p><ol> <li>Condoms (requires the woman's consent, unlike any method of female BC)</li><li>Permanent, invasive surgery</li><li>Abstinance</li></ol><p>Really fair, ain't it?</p><p>If she gets pregnant, she can choose to abort or give birth, and the man has no say. He may be adamantly opposed to abortion and feel that his child is being murdered and the fetus will still be aborted. He may wish an abortion but it's her call, not his. He can't force an abortion or birth of HIS child.</p><p>If she chooses birth, the man pays for the next 18 years, even if he's denied contact with the child that he was tricked into fathering in the first place.</p><p>In many states, you are reponsible for any children your wife has after you marry her, even if you're not the biological father. There is no penalty whatever for adultery.</p><p><b>Isn't it time for men to have some reproductive rights? We have none whatever.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In cases of having the kid , I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy .
Women have a plethora of birth control choices ; pills , IUDs , implants , the list goes on .
Men have only three : Condoms ( requires the woman 's consent , unlike any method of female BC ) Permanent , invasive surgeryAbstinanceReally fair , ai n't it ? If she gets pregnant , she can choose to abort or give birth , and the man has no say .
He may be adamantly opposed to abortion and feel that his child is being murdered and the fetus will still be aborted .
He may wish an abortion but it 's her call , not his .
He ca n't force an abortion or birth of HIS child.If she chooses birth , the man pays for the next 18 years , even if he 's denied contact with the child that he was tricked into fathering in the first place.In many states , you are reponsible for any children your wife has after you marry her , even if you 're not the biological father .
There is no penalty whatever for adultery.Is n't it time for men to have some reproductive rights ?
We have none whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In cases of having the kid, I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy.
Women have a plethora of birth control choices; pills, IUDs, implants, the list goes on.
Men have only three: Condoms (requires the woman's consent, unlike any method of female BC)Permanent, invasive surgeryAbstinanceReally fair, ain't it?If she gets pregnant, she can choose to abort or give birth, and the man has no say.
He may be adamantly opposed to abortion and feel that his child is being murdered and the fetus will still be aborted.
He may wish an abortion but it's her call, not his.
He can't force an abortion or birth of HIS child.If she chooses birth, the man pays for the next 18 years, even if he's denied contact with the child that he was tricked into fathering in the first place.In many states, you are reponsible for any children your wife has after you marry her, even if you're not the biological father.
There is no penalty whatever for adultery.Isn't it time for men to have some reproductive rights?
We have none whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350614</id>
	<title>Re:Women would rather work?</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1260180660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't know what world you live in, but the one I live in, regardless of whether or not they go to school or have a career, most (not all) women eventually want to raise children of their own. In an ideal world, women could raise children AND have a career. We live far away from an ideal world on a place called Earth, where months out of work are a serious setback, and where raising kids well AND dealing with workplace responsibilities is impossible unless you sleep 2 hours a day.</i></p><p>Actually, over here in pinko commie europe where politicians fart unicorns, there's quite a few laws in place to ensure both that the mother does not suffer in her workplace from...well...becoming a mother <b>and</b> that there is ample opportunity for dad to actually chip in(paternity leave, etc). Especially the Scandinavian countries are quite enlightened in that respect. Then again the women around here are 6 foot tall blondes that'll tear your head off if you keep insisting on paying for their dinner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what world you live in , but the one I live in , regardless of whether or not they go to school or have a career , most ( not all ) women eventually want to raise children of their own .
In an ideal world , women could raise children AND have a career .
We live far away from an ideal world on a place called Earth , where months out of work are a serious setback , and where raising kids well AND dealing with workplace responsibilities is impossible unless you sleep 2 hours a day.Actually , over here in pinko commie europe where politicians fart unicorns , there 's quite a few laws in place to ensure both that the mother does not suffer in her workplace from...well...becoming a mother and that there is ample opportunity for dad to actually chip in ( paternity leave , etc ) .
Especially the Scandinavian countries are quite enlightened in that respect .
Then again the women around here are 6 foot tall blondes that 'll tear your head off if you keep insisting on paying for their dinner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what world you live in, but the one I live in, regardless of whether or not they go to school or have a career, most (not all) women eventually want to raise children of their own.
In an ideal world, women could raise children AND have a career.
We live far away from an ideal world on a place called Earth, where months out of work are a serious setback, and where raising kids well AND dealing with workplace responsibilities is impossible unless you sleep 2 hours a day.Actually, over here in pinko commie europe where politicians fart unicorns, there's quite a few laws in place to ensure both that the mother does not suffer in her workplace from...well...becoming a mother and that there is ample opportunity for dad to actually chip in(paternity leave, etc).
Especially the Scandinavian countries are quite enlightened in that respect.
Then again the women around here are 6 foot tall blondes that'll tear your head off if you keep insisting on paying for their dinner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348034</id>
	<title>Simple - its evolution</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1260109380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Men are supposed to be the ruler - even though that has been wildly politically incorrect to say, its still coded in our genes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Men are supposed to be the ruler - even though that has been wildly politically incorrect to say , its still coded in our genes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Men are supposed to be the ruler - even though that has been wildly politically incorrect to say, its still coded in our genes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347114</id>
	<title>Ohhh i love a good man basshing</title>
	<author>random string of num</author>
	<datestamp>1260102960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"... they don't do as well at uni any more
don't live as long
have a weaker immune system
and now they think they are smarter! the over paid evolutionary throwbacks, why don't we get rid of them all and move on as a race"

I hate articles like this, there are so many, and yes I am a man, Until we start treating each other (the sexes) as equals, and recognising the differences (there are some) then we cant move on and away from the inequality of the past. this kind of sensationalist journalism, just polarises the sexes. I meen the title says it all,
"he's not as smart as he thinks" so provocative where they could have gone for the more positive
"she underestimates her intelligence" - but this is less catchy</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... they do n't do as well at uni any more do n't live as long have a weaker immune system and now they think they are smarter !
the over paid evolutionary throwbacks , why do n't we get rid of them all and move on as a race " I hate articles like this , there are so many , and yes I am a man , Until we start treating each other ( the sexes ) as equals , and recognising the differences ( there are some ) then we cant move on and away from the inequality of the past .
this kind of sensationalist journalism , just polarises the sexes .
I meen the title says it all , " he 's not as smart as he thinks " so provocative where they could have gone for the more positive " she underestimates her intelligence " - but this is less catchy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... they don't do as well at uni any more
don't live as long
have a weaker immune system
and now they think they are smarter!
the over paid evolutionary throwbacks, why don't we get rid of them all and move on as a race"

I hate articles like this, there are so many, and yes I am a man, Until we start treating each other (the sexes) as equals, and recognising the differences (there are some) then we cant move on and away from the inequality of the past.
this kind of sensationalist journalism, just polarises the sexes.
I meen the title says it all,
"he's not as smart as he thinks" so provocative where they could have gone for the more positive
"she underestimates her intelligence" - but this is less catchy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356598</id>
	<title>Re:Extroverted people are rated as 'smarter'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260217680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this interesting and would like to read the study. Do you have a source?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this interesting and would like to read the study .
Do you have a source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this interesting and would like to read the study.
Do you have a source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348020</id>
	<title>what a suprise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260109260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>yet another study bagging men. maybe it's just because they stick out in my mind, but most women i know are dumb as a fucking door nail. now i know some really smart women to, but i cound them on one hand where the type that think about nothing but landing a man and having babies is a dime a dozen.<p>
how about we do a study on why the fuck studies always concerntrate on proving the current PC flavour of the month, and studies that prove unpopular truths hardly see the light of day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yet another study bagging men .
maybe it 's just because they stick out in my mind , but most women i know are dumb as a fucking door nail .
now i know some really smart women to , but i cound them on one hand where the type that think about nothing but landing a man and having babies is a dime a dozen .
how about we do a study on why the fuck studies always concerntrate on proving the current PC flavour of the month , and studies that prove unpopular truths hardly see the light of day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet another study bagging men.
maybe it's just because they stick out in my mind, but most women i know are dumb as a fucking door nail.
now i know some really smart women to, but i cound them on one hand where the type that think about nothing but landing a man and having babies is a dime a dozen.
how about we do a study on why the fuck studies always concerntrate on proving the current PC flavour of the month, and studies that prove unpopular truths hardly see the light of day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352772</id>
	<title>Re:Bold = Smart</title>
	<author>Luyseyal</author>
	<datestamp>1260200220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is so true. My wife is smarter than me in a lot of areas, but when it comes to making an impression at the office, I do a better job. We both have ideas, but whereas I take the bold "NO HARD TABS IN SOURCE!" approach, she tends to take a meek approach ("well, this might be a better way to organize our research... maybe... I might be wrong... "), hamstringing her success rate. It's very frustrating to me to see it happen over and over again, though. She has GREAT ideas, but no one takes a meek person seriously.</p><p>-l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is so true .
My wife is smarter than me in a lot of areas , but when it comes to making an impression at the office , I do a better job .
We both have ideas , but whereas I take the bold " NO HARD TABS IN SOURCE !
" approach , she tends to take a meek approach ( " well , this might be a better way to organize our research... maybe... I might be wrong... " ) , hamstringing her success rate .
It 's very frustrating to me to see it happen over and over again , though .
She has GREAT ideas , but no one takes a meek person seriously.-l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is so true.
My wife is smarter than me in a lot of areas, but when it comes to making an impression at the office, I do a better job.
We both have ideas, but whereas I take the bold "NO HARD TABS IN SOURCE!
" approach, she tends to take a meek approach ("well, this might be a better way to organize our research... maybe... I might be wrong... "), hamstringing her success rate.
It's very frustrating to me to see it happen over and over again, though.
She has GREAT ideas, but no one takes a meek person seriously.-l</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710</id>
	<title>If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1260099960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why isn't anyone raving about the Twitter feed called Shit My Mom Says?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't anyone raving about the Twitter feed called Shit My Mom Says ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't anyone raving about the Twitter feed called Shit My Mom Says?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347138</id>
	<title>Idiots not qualified to estimate own intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260103140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idiot is called an idiot for a reason. You don't walk up to someone who spends their spare time lighting their farts and ask them to assess anyone's intelligence, least of all their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idiot is called an idiot for a reason .
You do n't walk up to someone who spends their spare time lighting their farts and ask them to assess anyone 's intelligence , least of all their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idiot is called an idiot for a reason.
You don't walk up to someone who spends their spare time lighting their farts and ask them to assess anyone's intelligence, least of all their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352954</id>
	<title>Re:Oblig...</title>
	<author>groslyunderpaid</author>
	<datestamp>1260201240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh man that's the hardest I have laughed in a while...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh man that 's the hardest I have laughed in a while.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh man that's the hardest I have laughed in a while...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124</id>
	<title>Bold = Smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260103020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think in general, people perceive that bolder, outspoken people are smarter - as if their boldness comes from understanding and knowledge.  I also think that men (by virtue of testosterone) tend to be bolder than women.  This get misperceived as intelligence, thus men are generally perceived to be more intelligent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think in general , people perceive that bolder , outspoken people are smarter - as if their boldness comes from understanding and knowledge .
I also think that men ( by virtue of testosterone ) tend to be bolder than women .
This get misperceived as intelligence , thus men are generally perceived to be more intelligent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think in general, people perceive that bolder, outspoken people are smarter - as if their boldness comes from understanding and knowledge.
I also think that men (by virtue of testosterone) tend to be bolder than women.
This get misperceived as intelligence, thus men are generally perceived to be more intelligent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348120</id>
	<title>I used to think I was smarter than most people.</title>
	<author>alex\_guy\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1260109980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to think I was smarter than most people. I thought I was very smart in fact. <p> Now I think I'm above average 1/2 of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think I was smarter than most people .
I thought I was very smart in fact .
Now I think I 'm above average 1/2 of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think I was smarter than most people.
I thought I was very smart in fact.
Now I think I'm above average 1/2 of the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353082</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260201960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>devilsadvocate&gt; Just because GWB didn't express his intelligence in ways that we would normally associate within our social norms with "intelligent" doesn't necessarily overcome the fact that he was very successful at carrying out plans that he wanted to.  He was a two term president of the most powerful nation in the history of the planet, continued policies that were VERY unpopular literally up till the day he left office.  Just throwing this out there because "pissing lots of people off" does not equal "unintelligent" necessarily...  it could, but its not like anyone is threatening his continued existence, except one guy with a shoe (which apparently he was intelligent enough to dodge).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/devilsadvocate</htmltext>
<tokenext>devilsadvocate &gt; Just because GWB did n't express his intelligence in ways that we would normally associate within our social norms with " intelligent " does n't necessarily overcome the fact that he was very successful at carrying out plans that he wanted to .
He was a two term president of the most powerful nation in the history of the planet , continued policies that were VERY unpopular literally up till the day he left office .
Just throwing this out there because " pissing lots of people off " does not equal " unintelligent " necessarily... it could , but its not like anyone is threatening his continued existence , except one guy with a shoe ( which apparently he was intelligent enough to dodge ) .
/devilsadvocate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>devilsadvocate&gt; Just because GWB didn't express his intelligence in ways that we would normally associate within our social norms with "intelligent" doesn't necessarily overcome the fact that he was very successful at carrying out plans that he wanted to.
He was a two term president of the most powerful nation in the history of the planet, continued policies that were VERY unpopular literally up till the day he left office.
Just throwing this out there because "pissing lots of people off" does not equal "unintelligent" necessarily...  it could, but its not like anyone is threatening his continued existence, except one guy with a shoe (which apparently he was intelligent enough to dodge).
/devilsadvocate</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351948</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1260196560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.</p></div><p>I beg to differ.  The fact that we're at the top of the food chain by a looooooong shot is evidence enough.  We're small, weak, fragile, poorly-armed (no raptor claws), etc.  But we have big brains, can plan, work in groups, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.I beg to differ .
The fact that we 're at the top of the food chain by a looooooong shot is evidence enough .
We 're small , weak , fragile , poorly-armed ( no raptor claws ) , etc .
But we have big brains , can plan , work in groups , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd also like to remind you that there are no studies proving that intelligence has any survival advantage whatsoever.I beg to differ.
The fact that we're at the top of the food chain by a looooooong shot is evidence enough.
We're small, weak, fragile, poorly-armed (no raptor claws), etc.
But we have big brains, can plan, work in groups, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346734</id>
	<title>You're forgetting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260100200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That intelligence != knowledge</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That intelligence ! = knowledge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That intelligence != knowledge</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351392</id>
	<title>Legos vs. Barbies</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1260191040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We give our boys legos, blocks, erector/mechano, tinker toys, electronics kits, microscopes, telescopes, child size carpenters tools.<br><br>We give our girls Barbies, Littlest Pet Shop, Disney Princesses, CD Players, Bratz, hair brushes, make up, etc...<br><br>Girls have a higher "social intelligence" in most cases as spend their youth pretending to be mommies or party girls. So they learn their social skills early and attempt to mature to womanhood early.<br><br>Almost all boy toys are puzzles of some type or another. The "intelligent ones" spend their entire youths puzzling things out or attempting to figure out how to do things.<br><br>There are exceptions to both, I see it all the time at my kids' school. But on average, when you get to the school, of the children doing productive things (as opposed to kicking a ball around). Girls are coloring or making bead pictures. Boys are building and playing with mechanical or otherwise educational toys.<br><br>We categorize our children from birth and raise them differently. Women don't lack the intelligence that men do, men simply excel at the types of tasks found on IQ tests since they spend their entire childhood indirectly training for them.<br><br>It's often why in a typical middle class relationship (excluding couples with lawyers, marketing drones, pointed haired bosses etc...) that men are expected to devise solutions to complex problems. It's also why children tend to think "pappa's smarter than momma". It isn't that the women can't do it, in fact, single mothers have to solve all the same problems as the pappa does in a family. It's the fact that pappa's get more satisfaction from solving problems of those types and if women couldn't get us to do that stuff, they would probably have to do all the work in the house.<br><br>As for people talking about George W. Bush's IQ, it was Sr. that was reported to have 120, the reports I've read on Jr. had him closer to 100. Either way, on the IQ scale, they're both pretty much next to vegetables.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We give our boys legos , blocks , erector/mechano , tinker toys , electronics kits , microscopes , telescopes , child size carpenters tools.We give our girls Barbies , Littlest Pet Shop , Disney Princesses , CD Players , Bratz , hair brushes , make up , etc...Girls have a higher " social intelligence " in most cases as spend their youth pretending to be mommies or party girls .
So they learn their social skills early and attempt to mature to womanhood early.Almost all boy toys are puzzles of some type or another .
The " intelligent ones " spend their entire youths puzzling things out or attempting to figure out how to do things.There are exceptions to both , I see it all the time at my kids ' school .
But on average , when you get to the school , of the children doing productive things ( as opposed to kicking a ball around ) .
Girls are coloring or making bead pictures .
Boys are building and playing with mechanical or otherwise educational toys.We categorize our children from birth and raise them differently .
Women do n't lack the intelligence that men do , men simply excel at the types of tasks found on IQ tests since they spend their entire childhood indirectly training for them.It 's often why in a typical middle class relationship ( excluding couples with lawyers , marketing drones , pointed haired bosses etc... ) that men are expected to devise solutions to complex problems .
It 's also why children tend to think " pappa 's smarter than momma " .
It is n't that the women ca n't do it , in fact , single mothers have to solve all the same problems as the pappa does in a family .
It 's the fact that pappa 's get more satisfaction from solving problems of those types and if women could n't get us to do that stuff , they would probably have to do all the work in the house.As for people talking about George W. Bush 's IQ , it was Sr. that was reported to have 120 , the reports I 've read on Jr. had him closer to 100 .
Either way , on the IQ scale , they 're both pretty much next to vegetables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We give our boys legos, blocks, erector/mechano, tinker toys, electronics kits, microscopes, telescopes, child size carpenters tools.We give our girls Barbies, Littlest Pet Shop, Disney Princesses, CD Players, Bratz, hair brushes, make up, etc...Girls have a higher "social intelligence" in most cases as spend their youth pretending to be mommies or party girls.
So they learn their social skills early and attempt to mature to womanhood early.Almost all boy toys are puzzles of some type or another.
The "intelligent ones" spend their entire youths puzzling things out or attempting to figure out how to do things.There are exceptions to both, I see it all the time at my kids' school.
But on average, when you get to the school, of the children doing productive things (as opposed to kicking a ball around).
Girls are coloring or making bead pictures.
Boys are building and playing with mechanical or otherwise educational toys.We categorize our children from birth and raise them differently.
Women don't lack the intelligence that men do, men simply excel at the types of tasks found on IQ tests since they spend their entire childhood indirectly training for them.It's often why in a typical middle class relationship (excluding couples with lawyers, marketing drones, pointed haired bosses etc...) that men are expected to devise solutions to complex problems.
It's also why children tend to think "pappa's smarter than momma".
It isn't that the women can't do it, in fact, single mothers have to solve all the same problems as the pappa does in a family.
It's the fact that pappa's get more satisfaction from solving problems of those types and if women couldn't get us to do that stuff, they would probably have to do all the work in the house.As for people talking about George W. Bush's IQ, it was Sr. that was reported to have 120, the reports I've read on Jr. had him closer to 100.
Either way, on the IQ scale, they're both pretty much next to vegetables.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348568</id>
	<title>No surprise</title>
	<author>dsouza42</author>
	<datestamp>1260113940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;  His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ

Actually, when the IQ test was first created men scored higher and the test was considered biased towards men. This was then changed so that the bias would be removed so, men and women are fairly equal because the test was designed to be that way. However, men still have a greater variance than women, even in on average they're both the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ Actually , when the IQ test was first created men scored higher and the test was considered biased towards men .
This was then changed so that the bias would be removed so , men and women are fairly equal because the test was designed to be that way .
However , men still have a greater variance than women , even in on average they 're both the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ

Actually, when the IQ test was first created men scored higher and the test was considered biased towards men.
This was then changed so that the bias would be removed so, men and women are fairly equal because the test was designed to be that way.
However, men still have a greater variance than women, even in on average they're both the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351762</id>
	<title>Come now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all easily explained by a man's competitive nature. Why do people think men achieve anything? For the common good?</p><p>Hell no - for self-gratification. The pyramids, scientific advancements, etc can all be boiled down to a man saying "I am right" or "I am superior".</p><p>Why do men do better in game shows like Jeopardy? The drive to win overpowers their natural reservations. Women may know the answer but they lack the testosterone drenched brain that demands victory. Why did Grandpa seem smarter - because, by God, he's not afraid to tell you his opinions...on everything.</p><p>On average, women are certainly more intelligent. But lacking the hard-wired drive of men they will continue to underachieve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all easily explained by a man 's competitive nature .
Why do people think men achieve anything ?
For the common good ? Hell no - for self-gratification .
The pyramids , scientific advancements , etc can all be boiled down to a man saying " I am right " or " I am superior " .Why do men do better in game shows like Jeopardy ?
The drive to win overpowers their natural reservations .
Women may know the answer but they lack the testosterone drenched brain that demands victory .
Why did Grandpa seem smarter - because , by God , he 's not afraid to tell you his opinions...on everything.On average , women are certainly more intelligent .
But lacking the hard-wired drive of men they will continue to underachieve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all easily explained by a man's competitive nature.
Why do people think men achieve anything?
For the common good?Hell no - for self-gratification.
The pyramids, scientific advancements, etc can all be boiled down to a man saying "I am right" or "I am superior".Why do men do better in game shows like Jeopardy?
The drive to win overpowers their natural reservations.
Women may know the answer but they lack the testosterone drenched brain that demands victory.
Why did Grandpa seem smarter - because, by God, he's not afraid to tell you his opinions...on everything.On average, women are certainly more intelligent.
But lacking the hard-wired drive of men they will continue to underachieve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351958</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>JeffSpudrinski</author>
	<datestamp>1260196560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guess I'm just the oddball out here.</p><p>It was noted earlier that IQ doesn't equal intelligence.  I'm a guy (I have to state that to make my following comments clear within the parameters of the stated statistics).</p><p>1) I believe that both of my grandmothers were smarter than their husbands.  Their husbands may have had more education, but overall both of my grandmothers were ferociously intelligent and very wise in day-to-day knowledge and dealing with interpersonal relationships.  My maternal grandmother worked at several different banks and my paternal grandmother was a homemaker.  (note: my maternal grandmother divorced her husband, which was simply the smartest and bravest thing she ever did).  Not that my grandfathers were not smart or intelligent, but they both married up.</p><p>2) My mother has the same style of intelligence of her mother.  I believe that my father is a nicer person than her mother's husband was.  My father is extremely intelligent, but when something needs to get done when dealing with others, my mother is the one who can get stuff done quickly, efficiently, and without ticking anyone off (in fact, she usually defuses hostile situations when they arise, but will stand her ground when necessary).  My mother has two sisters and one brother.  Across the board, the three women are (in my estimation) smarter and more intelligent than my uncle.  My father has a sister and she has the same style of intelligence as her mother while my father took more after his dad (not a bad thing, it must be noted).</p><p>3) I have three children.  One is autistic and therefore excluded from the statistics, but I have another son and a daughter.  While my non-autistic son is very smart and is able to use reason and problem solving skills very intelligently, my daughter is extremely intelligent (scary intelligent).  How many 11-year-olds do you know who's aspirations include wanting to become an ambassador to a foreign country?  Her favorite TV shows are Babylon 5 and West Wing (both involving politics and complex story lines which she absorbs like a sponge).  She also tends to have the ability to emotionally "disarm" others and avoids being involved in "cliques" while still being friends with about everyone she meets.  I frequently pop-quiz her on things such as American history (the US Constitution to be precise) and she usually gets the answers correct.</p><p>So...as noted, I guess I'm the odd ball out.  I'm a guy in a family of ferociously smart women (we won't discuss my sister, though).  Life was happier for me once I came to said realization and just learned to work around it.</p><p>-JJS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guess I 'm just the oddball out here.It was noted earlier that IQ does n't equal intelligence .
I 'm a guy ( I have to state that to make my following comments clear within the parameters of the stated statistics ) .1 ) I believe that both of my grandmothers were smarter than their husbands .
Their husbands may have had more education , but overall both of my grandmothers were ferociously intelligent and very wise in day-to-day knowledge and dealing with interpersonal relationships .
My maternal grandmother worked at several different banks and my paternal grandmother was a homemaker .
( note : my maternal grandmother divorced her husband , which was simply the smartest and bravest thing she ever did ) .
Not that my grandfathers were not smart or intelligent , but they both married up.2 ) My mother has the same style of intelligence of her mother .
I believe that my father is a nicer person than her mother 's husband was .
My father is extremely intelligent , but when something needs to get done when dealing with others , my mother is the one who can get stuff done quickly , efficiently , and without ticking anyone off ( in fact , she usually defuses hostile situations when they arise , but will stand her ground when necessary ) .
My mother has two sisters and one brother .
Across the board , the three women are ( in my estimation ) smarter and more intelligent than my uncle .
My father has a sister and she has the same style of intelligence as her mother while my father took more after his dad ( not a bad thing , it must be noted ) .3 ) I have three children .
One is autistic and therefore excluded from the statistics , but I have another son and a daughter .
While my non-autistic son is very smart and is able to use reason and problem solving skills very intelligently , my daughter is extremely intelligent ( scary intelligent ) .
How many 11-year-olds do you know who 's aspirations include wanting to become an ambassador to a foreign country ?
Her favorite TV shows are Babylon 5 and West Wing ( both involving politics and complex story lines which she absorbs like a sponge ) .
She also tends to have the ability to emotionally " disarm " others and avoids being involved in " cliques " while still being friends with about everyone she meets .
I frequently pop-quiz her on things such as American history ( the US Constitution to be precise ) and she usually gets the answers correct.So...as noted , I guess I 'm the odd ball out .
I 'm a guy in a family of ferociously smart women ( we wo n't discuss my sister , though ) .
Life was happier for me once I came to said realization and just learned to work around it.-JJS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guess I'm just the oddball out here.It was noted earlier that IQ doesn't equal intelligence.
I'm a guy (I have to state that to make my following comments clear within the parameters of the stated statistics).1) I believe that both of my grandmothers were smarter than their husbands.
Their husbands may have had more education, but overall both of my grandmothers were ferociously intelligent and very wise in day-to-day knowledge and dealing with interpersonal relationships.
My maternal grandmother worked at several different banks and my paternal grandmother was a homemaker.
(note: my maternal grandmother divorced her husband, which was simply the smartest and bravest thing she ever did).
Not that my grandfathers were not smart or intelligent, but they both married up.2) My mother has the same style of intelligence of her mother.
I believe that my father is a nicer person than her mother's husband was.
My father is extremely intelligent, but when something needs to get done when dealing with others, my mother is the one who can get stuff done quickly, efficiently, and without ticking anyone off (in fact, she usually defuses hostile situations when they arise, but will stand her ground when necessary).
My mother has two sisters and one brother.
Across the board, the three women are (in my estimation) smarter and more intelligent than my uncle.
My father has a sister and she has the same style of intelligence as her mother while my father took more after his dad (not a bad thing, it must be noted).3) I have three children.
One is autistic and therefore excluded from the statistics, but I have another son and a daughter.
While my non-autistic son is very smart and is able to use reason and problem solving skills very intelligently, my daughter is extremely intelligent (scary intelligent).
How many 11-year-olds do you know who's aspirations include wanting to become an ambassador to a foreign country?
Her favorite TV shows are Babylon 5 and West Wing (both involving politics and complex story lines which she absorbs like a sponge).
She also tends to have the ability to emotionally "disarm" others and avoids being involved in "cliques" while still being friends with about everyone she meets.
I frequently pop-quiz her on things such as American history (the US Constitution to be precise) and she usually gets the answers correct.So...as noted, I guess I'm the odd ball out.
I'm a guy in a family of ferociously smart women (we won't discuss my sister, though).
Life was happier for me once I came to said realization and just learned to work around it.-JJS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352470</id>
	<title>Intelligence vs. Effort</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1260198900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intelligence itself might be overrated.  Intelligence alone isn't enough to be successful at something.  Effort seems to be the overriding factor.  Determined people can outstrip smart people who are lazy *raises hand*.</p><p>There was a study where they assessed the abilities of two classes of kids.  They complimented one class on how smart they were and the other on how hard they worked.  Before long, the smart kids were frustrated.  The hard working kids where less likely to give up.  They found out that they could work through things they didn't understand.</p><p>The whole thing was too near the bone for me.  Through my childhood they told me i was gifted (but undisciplined).  i had a tendency to assume that anything i found difficult was beyond me, and i'd quit.</p><p>Intelligence alone won't help in relationships.  Smart people sometimes think they can outsmart relationship problems, or that love is a problem to be solved.  It just doesn't work that way.  Until i gained some serious self awareness through painful experiences, i had a tendency to annoy the shit out of people by trying to be smart/logical.</p><p>Last i heard, the membership of MENSA showed that they are not universally wealthy or highly placed in their careers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intelligence itself might be overrated .
Intelligence alone is n't enough to be successful at something .
Effort seems to be the overriding factor .
Determined people can outstrip smart people who are lazy * raises hand * .There was a study where they assessed the abilities of two classes of kids .
They complimented one class on how smart they were and the other on how hard they worked .
Before long , the smart kids were frustrated .
The hard working kids where less likely to give up .
They found out that they could work through things they did n't understand.The whole thing was too near the bone for me .
Through my childhood they told me i was gifted ( but undisciplined ) .
i had a tendency to assume that anything i found difficult was beyond me , and i 'd quit.Intelligence alone wo n't help in relationships .
Smart people sometimes think they can outsmart relationship problems , or that love is a problem to be solved .
It just does n't work that way .
Until i gained some serious self awareness through painful experiences , i had a tendency to annoy the shit out of people by trying to be smart/logical.Last i heard , the membership of MENSA showed that they are not universally wealthy or highly placed in their careers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intelligence itself might be overrated.
Intelligence alone isn't enough to be successful at something.
Effort seems to be the overriding factor.
Determined people can outstrip smart people who are lazy *raises hand*.There was a study where they assessed the abilities of two classes of kids.
They complimented one class on how smart they were and the other on how hard they worked.
Before long, the smart kids were frustrated.
The hard working kids where less likely to give up.
They found out that they could work through things they didn't understand.The whole thing was too near the bone for me.
Through my childhood they told me i was gifted (but undisciplined).
i had a tendency to assume that anything i found difficult was beyond me, and i'd quit.Intelligence alone won't help in relationships.
Smart people sometimes think they can outsmart relationship problems, or that love is a problem to be solved.
It just doesn't work that way.
Until i gained some serious self awareness through painful experiences, i had a tendency to annoy the shit out of people by trying to be smart/logical.Last i heard, the membership of MENSA showed that they are not universally wealthy or highly placed in their careers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348540</id>
	<title>Re:Different intelligence:</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1260113640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ah the emotional intelligence argument. When a wealth women loses all of her money in a scam job I would just love to ask her "It's a shame you lost all your money but how did you *feel* about the transaction?!?".</p></div><p>Isn't falling victim to a scam artist exactly the definition of low emotional intelligence? Susceptibility to being manipulated by someone who can parrot your deepest emotional needs?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah the emotional intelligence argument .
When a wealth women loses all of her money in a scam job I would just love to ask her " It 's a shame you lost all your money but how did you * feel * about the transaction ? ! ?
" .Is n't falling victim to a scam artist exactly the definition of low emotional intelligence ?
Susceptibility to being manipulated by someone who can parrot your deepest emotional needs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah the emotional intelligence argument.
When a wealth women loses all of her money in a scam job I would just love to ask her "It's a shame you lost all your money but how did you *feel* about the transaction?!?
".Isn't falling victim to a scam artist exactly the definition of low emotional intelligence?
Susceptibility to being manipulated by someone who can parrot your deepest emotional needs?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350806</id>
	<title>Re:Stopped reading after the first sentence.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260182700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The author of this article is a woman, hence introducing gender bias.</p></div><p>Exactly. That wouldn't happen if the author was a man.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author of this article is a woman , hence introducing gender bias.Exactly .
That would n't happen if the author was a man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author of this article is a woman, hence introducing gender bias.Exactly.
That wouldn't happen if the author was a man.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348646</id>
	<title>Re:Bold = Smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260114720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So based on that idea, I'm smarter when I'm drining because I talk more and more loudly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So based on that idea , I 'm smarter when I 'm drining because I talk more and more loudly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So based on that idea, I'm smarter when I'm drining because I talk more and more loudly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30355476</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260212160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Women should stay at home raise the kids.<br>When the US had a good economy women didn't have to work.<br>Now days women pretty much have to work.<br>I am not saying the should HAVE to stay at home but the CHOICE should be there.<br>It is a reflection of our economy and a political mind trick to get people agruing about equal rights in the work work place.<br>Every family should be able to have one parent stay home with the kids.<br>Americians ned to stop falling for stupid tricks that get us arguing about the wrong issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Women should stay at home raise the kids.When the US had a good economy women did n't have to work.Now days women pretty much have to work.I am not saying the should HAVE to stay at home but the CHOICE should be there.It is a reflection of our economy and a political mind trick to get people agruing about equal rights in the work work place.Every family should be able to have one parent stay home with the kids.Americians ned to stop falling for stupid tricks that get us arguing about the wrong issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women should stay at home raise the kids.When the US had a good economy women didn't have to work.Now days women pretty much have to work.I am not saying the should HAVE to stay at home but the CHOICE should be there.It is a reflection of our economy and a political mind trick to get people agruing about equal rights in the work work place.Every family should be able to have one parent stay home with the kids.Americians ned to stop falling for stupid tricks that get us arguing about the wrong issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349426</id>
	<title>Re:Extroverted people are rated as 'smarter'</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1260123000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Another study of teachers, asked to estimate the IQ of their students, found they overestimated the IQ of extroverted kids, and underestimated the IQ of quiet kids. Males tend to be more extroverted than females, so that could explain the perception of males as 'smarter'.</p><p>Hmm, interesting. Do you have a reference for this?</p><p>I've certainly seen this in work - the more talkative/eloquent guy comes off as smarter than the guy who can't put two words together. But then there's also the typical introverted nerd stereotype, which is a true stereotype.</p><p>While I do think general intelligence is real (look at how well doctors tend to do when they apply themselves to a completely new field), I tend to doubt that IQ is meaningful past 150 or so. I wrote a long analysis of very high IQ groups (like the Mega Society) once, and concluded that there's no valid testing, ranking, or meaning of IQ past ~150.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Another study of teachers , asked to estimate the IQ of their students , found they overestimated the IQ of extroverted kids , and underestimated the IQ of quiet kids .
Males tend to be more extroverted than females , so that could explain the perception of males as 'smarter'.Hmm , interesting .
Do you have a reference for this ? I 've certainly seen this in work - the more talkative/eloquent guy comes off as smarter than the guy who ca n't put two words together .
But then there 's also the typical introverted nerd stereotype , which is a true stereotype.While I do think general intelligence is real ( look at how well doctors tend to do when they apply themselves to a completely new field ) , I tend to doubt that IQ is meaningful past 150 or so .
I wrote a long analysis of very high IQ groups ( like the Mega Society ) once , and concluded that there 's no valid testing , ranking , or meaning of IQ past ~ 150 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Another study of teachers, asked to estimate the IQ of their students, found they overestimated the IQ of extroverted kids, and underestimated the IQ of quiet kids.
Males tend to be more extroverted than females, so that could explain the perception of males as 'smarter'.Hmm, interesting.
Do you have a reference for this?I've certainly seen this in work - the more talkative/eloquent guy comes off as smarter than the guy who can't put two words together.
But then there's also the typical introverted nerd stereotype, which is a true stereotype.While I do think general intelligence is real (look at how well doctors tend to do when they apply themselves to a completely new field), I tend to doubt that IQ is meaningful past 150 or so.
I wrote a long analysis of very high IQ groups (like the Mega Society) once, and concluded that there's no valid testing, ranking, or meaning of IQ past ~150.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30355144</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1260210480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So a <b>monotonous</b> woman with 2 children isn't necessarily contributing to the decline of anything.</p></div><p>Best. Typo. Evar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So a monotonous woman with 2 children is n't necessarily contributing to the decline of anything.Best .
Typo. Evar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a monotonous woman with 2 children isn't necessarily contributing to the decline of anything.Best.
Typo. Evar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356070</id>
	<title>As a man with an IQ of 300 it's good to know</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1260215100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a man with an IQ of 300, it's good to know that a woman with an IQ of 160 is my peer.</p><p>Now if I could just figure out how this dishwasher works<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a man with an IQ of 300 , it 's good to know that a woman with an IQ of 160 is my peer.Now if I could just figure out how this dishwasher works .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a man with an IQ of 300, it's good to know that a woman with an IQ of 160 is my peer.Now if I could just figure out how this dishwasher works ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349266</id>
	<title>IQtests from different eras have different results</title>
	<author>WoodenTable</author>
	<datestamp>1260121020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep in mind that tests from other eras (let's say the 80s and backwards, just for simplicity) were significantly skewed towards male-oriented views of intelligence. I'm not saying they were sexist: Just that in some cases the men writing the tests couldn't conceive how the correct answer could be other than the one they intended. We have a lot more studies now showing different methods of thinking, and a lot more respect for intelligence in social situations <i>as well as</i> academic ones. My mother, for example, scored 78 on an IQ test back in the 1970s, despite a grade average of A's and B's. Her most recent attempt at an IQ test landed her somewhere in the 130 range, I think. Her teacher back in 70-something told her the the test was total bunk and to ignore it, because he intended to.</p><p>It's not just limited to IQ tests, but essentially, generations of women have grown up thinking they're less "intelligent" than men... but with a very academic definition of intelligence.</p><p>If someone wants to launch a counter-study, try replacing the term "intelligence" in this study with "common sense". I'd be willing to bet the results would be sharply reversed, even among men reporting their own levels of "common sense". Just a hunch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that tests from other eras ( let 's say the 80s and backwards , just for simplicity ) were significantly skewed towards male-oriented views of intelligence .
I 'm not saying they were sexist : Just that in some cases the men writing the tests could n't conceive how the correct answer could be other than the one they intended .
We have a lot more studies now showing different methods of thinking , and a lot more respect for intelligence in social situations as well as academic ones .
My mother , for example , scored 78 on an IQ test back in the 1970s , despite a grade average of A 's and B 's .
Her most recent attempt at an IQ test landed her somewhere in the 130 range , I think .
Her teacher back in 70-something told her the the test was total bunk and to ignore it , because he intended to.It 's not just limited to IQ tests , but essentially , generations of women have grown up thinking they 're less " intelligent " than men... but with a very academic definition of intelligence.If someone wants to launch a counter-study , try replacing the term " intelligence " in this study with " common sense " .
I 'd be willing to bet the results would be sharply reversed , even among men reporting their own levels of " common sense " .
Just a hunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that tests from other eras (let's say the 80s and backwards, just for simplicity) were significantly skewed towards male-oriented views of intelligence.
I'm not saying they were sexist: Just that in some cases the men writing the tests couldn't conceive how the correct answer could be other than the one they intended.
We have a lot more studies now showing different methods of thinking, and a lot more respect for intelligence in social situations as well as academic ones.
My mother, for example, scored 78 on an IQ test back in the 1970s, despite a grade average of A's and B's.
Her most recent attempt at an IQ test landed her somewhere in the 130 range, I think.
Her teacher back in 70-something told her the the test was total bunk and to ignore it, because he intended to.It's not just limited to IQ tests, but essentially, generations of women have grown up thinking they're less "intelligent" than men... but with a very academic definition of intelligence.If someone wants to launch a counter-study, try replacing the term "intelligence" in this study with "common sense".
I'd be willing to bet the results would be sharply reversed, even among men reporting their own levels of "common sense".
Just a hunch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356862</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>rovolo</author>
	<datestamp>1260218940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On an evolutionary timescale the opposite seems to be happening though. I can't remember exact numbers , but the difference in size based on gender have been decreasing since about the time of Australopithecus (I think from males being 50\% larger to around 10 or 20\% larger than females, I read the article a while back). While the size differential can be very noticeable in some culture groups, the genetic change for humans as a whole is probably less concrete. For example, dogs have a wide variation in body size, but if you interbreed them then after a few generations you'll get a mongrel with a fairly average body size and shape.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On an evolutionary timescale the opposite seems to be happening though .
I ca n't remember exact numbers , but the difference in size based on gender have been decreasing since about the time of Australopithecus ( I think from males being 50 \ % larger to around 10 or 20 \ % larger than females , I read the article a while back ) .
While the size differential can be very noticeable in some culture groups , the genetic change for humans as a whole is probably less concrete .
For example , dogs have a wide variation in body size , but if you interbreed them then after a few generations you 'll get a mongrel with a fairly average body size and shape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On an evolutionary timescale the opposite seems to be happening though.
I can't remember exact numbers , but the difference in size based on gender have been decreasing since about the time of Australopithecus (I think from males being 50\% larger to around 10 or 20\% larger than females, I read the article a while back).
While the size differential can be very noticeable in some culture groups, the genetic change for humans as a whole is probably less concrete.
For example, dogs have a wide variation in body size, but if you interbreed them then after a few generations you'll get a mongrel with a fairly average body size and shape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350324</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260177120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If your mom didn't have at least 2.1 to 2.3 children</p></div><p>That's an interesting way of writing "If your mom didn't have 3 children" or "if you didn't have two other siblings". Can I subscribe to your newsletter?</p><p>p.s. You're not actually contributing to the decline if you have N+1 children total from N partners, and all of those children reach adulthood. So a monotonous woman with 2 children isn't necessarily contributing to the decline of anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your mom did n't have at least 2.1 to 2.3 childrenThat 's an interesting way of writing " If your mom did n't have 3 children " or " if you did n't have two other siblings " .
Can I subscribe to your newsletter ? p.s .
You 're not actually contributing to the decline if you have N + 1 children total from N partners , and all of those children reach adulthood .
So a monotonous woman with 2 children is n't necessarily contributing to the decline of anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your mom didn't have at least 2.1 to 2.3 childrenThat's an interesting way of writing "If your mom didn't have 3 children" or "if you didn't have two other siblings".
Can I subscribe to your newsletter?p.s.
You're not actually contributing to the decline if you have N+1 children total from N partners, and all of those children reach adulthood.
So a monotonous woman with 2 children isn't necessarily contributing to the decline of anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352730</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>HertzaHaeon</author>
	<datestamp>1260200100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With more equality, raising children and taking care of the home wouldn't be burdens just for women to bear.</p><p>There's also something to be said for daycare and similar social services, and their effect on fertility and how parents combine work and family. But then I'm from one of those countries Fox News thinks is socialist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With more equality , raising children and taking care of the home would n't be burdens just for women to bear.There 's also something to be said for daycare and similar social services , and their effect on fertility and how parents combine work and family .
But then I 'm from one of those countries Fox News thinks is socialist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With more equality, raising children and taking care of the home wouldn't be burdens just for women to bear.There's also something to be said for daycare and similar social services, and their effect on fertility and how parents combine work and family.
But then I'm from one of those countries Fox News thinks is socialist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349726</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>germansausage</author>
	<datestamp>1260126180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Ripped from the headlines" example. - Tiger Woods and his wife Elin. If there roles had been reversed, if Elin had been the one with the cuts and bruises on her face, and Tiger the one swinging the club, he would have been arrested and charged just like Chris Brown was. So can somebody tell us why she isn't out on bail awaiting trial right now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ripped from the headlines " example .
- Tiger Woods and his wife Elin .
If there roles had been reversed , if Elin had been the one with the cuts and bruises on her face , and Tiger the one swinging the club , he would have been arrested and charged just like Chris Brown was .
So can somebody tell us why she is n't out on bail awaiting trial right now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ripped from the headlines" example.
- Tiger Woods and his wife Elin.
If there roles had been reversed, if Elin had been the one with the cuts and bruises on her face, and Tiger the one swinging the club, he would have been arrested and charged just like Chris Brown was.
So can somebody tell us why she isn't out on bail awaiting trial right now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30382776</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259584560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your Dad was smart enough to marry a doctor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Dad was smart enough to marry a doctor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Dad was smart enough to marry a doctor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30357244</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1260177600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Of course, IQ does a remarkably good job at what it's intended to do: correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence, in the context of a statistical study. Sure, there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ; on average, though, it works well.</i></p><p>By whose measure?  The problem seems to be not that high IQ correlates with intelligence, but that intelligence doesn't correlate well with successful decision-making; the <i>application</i> of that intelligence.  If I have a saw, but I still choose to "cut" wood by smashing it with a hammer until it breaks, then the fact that I have a saw is essentially irrelevant, except as an indicator of my especially poor decision-making skills.  In the same way, it's been suggested that many people with high IQ choose not to exercise their intelligence, instead relying on intuition or resorting to apathy.</p><p>The New Scientist article that the GP alluded to above, describing recent studies on the subject still of IQ and successful decision-making, still appears to be free: <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427321.000-clever-fools-why-a-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart.html" title="newscientist.com">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427321.000-clever-fools-why-a-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart.html</a> [newscientist.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , IQ does a remarkably good job at what it 's intended to do : correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence , in the context of a statistical study .
Sure , there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ ; on average , though , it works well.By whose measure ?
The problem seems to be not that high IQ correlates with intelligence , but that intelligence does n't correlate well with successful decision-making ; the application of that intelligence .
If I have a saw , but I still choose to " cut " wood by smashing it with a hammer until it breaks , then the fact that I have a saw is essentially irrelevant , except as an indicator of my especially poor decision-making skills .
In the same way , it 's been suggested that many people with high IQ choose not to exercise their intelligence , instead relying on intuition or resorting to apathy.The New Scientist article that the GP alluded to above , describing recent studies on the subject still of IQ and successful decision-making , still appears to be free : http : //www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427321.000-clever-fools-why-a-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart.html [ newscientist.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, IQ does a remarkably good job at what it's intended to do: correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence, in the context of a statistical study.
Sure, there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ; on average, though, it works well.By whose measure?
The problem seems to be not that high IQ correlates with intelligence, but that intelligence doesn't correlate well with successful decision-making; the application of that intelligence.
If I have a saw, but I still choose to "cut" wood by smashing it with a hammer until it breaks, then the fact that I have a saw is essentially irrelevant, except as an indicator of my especially poor decision-making skills.
In the same way, it's been suggested that many people with high IQ choose not to exercise their intelligence, instead relying on intuition or resorting to apathy.The New Scientist article that the GP alluded to above, describing recent studies on the subject still of IQ and successful decision-making, still appears to be free: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427321.000-clever-fools-why-a-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart.html [newscientist.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354262</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260207060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i would love to comment as a registered user but my school wouldnt like me wasting tim ein class reading this...your a crazy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...ON the whole scheme of things intelligence is virtually equal but intelligence=nothing what matters in your success is how bold you are hence men tend to win over because testosterone tends to make us a bit more outgoing...and men do tend to be more extreme heres a example... in school guys are generally losers or they succeed everyone wants to and when men fail they become less bold and quieter....while those who are successful tend to be more outgoing...and hence seem more intelligent because people draw connections between speech and intelligence which is clearly wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i would love to comment as a registered user but my school wouldnt like me wasting tim ein class reading this...your a crazy ...ON the whole scheme of things intelligence is virtually equal but intelligence = nothing what matters in your success is how bold you are hence men tend to win over because testosterone tends to make us a bit more outgoing...and men do tend to be more extreme heres a example... in school guys are generally losers or they succeed everyone wants to and when men fail they become less bold and quieter....while those who are successful tend to be more outgoing...and hence seem more intelligent because people draw connections between speech and intelligence which is clearly wrong ....sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i would love to comment as a registered user but my school wouldnt like me wasting tim ein class reading this...your a crazy ...ON the whole scheme of things intelligence is virtually equal but intelligence=nothing what matters in your success is how bold you are hence men tend to win over because testosterone tends to make us a bit more outgoing...and men do tend to be more extreme heres a example... in school guys are generally losers or they succeed everyone wants to and when men fail they become less bold and quieter....while those who are successful tend to be more outgoing...and hence seem more intelligent because people draw connections between speech and intelligence which is clearly wrong ....sometimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348358</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>DeadChobi</author>
	<datestamp>1260111960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I get a citation for your assertion that geniuses are unable to work cooperatively with other people? I find that hard to believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I get a citation for your assertion that geniuses are unable to work cooperatively with other people ?
I find that hard to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I get a citation for your assertion that geniuses are unable to work cooperatively with other people?
I find that hard to believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351308</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1260189900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Knowing my mother, I suspect she would be really freaked-out if she gave birth to 0.1 or 0.3 of a child<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing my mother , I suspect she would be really freaked-out if she gave birth to 0.1 or 0.3 of a child .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing my mother, I suspect she would be really freaked-out if she gave birth to 0.1 or 0.3 of a child ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351690</id>
	<title>why bother about average people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who cares about average people ? I know I don't.</p><p>Interesting people are smart and I have to say there are way more smart men than smart women.</p><p>I don't think it's genetic though although it may be partly. The main reason is that chicks don't need to be smart, most of them just land a guy and live off him. So basically they just have to be smart enough to land a guy which, being a guy, I know is dead easy. A smart woman is rare, a bit like the son of a millionnaire who is well educated but never actually needs to use his brain because he is so filthy rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who cares about average people ?
I know I do n't.Interesting people are smart and I have to say there are way more smart men than smart women.I do n't think it 's genetic though although it may be partly .
The main reason is that chicks do n't need to be smart , most of them just land a guy and live off him .
So basically they just have to be smart enough to land a guy which , being a guy , I know is dead easy .
A smart woman is rare , a bit like the son of a millionnaire who is well educated but never actually needs to use his brain because he is so filthy rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who cares about average people ?
I know I don't.Interesting people are smart and I have to say there are way more smart men than smart women.I don't think it's genetic though although it may be partly.
The main reason is that chicks don't need to be smart, most of them just land a guy and live off him.
So basically they just have to be smart enough to land a guy which, being a guy, I know is dead easy.
A smart woman is rare, a bit like the son of a millionnaire who is well educated but never actually needs to use his brain because he is so filthy rich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347484</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>hazem</author>
	<datestamp>1260105720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One possibility is that men really are smarter, just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.</i></p><p>If you're going to back up your statement with the idea that the test methodology MAY be flawed, then you could just as easily argue that the other possibility is that women really are smarter... just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.</p><p><i>Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99\% of the inventing.</i><br>There's a difference between inventing and getting the credit for inventing.  I've seen plenty of women rig up ingenious solutions to problems - or "invent solutions".  They just don't run off to the patent office with their every "gee whiz" idea.</p><p>It sounds to me like you just don't like/value women and this is biasing your perceptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One possibility is that men really are smarter , just that IQ tests do n't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.If you 're going to back up your statement with the idea that the test methodology MAY be flawed , then you could just as easily argue that the other possibility is that women really are smarter... just that IQ tests do n't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.Anyways , as far as I know , men have done around 95-99 \ % of the inventing.There 's a difference between inventing and getting the credit for inventing .
I 've seen plenty of women rig up ingenious solutions to problems - or " invent solutions " .
They just do n't run off to the patent office with their every " gee whiz " idea.It sounds to me like you just do n't like/value women and this is biasing your perceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One possibility is that men really are smarter, just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.If you're going to back up your statement with the idea that the test methodology MAY be flawed, then you could just as easily argue that the other possibility is that women really are smarter... just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99\% of the inventing.There's a difference between inventing and getting the credit for inventing.
I've seen plenty of women rig up ingenious solutions to problems - or "invent solutions".
They just don't run off to the patent office with their every "gee whiz" idea.It sounds to me like you just don't like/value women and this is biasing your perceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347732</id>
	<title>Re:Also, they don't care</title>
	<author>gte275e</author>
	<datestamp>1260107340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Believe it or not, I live with a women and she could care<br>less about an IQ test. I would also like to go on record as<br>saying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney.</p></div><p>How much more could she care less?  Could she care 10\% less?  50\% less?  Could she possible care 100\% less?  If she could care 100\% less, it says to me that she actually cares a lot about an IQ test.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , I live with a women and she could careless about an IQ test .
I would also like to go on record assaying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney.How much more could she care less ?
Could she care 10 \ % less ?
50 \ % less ?
Could she possible care 100 \ % less ?
If she could care 100 \ % less , it says to me that she actually cares a lot about an IQ test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, I live with a women and she could careless about an IQ test.
I would also like to go on record assaying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney.How much more could she care less?
Could she care 10\% less?
50\% less?
Could she possible care 100\% less?
If she could care 100\% less, it says to me that she actually cares a lot about an IQ test.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349600</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260124680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347086</id>
	<title>Just a difference in peer responses....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When woman want to show their interest or admiration in a man they tend to compliment his abilities to solve their problems. ("Oh, could you figure this out for me? Could you help me fix my car?"). When men want to show their interest in a woman we compliment their attributes ("You are so lovely in that dress... You would make such a good mother...)<br>I have known many drop-dead gorgeous and intelligent woman - most of whom are aware of men (and women) looking at their beauty well before they even notice a brain, if they ever notice. And they did tend to underestimate their intelligence, even when I would ask advice on problems of them.<br>On the other hand I have been contacted by women from my past who indicated how much they liked me - but all they complimented me on was my intelligence, so how was I to know that I was attractive? I would wonder if the same polls would find men underestimating themselves in the physical realm, with woman overestimating themselves... Provided you could get more than bragging from the men polled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When woman want to show their interest or admiration in a man they tend to compliment his abilities to solve their problems .
( " Oh , could you figure this out for me ?
Could you help me fix my car ? " ) .
When men want to show their interest in a woman we compliment their attributes ( " You are so lovely in that dress... You would make such a good mother... ) I have known many drop-dead gorgeous and intelligent woman - most of whom are aware of men ( and women ) looking at their beauty well before they even notice a brain , if they ever notice .
And they did tend to underestimate their intelligence , even when I would ask advice on problems of them.On the other hand I have been contacted by women from my past who indicated how much they liked me - but all they complimented me on was my intelligence , so how was I to know that I was attractive ?
I would wonder if the same polls would find men underestimating themselves in the physical realm , with woman overestimating themselves... Provided you could get more than bragging from the men polled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When woman want to show their interest or admiration in a man they tend to compliment his abilities to solve their problems.
("Oh, could you figure this out for me?
Could you help me fix my car?").
When men want to show their interest in a woman we compliment their attributes ("You are so lovely in that dress... You would make such a good mother...)I have known many drop-dead gorgeous and intelligent woman - most of whom are aware of men (and women) looking at their beauty well before they even notice a brain, if they ever notice.
And they did tend to underestimate their intelligence, even when I would ask advice on problems of them.On the other hand I have been contacted by women from my past who indicated how much they liked me - but all they complimented me on was my intelligence, so how was I to know that I was attractive?
I would wonder if the same polls would find men underestimating themselves in the physical realm, with woman overestimating themselves... Provided you could get more than bragging from the men polled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351220</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>asc99c</author>
	<datestamp>1260189000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But of course if she had more than that number of children, she contributed to the balooning world population exacerbating environmental problems and overcrowding to be faced by future generations.</p><p>While an expanding population is good in the short term, we do need population to stabilise in the long term.  And in fact the sooner we have a stable population the better things will be for the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But of course if she had more than that number of children , she contributed to the balooning world population exacerbating environmental problems and overcrowding to be faced by future generations.While an expanding population is good in the short term , we do need population to stabilise in the long term .
And in fact the sooner we have a stable population the better things will be for the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But of course if she had more than that number of children, she contributed to the balooning world population exacerbating environmental problems and overcrowding to be faced by future generations.While an expanding population is good in the short term, we do need population to stabilise in the long term.
And in fact the sooner we have a stable population the better things will be for the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347428</id>
	<title>The concept of an intelligence measure is absurd</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1260105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't even have a very good definition of "intelligence".  How can you measure something when you can't even define it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't even have a very good definition of " intelligence " .
How can you measure something when you ca n't even define it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't even have a very good definition of "intelligence".
How can you measure something when you can't even define it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>rocker\_wannabe</author>
	<datestamp>1260107520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose you could be purposely obtuse and come away with that!  I think it's fairly clear that if most jobs can be done by men or women and the society treats women as "equivalent" to males then most women will chose to work rather than have children.  Since doing a good job raising children is WAY more work then most 20th century jobs, it's understandable.  If your mom didn't have at least 2.1 to 2.3 children, assuming a developed country, then she contributed to the decline of your ethnicity. This has a number of consequences including the difficulty in funding retirement programs, like Social Security and Medicare, and replacing workers as the workforce ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose you could be purposely obtuse and come away with that !
I think it 's fairly clear that if most jobs can be done by men or women and the society treats women as " equivalent " to males then most women will chose to work rather than have children .
Since doing a good job raising children is WAY more work then most 20th century jobs , it 's understandable .
If your mom did n't have at least 2.1 to 2.3 children , assuming a developed country , then she contributed to the decline of your ethnicity .
This has a number of consequences including the difficulty in funding retirement programs , like Social Security and Medicare , and replacing workers as the workforce ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose you could be purposely obtuse and come away with that!
I think it's fairly clear that if most jobs can be done by men or women and the society treats women as "equivalent" to males then most women will chose to work rather than have children.
Since doing a good job raising children is WAY more work then most 20th century jobs, it's understandable.
If your mom didn't have at least 2.1 to 2.3 children, assuming a developed country, then she contributed to the decline of your ethnicity.
This has a number of consequences including the difficulty in funding retirement programs, like Social Security and Medicare, and replacing workers as the workforce ages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346956</id>
	<title>Support AI research for equality!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260101820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skynet would make sure everyone knew their proper position on the intellectual ladder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skynet would make sure everyone knew their proper position on the intellectual ladder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skynet would make sure everyone knew their proper position on the intellectual ladder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348112</id>
	<title>Re:You're forgetting</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1260109920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>knowledge=power<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>knowledge = power .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>knowledge=power .....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347414</id>
	<title>Length plus girth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260105180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the same thing.  I estimated 9 inches, she measured 5 inches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the same thing .
I estimated 9 inches , she measured 5 inches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the same thing.
I estimated 9 inches, she measured 5 inches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353006</id>
	<title>Anon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Women are generally far less WISE than men, not less intelligent - until they get older. The proof of this is that they are overwhelmingly socialist (Democratic party) until the get married (+3 wisdom) and have children (+5 wisdom), at which point they statistically vote for the wise conservative party (not I didn't say Republican party since Bush &amp; company weren't conservatives).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Women are generally far less WISE than men , not less intelligent - until they get older .
The proof of this is that they are overwhelmingly socialist ( Democratic party ) until the get married ( + 3 wisdom ) and have children ( + 5 wisdom ) , at which point they statistically vote for the wise conservative party ( not I did n't say Republican party since Bush &amp; company were n't conservatives ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women are generally far less WISE than men, not less intelligent - until they get older.
The proof of this is that they are overwhelmingly socialist (Democratic party) until the get married (+3 wisdom) and have children (+5 wisdom), at which point they statistically vote for the wise conservative party (not I didn't say Republican party since Bush &amp; company weren't conservatives).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348182</id>
	<title>Re:Idiots not qualified to estimate own intelligen</title>
	<author>Concerned Onlooker</author>
	<datestamp>1260110460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's quite possible that the others were just out of matches....</p><p>But you do bring up an interesting point.  Is IQ related to crassness?  I rather suspect not.  I work with some very bright engineers who probably wouldn't be able to speak if it wasn't for swear words.  Having a high IQ does not put one in the enlightened arena, it simply means that one is gifted at solving problems or remembering things or synthesizing information.  It has absolutely no bearing on how you live life and the quality of human being you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite possible that the others were just out of matches....But you do bring up an interesting point .
Is IQ related to crassness ?
I rather suspect not .
I work with some very bright engineers who probably would n't be able to speak if it was n't for swear words .
Having a high IQ does not put one in the enlightened arena , it simply means that one is gifted at solving problems or remembering things or synthesizing information .
It has absolutely no bearing on how you live life and the quality of human being you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite possible that the others were just out of matches....But you do bring up an interesting point.
Is IQ related to crassness?
I rather suspect not.
I work with some very bright engineers who probably wouldn't be able to speak if it wasn't for swear words.
Having a high IQ does not put one in the enlightened arena, it simply means that one is gifted at solving problems or remembering things or synthesizing information.
It has absolutely no bearing on how you live life and the quality of human being you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350538</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>shadanan</author>
	<datestamp>1260179640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
IQ correlates well with convergent thinking; not intelligence as a whole. Have a look at Lewis Terman's results of his extensive research into IQ testing.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis\_Terman#Thoughts\_and\_Research\_on\_Gifted\_Children" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis\_Terman#Thoughts\_and\_Research\_on\_Gifted\_Children</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>
He discovered that high IQ does not correlate with success. In fact, his "termites" (children with exceptionally high IQ) were statistically identical to children of more ordinary IQ levels in terms of financial success and position in life. If we choose to believe that intelligent people will be statistically more successful that unintelligent people, then IQ does not correlate with intelligence.
</p><p>
More recent research indicates that intelligence is comprised of various qualities, only one of which is measured by IQ. For instance, IQ does not capture divergent thinking - the ability to be creative. A genius tends to have high levels of both convergent and divergent thinking. Einstein for instance required a lot of creativity in order to imagine a universe where the space-time continuum itself bends as a result of gravitational influences. Purely convergent thinking is insufficient to make these conclusions.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IQ correlates well with convergent thinking ; not intelligence as a whole .
Have a look at Lewis Terman 's results of his extensive research into IQ testing .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis \ _Terman # Thoughts \ _and \ _Research \ _on \ _Gifted \ _Children [ wikipedia.org ] He discovered that high IQ does not correlate with success .
In fact , his " termites " ( children with exceptionally high IQ ) were statistically identical to children of more ordinary IQ levels in terms of financial success and position in life .
If we choose to believe that intelligent people will be statistically more successful that unintelligent people , then IQ does not correlate with intelligence .
More recent research indicates that intelligence is comprised of various qualities , only one of which is measured by IQ .
For instance , IQ does not capture divergent thinking - the ability to be creative .
A genius tends to have high levels of both convergent and divergent thinking .
Einstein for instance required a lot of creativity in order to imagine a universe where the space-time continuum itself bends as a result of gravitational influences .
Purely convergent thinking is insufficient to make these conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
IQ correlates well with convergent thinking; not intelligence as a whole.
Have a look at Lewis Terman's results of his extensive research into IQ testing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis\_Terman#Thoughts\_and\_Research\_on\_Gifted\_Children [wikipedia.org]

He discovered that high IQ does not correlate with success.
In fact, his "termites" (children with exceptionally high IQ) were statistically identical to children of more ordinary IQ levels in terms of financial success and position in life.
If we choose to believe that intelligent people will be statistically more successful that unintelligent people, then IQ does not correlate with intelligence.
More recent research indicates that intelligence is comprised of various qualities, only one of which is measured by IQ.
For instance, IQ does not capture divergent thinking - the ability to be creative.
A genius tends to have high levels of both convergent and divergent thinking.
Einstein for instance required a lot of creativity in order to imagine a universe where the space-time continuum itself bends as a result of gravitational influences.
Purely convergent thinking is insufficient to make these conclusions.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350990</id>
	<title>"His analysis of some 30 studies showed..."</title>
	<author>fluch</author>
	<datestamp>1260185040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"His analysis of some 30 studies showed..."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and this is precisely where one can stop reading. A sample size of 30 is far to small to make ANY statement, it doesn't even prove a weak correlation or a trend!! Why do so many studies get attention which have so small sample sizes? I can't belive it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" His analysis of some 30 studies showed... " ... and this is precisely where one can stop reading .
A sample size of 30 is far to small to make ANY statement , it does n't even prove a weak correlation or a trend ! !
Why do so many studies get attention which have so small sample sizes ?
I ca n't belive it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"His analysis of some 30 studies showed..." ... and this is precisely where one can stop reading.
A sample size of 30 is far to small to make ANY statement, it doesn't even prove a weak correlation or a trend!!
Why do so many studies get attention which have so small sample sizes?
I can't belive it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347944</id>
	<title>Intelligence is over-rated</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1260108660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IQ tests can be biased and based on knowledge and wisdom instead of intelligence and potential to learn or think.</p><p>For example people here on Slashdot, we are very good with computers and technology, we find managers and rich people are not as smart with computer as we are. But while we consider rich business people to be stupid, they find us to be stupid when it comes to business and business decisions just as we find them stupid when it comes to computers and technology decisions. The thing is that everyone is intelligent at at least one subject, maybe even more. Even if it is street maintenance that only an autistic person is good at, they are intelligent at that if nothing else because they really have a passion for street maintenance or whatever their interests are. Usually one is intelligent at their interests, and the average Slashdot readers are good at math and science and computers because of their interests, and the rich business people are good at investing, finances, accounting, and turning over a profit. The Dotcom busts showed us that when computer people try to run a business without any business classes or experience, they tend to fail just as bad as the business person who tries a computer business but lacks the computer knowledge.</p><p>Men and Women have different interests and are intelligent at different areas. It even goes by political party as liberals are usually better in liberal arts and science than business management and accounting, while conservatives are better in business management, finances, and investing than liberal arts and science. I think it is the right brain verses the left brain, as people like me want to try and balance out the usage of the brain to use both sides.</p><p>But my theory is that everyone is intelligent at least at something. The people that score low in IQ tests are usually smart at stuff the IQ test doesn't cover like NASCAR, the WWE/TNA Wrestling, TV shows and movie trivia, culture, traditions, social skills, etc. So one person's idiot is another person's genius so to speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IQ tests can be biased and based on knowledge and wisdom instead of intelligence and potential to learn or think.For example people here on Slashdot , we are very good with computers and technology , we find managers and rich people are not as smart with computer as we are .
But while we consider rich business people to be stupid , they find us to be stupid when it comes to business and business decisions just as we find them stupid when it comes to computers and technology decisions .
The thing is that everyone is intelligent at at least one subject , maybe even more .
Even if it is street maintenance that only an autistic person is good at , they are intelligent at that if nothing else because they really have a passion for street maintenance or whatever their interests are .
Usually one is intelligent at their interests , and the average Slashdot readers are good at math and science and computers because of their interests , and the rich business people are good at investing , finances , accounting , and turning over a profit .
The Dotcom busts showed us that when computer people try to run a business without any business classes or experience , they tend to fail just as bad as the business person who tries a computer business but lacks the computer knowledge.Men and Women have different interests and are intelligent at different areas .
It even goes by political party as liberals are usually better in liberal arts and science than business management and accounting , while conservatives are better in business management , finances , and investing than liberal arts and science .
I think it is the right brain verses the left brain , as people like me want to try and balance out the usage of the brain to use both sides.But my theory is that everyone is intelligent at least at something .
The people that score low in IQ tests are usually smart at stuff the IQ test does n't cover like NASCAR , the WWE/TNA Wrestling , TV shows and movie trivia , culture , traditions , social skills , etc .
So one person 's idiot is another person 's genius so to speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IQ tests can be biased and based on knowledge and wisdom instead of intelligence and potential to learn or think.For example people here on Slashdot, we are very good with computers and technology, we find managers and rich people are not as smart with computer as we are.
But while we consider rich business people to be stupid, they find us to be stupid when it comes to business and business decisions just as we find them stupid when it comes to computers and technology decisions.
The thing is that everyone is intelligent at at least one subject, maybe even more.
Even if it is street maintenance that only an autistic person is good at, they are intelligent at that if nothing else because they really have a passion for street maintenance or whatever their interests are.
Usually one is intelligent at their interests, and the average Slashdot readers are good at math and science and computers because of their interests, and the rich business people are good at investing, finances, accounting, and turning over a profit.
The Dotcom busts showed us that when computer people try to run a business without any business classes or experience, they tend to fail just as bad as the business person who tries a computer business but lacks the computer knowledge.Men and Women have different interests and are intelligent at different areas.
It even goes by political party as liberals are usually better in liberal arts and science than business management and accounting, while conservatives are better in business management, finances, and investing than liberal arts and science.
I think it is the right brain verses the left brain, as people like me want to try and balance out the usage of the brain to use both sides.But my theory is that everyone is intelligent at least at something.
The people that score low in IQ tests are usually smart at stuff the IQ test doesn't cover like NASCAR, the WWE/TNA Wrestling, TV shows and movie trivia, culture, traditions, social skills, etc.
So one person's idiot is another person's genius so to speak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356278</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260216060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In cases of having the kid, I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy. In  cases of aborting the kid, only if the guy legally obligates himself to raising and supporting  the kid. Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body. That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.</p></div><p>So why should she get 18 years of child support? It's her choice and her choice alone on whether or not to have the kid. If she has the kid over the man's objections, then why is he required to pay for her choice, regardless of whether he wants to help raise the kid or not?</p><p>Right now, women can literally get pregnant, quit their job, have a kid, and make enough off child support to go on welfare and live comfortably (especially if they find another sucker to help them out). On top of that, if the guy wants to be involved with his own kid, chances are if he's lucky he gets to see the kid every other weekend. And the woman doesn't even have to prove she's using the child support for the kid! There's no accountability. (This exact scenario happened to me--mother of my child left me to go on welfare and gets full child support--literally rewarded for kidnapping my kid and preventing me from seeing her.)</p><p>What we have in the US is a system where women have no accountability, can perpetrate things like paternity fraud, and then have no punishment for lying and manipulation--in fact it works the other way, they get rewarded and can use the kids as pawns to get whatever they want.</p><p>To bring things back on topic: If women want to be viewed as being intellectually equivalent to men, they also must admit to and give up all of these double standards that allow them to screw men over and profit from destroying families and the lives of their kids. In other words, there is something intellectual about accepting responsibility for your actions, which American women just aren't good at doing, by and large.</p><p>Oh, and one more side note: we men need to stop being pussies and man up again.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In cases of having the kid , I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy .
In cases of aborting the kid , only if the guy legally obligates himself to raising and supporting the kid .
Yes , the woman gets more say 'cause it 's her body , so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she does n't want is a violation of her rights over her own body .
That 's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.So why should she get 18 years of child support ?
It 's her choice and her choice alone on whether or not to have the kid .
If she has the kid over the man 's objections , then why is he required to pay for her choice , regardless of whether he wants to help raise the kid or not ? Right now , women can literally get pregnant , quit their job , have a kid , and make enough off child support to go on welfare and live comfortably ( especially if they find another sucker to help them out ) .
On top of that , if the guy wants to be involved with his own kid , chances are if he 's lucky he gets to see the kid every other weekend .
And the woman does n't even have to prove she 's using the child support for the kid !
There 's no accountability .
( This exact scenario happened to me--mother of my child left me to go on welfare and gets full child support--literally rewarded for kidnapping my kid and preventing me from seeing her .
) What we have in the US is a system where women have no accountability , can perpetrate things like paternity fraud , and then have no punishment for lying and manipulation--in fact it works the other way , they get rewarded and can use the kids as pawns to get whatever they want.To bring things back on topic : If women want to be viewed as being intellectually equivalent to men , they also must admit to and give up all of these double standards that allow them to screw men over and profit from destroying families and the lives of their kids .
In other words , there is something intellectual about accepting responsibility for your actions , which American women just are n't good at doing , by and large.Oh , and one more side note : we men need to stop being pussies and man up again .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>In cases of having the kid, I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy.
In  cases of aborting the kid, only if the guy legally obligates himself to raising and supporting  the kid.
Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body.
That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.So why should she get 18 years of child support?
It's her choice and her choice alone on whether or not to have the kid.
If she has the kid over the man's objections, then why is he required to pay for her choice, regardless of whether he wants to help raise the kid or not?Right now, women can literally get pregnant, quit their job, have a kid, and make enough off child support to go on welfare and live comfortably (especially if they find another sucker to help them out).
On top of that, if the guy wants to be involved with his own kid, chances are if he's lucky he gets to see the kid every other weekend.
And the woman doesn't even have to prove she's using the child support for the kid!
There's no accountability.
(This exact scenario happened to me--mother of my child left me to go on welfare and gets full child support--literally rewarded for kidnapping my kid and preventing me from seeing her.
)What we have in the US is a system where women have no accountability, can perpetrate things like paternity fraud, and then have no punishment for lying and manipulation--in fact it works the other way, they get rewarded and can use the kids as pawns to get whatever they want.To bring things back on topic: If women want to be viewed as being intellectually equivalent to men, they also must admit to and give up all of these double standards that allow them to screw men over and profit from destroying families and the lives of their kids.
In other words, there is something intellectual about accepting responsibility for your actions, which American women just aren't good at doing, by and large.Oh, and one more side note: we men need to stop being pussies and man up again.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347434</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1260105300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This image speaks for itself: http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0906/tools-women-female-screwdriver-hammer-tool-demotivational-poster-1244297721.jpg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This image speaks for itself : http : //www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0906/tools-women-female-screwdriver-hammer-tool-demotivational-poster-1244297721.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This image speaks for itself: http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0906/tools-women-female-screwdriver-hammer-tool-demotivational-poster-1244297721.jpg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352716</id>
	<title>The article was written by a woman...</title>
	<author>natural1</author>
	<datestamp>1260199980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...so I don't trust it. Anyone have a link to one written by a man?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...so I do n't trust it .
Anyone have a link to one written by a man ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...so I don't trust it.
Anyone have a link to one written by a man?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818</id>
	<title>Also, they don't care</title>
	<author>graffitirock</author>
	<datestamp>1260100920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Believe it or not, I live with a women and she could care<br>less about an IQ test. I would also like to go on record as<br>saying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , I live with a women and she could careless about an IQ test .
I would also like to go on record assaying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, I live with a women and she could careless about an IQ test.
I would also like to go on record assaying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350760</id>
	<title>The Reason Why...?</title>
	<author>Helldesk Hound</author>
	<datestamp>1260182040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it that, over the generations - including the more recent Women's Liberated generations - both women and men perceived males to have greater intelligence than females?</p><p>And puhlease don't give any of the pathetic anti-male "patriarchy" bullshit because I don't buy into it as a reason for why one gender should be perceived as being more intelligent than the other.</p><p>If possible stick to presenting actual empirical data from actual research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that , over the generations - including the more recent Women 's Liberated generations - both women and men perceived males to have greater intelligence than females ? And puhlease do n't give any of the pathetic anti-male " patriarchy " bullshit because I do n't buy into it as a reason for why one gender should be perceived as being more intelligent than the other.If possible stick to presenting actual empirical data from actual research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that, over the generations - including the more recent Women's Liberated generations - both women and men perceived males to have greater intelligence than females?And puhlease don't give any of the pathetic anti-male "patriarchy" bullshit because I don't buy into it as a reason for why one gender should be perceived as being more intelligent than the other.If possible stick to presenting actual empirical data from actual research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347806</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1260107700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Men have done 95-99\% of the inventing for the same reason that men have done 95-99\% of warfare - it's the social structure that pigeonholed women into doing the unimportant stuff. If you're going to claim that men are inherently smarter you need a controlled trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Men have done 95-99 \ % of the inventing for the same reason that men have done 95-99 \ % of warfare - it 's the social structure that pigeonholed women into doing the unimportant stuff .
If you 're going to claim that men are inherently smarter you need a controlled trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Men have done 95-99\% of the inventing for the same reason that men have done 95-99\% of warfare - it's the social structure that pigeonholed women into doing the unimportant stuff.
If you're going to claim that men are inherently smarter you need a controlled trial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346828</id>
	<title>Obviously</title>
	<author>liquiddark</author>
	<datestamp>1260100980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly this is the case.  Men haven't been able to win domestic arguments since clubbing and dragging was considered a valid way to conduct discourse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly this is the case .
Men have n't been able to win domestic arguments since clubbing and dragging was considered a valid way to conduct discourse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly this is the case.
Men haven't been able to win domestic arguments since clubbing and dragging was considered a valid way to conduct discourse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260106140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the evil liberals and their oppressive egalitarian agenda are leading to the downfall of society and the invasion of Muslim barbarians? Did you forget to take your medicine today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the evil liberals and their oppressive egalitarian agenda are leading to the downfall of society and the invasion of Muslim barbarians ?
Did you forget to take your medicine today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the evil liberals and their oppressive egalitarian agenda are leading to the downfall of society and the invasion of Muslim barbarians?
Did you forget to take your medicine today?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348222</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Common Sense.</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1260110820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice job working your "Moderately gifted" IQ into your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice job working your " Moderately gifted " IQ into your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice job working your "Moderately gifted" IQ into your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260101340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What happened to women a century back and earlier has precisely nothing to do with the present day.</p></div><p>Do you honestly feel that the bias against females in the workplace or academics has been alleviated? It continues to this day. You can't fault a female for trying to hide their intelligence. A large part of American society still frowns upon the outward expression of intelligence (as many of us here may have experienced) of any kind. For women much more so. This feels like a very glib interpretation of the plight of the women in the modern age.

Criticizing misguided attempts at forcing equality does not mean that inequality does not exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to women a century back and earlier has precisely nothing to do with the present day.Do you honestly feel that the bias against females in the workplace or academics has been alleviated ?
It continues to this day .
You ca n't fault a female for trying to hide their intelligence .
A large part of American society still frowns upon the outward expression of intelligence ( as many of us here may have experienced ) of any kind .
For women much more so .
This feels like a very glib interpretation of the plight of the women in the modern age .
Criticizing misguided attempts at forcing equality does not mean that inequality does not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to women a century back and earlier has precisely nothing to do with the present day.Do you honestly feel that the bias against females in the workplace or academics has been alleviated?
It continues to this day.
You can't fault a female for trying to hide their intelligence.
A large part of American society still frowns upon the outward expression of intelligence (as many of us here may have experienced) of any kind.
For women much more so.
This feels like a very glib interpretation of the plight of the women in the modern age.
Criticizing misguided attempts at forcing equality does not mean that inequality does not exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347120</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1260103020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even the "wholesome" teenage role model Miley Cyrus</p></div></blockquote><p>Stop right there.</p><p>Exactly what part of Miley Cyrus is "wholesome"?  There's so much psycho-sexual pathology going on in the whole Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus phenomena that I'm betting there will entire textbooks written on the topic.</p><p>There will be an entire appendix just on Billy Ray Cyrus' uber-mullet vs Hannah's hooker wig.</p><p>The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the " wholesome " teenage role model Miley CyrusStop right there.Exactly what part of Miley Cyrus is " wholesome " ?
There 's so much psycho-sexual pathology going on in the whole Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus phenomena that I 'm betting there will entire textbooks written on the topic.There will be an entire appendix just on Billy Ray Cyrus ' uber-mullet vs Hannah 's hooker wig.The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the "wholesome" teenage role model Miley CyrusStop right there.Exactly what part of Miley Cyrus is "wholesome"?
There's so much psycho-sexual pathology going on in the whole Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus phenomena that I'm betting there will entire textbooks written on the topic.There will be an entire appendix just on Billy Ray Cyrus' uber-mullet vs Hannah's hooker wig.The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30361566</id>
	<title>Re:real reason</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1260205860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet Stephanie Meyer is now worth how much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet Stephanie Meyer is now worth how much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet Stephanie Meyer is now worth how much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347044</id>
	<title>I dunno about that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always assumed that my mother was probably smarter than my father, or at least more educated.  She went to Princeton, and my dad went to a public school in Florida.  She studied Romance Languages, particularly French and Italian, and currently has a masters in Spanish.  She used to be an investment banker with a Japanese company, and as she speaks 7 languages, was heavily involved in a lot of deals.  My dad was an airline captain for many years, and he's good at maths and stuff though.  On my dad's side, my grandfather was a navy pilot with a civil engineering degree, and my grandmother was a calculus teacher though.  On my mother's side, my grandfather had a business degree, also from Princeton, and my grandmother was a model, and I don't think she went to college.<br><br>So, in my family its evenly matched (and perhaps actually stacked in favor of the women).  However, that's just one more anecdote and not a real data point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always assumed that my mother was probably smarter than my father , or at least more educated .
She went to Princeton , and my dad went to a public school in Florida .
She studied Romance Languages , particularly French and Italian , and currently has a masters in Spanish .
She used to be an investment banker with a Japanese company , and as she speaks 7 languages , was heavily involved in a lot of deals .
My dad was an airline captain for many years , and he 's good at maths and stuff though .
On my dad 's side , my grandfather was a navy pilot with a civil engineering degree , and my grandmother was a calculus teacher though .
On my mother 's side , my grandfather had a business degree , also from Princeton , and my grandmother was a model , and I do n't think she went to college.So , in my family its evenly matched ( and perhaps actually stacked in favor of the women ) .
However , that 's just one more anecdote and not a real data point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always assumed that my mother was probably smarter than my father, or at least more educated.
She went to Princeton, and my dad went to a public school in Florida.
She studied Romance Languages, particularly French and Italian, and currently has a masters in Spanish.
She used to be an investment banker with a Japanese company, and as she speaks 7 languages, was heavily involved in a lot of deals.
My dad was an airline captain for many years, and he's good at maths and stuff though.
On my dad's side, my grandfather was a navy pilot with a civil engineering degree, and my grandmother was a calculus teacher though.
On my mother's side, my grandfather had a business degree, also from Princeton, and my grandmother was a model, and I don't think she went to college.So, in my family its evenly matched (and perhaps actually stacked in favor of the women).
However, that's just one more anecdote and not a real data point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</id>
	<title>IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260100140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>IQ is more a measure of your 'working' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topics, it doesn't necessarily to what a person would call 'intelligent'. Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IQ is more a measure of your 'working ' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topics , it does n't necessarily to what a person would call 'intelligent' .
Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ ( well at least 120 + ) yet , outwardly at least , he may not seem it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IQ is more a measure of your 'working' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topics, it doesn't necessarily to what a person would call 'intelligent'.
Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347692</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm. Maybe a woman conducted the study.</title>
	<author>jmbeck15</author>
	<datestamp>1260107100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gosh! That was a joke!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh !
That was a joke !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh!
That was a joke!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30360032</id>
	<title>Re:Also, they don't care</title>
	<author>twebb72</author>
	<datestamp>1260193680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot to mention she also has wookie-like strength and a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. RSS feed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to mention she also has wookie-like strength and a / .
RSS feed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to mention she also has wookie-like strength and a /.
RSS feed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349322</id>
	<title>Re:Different intelligence:</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1260121800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Emotional intelligence will not put food on the table, cure cancer, build bridges, etc. Clearly it's a lot less valuable.</i></p><p>Many high-paid psychologists would disagree with you there.</p><p>I'm not sure you actually understand the concept. In practice, building a bridge and curing cancer require a lot of drive and self-discipline, etc. That requires emotional intelligence. It doesn't matter what your IQ is or how creative and innovative you are if you fail to apply yourself due to emotional problems.</p><p>It's not only valuable, it's quite vital.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Emotional intelligence will not put food on the table , cure cancer , build bridges , etc .
Clearly it 's a lot less valuable.Many high-paid psychologists would disagree with you there.I 'm not sure you actually understand the concept .
In practice , building a bridge and curing cancer require a lot of drive and self-discipline , etc .
That requires emotional intelligence .
It does n't matter what your IQ is or how creative and innovative you are if you fail to apply yourself due to emotional problems.It 's not only valuable , it 's quite vital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emotional intelligence will not put food on the table, cure cancer, build bridges, etc.
Clearly it's a lot less valuable.Many high-paid psychologists would disagree with you there.I'm not sure you actually understand the concept.
In practice, building a bridge and curing cancer require a lot of drive and self-discipline, etc.
That requires emotional intelligence.
It doesn't matter what your IQ is or how creative and innovative you are if you fail to apply yourself due to emotional problems.It's not only valuable, it's quite vital.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353870</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Common Sense.</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1260205320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Of course, going along the debt theory, our own Government must be made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the world...</p></div></blockquote><p>Fallacy of the excluded middle; even taking for granted that extraordinarily intelligent people can't manage money, it doesn't imply that all those who can't manage money are extraordinarily intelligent.  It could be that idiots can't manage money either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , going along the debt theory , our own Government must be made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the world...Fallacy of the excluded middle ; even taking for granted that extraordinarily intelligent people ca n't manage money , it does n't imply that all those who ca n't manage money are extraordinarily intelligent .
It could be that idiots ca n't manage money either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, going along the debt theory, our own Government must be made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the world...Fallacy of the excluded middle; even taking for granted that extraordinarily intelligent people can't manage money, it doesn't imply that all those who can't manage money are extraordinarily intelligent.
It could be that idiots can't manage money either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349560</id>
	<title>Re:Allegedly...</title>
	<author>acheron12</author>
	<datestamp>1260124140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I hear that word one more time I'm gonna jump off allege.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I hear that word one more time I 'm gon na jump off allege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I hear that word one more time I'm gonna jump off allege.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1260100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being intelligent is different than acting intelligently. Women definitely play down their intelligence, and men let them. Which causes all kinds of havoc like when the women's movement decides that it's OK to not include non-monetary income so that they can claim discrimination or can suggest that equality means that in the more esoteric and technically advanced fields it needs to be 50\%. Even if the total degree count ends with them getting twice as many. And pay no attention to the changes in education that "fix" the inequality problem by creating a new inequality that's facing the other way.<br> <br>

Or that despite having more votes than men, it's somehow men's fault that we haven't had a female President and few female Senators. Subscribing to a lower set of standards is convenient when demanding reparations, but it's not the way to actually earn any sort of meaningful respect. What happened to women a century back and earlier has precisely nothing to do with the present day.<br> <br>

Women aren't stupid, but there's a shocking lack of interest in actually using any of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being intelligent is different than acting intelligently .
Women definitely play down their intelligence , and men let them .
Which causes all kinds of havoc like when the women 's movement decides that it 's OK to not include non-monetary income so that they can claim discrimination or can suggest that equality means that in the more esoteric and technically advanced fields it needs to be 50 \ % .
Even if the total degree count ends with them getting twice as many .
And pay no attention to the changes in education that " fix " the inequality problem by creating a new inequality that 's facing the other way .
Or that despite having more votes than men , it 's somehow men 's fault that we have n't had a female President and few female Senators .
Subscribing to a lower set of standards is convenient when demanding reparations , but it 's not the way to actually earn any sort of meaningful respect .
What happened to women a century back and earlier has precisely nothing to do with the present day .
Women are n't stupid , but there 's a shocking lack of interest in actually using any of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being intelligent is different than acting intelligently.
Women definitely play down their intelligence, and men let them.
Which causes all kinds of havoc like when the women's movement decides that it's OK to not include non-monetary income so that they can claim discrimination or can suggest that equality means that in the more esoteric and technically advanced fields it needs to be 50\%.
Even if the total degree count ends with them getting twice as many.
And pay no attention to the changes in education that "fix" the inequality problem by creating a new inequality that's facing the other way.
Or that despite having more votes than men, it's somehow men's fault that we haven't had a female President and few female Senators.
Subscribing to a lower set of standards is convenient when demanding reparations, but it's not the way to actually earn any sort of meaningful respect.
What happened to women a century back and earlier has precisely nothing to do with the present day.
Women aren't stupid, but there's a shocking lack of interest in actually using any of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353918</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1260205560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Man" is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate(sp?) between male and female.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Nonsense.  The presence of a few cases which straddle the line doesn't mean the line doesn't exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Man " is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate ( sp ?
) between male and female .
Nonsense. The presence of a few cases which straddle the line does n't mean the line does n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Man" is a social construct -- and from a scientific perspective there is no clear way to deliniate(sp?
) between male and female.
Nonsense.  The presence of a few cases which straddle the line doesn't mean the line doesn't exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350952</id>
	<title>Re:Stopped reading after the first sentence.</title>
	<author>justinlee37</author>
	<datestamp>1260184440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what you're saying is that you refused to consider the argument because it was written by a woman? I think you're the one who is biased here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that you refused to consider the argument because it was written by a woman ?
I think you 're the one who is biased here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that you refused to consider the argument because it was written by a woman?
I think you're the one who is biased here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351968</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260196620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In cases of having the kid, I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy. In  cases of aborting the kid, only if the guy legally obligates himself to raising and supporting  the kid. Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body. That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.</p></div><p>Hang on - why 'only' if he wears a condom? Where is the expectation for him to wear the protection when there are just as many ways for woman to protect herself? What if the woman asked him not to, or didn't give him the chance? Why is he still lumped with her decision regardless of her ability to act for herself? I agree that it's 'their body' so they get to choose whether to keep it - but I don't see why a guy should held more responsible for a decision that was hers to make as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In cases of having the kid , I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy .
In cases of aborting the kid , only if the guy legally obligates himself to raising and supporting the kid .
Yes , the woman gets more say 'cause it 's her body , so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she does n't want is a violation of her rights over her own body .
That 's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.Hang on - why 'only ' if he wears a condom ?
Where is the expectation for him to wear the protection when there are just as many ways for woman to protect herself ?
What if the woman asked him not to , or did n't give him the chance ?
Why is he still lumped with her decision regardless of her ability to act for herself ?
I agree that it 's 'their body ' so they get to choose whether to keep it - but I do n't see why a guy should held more responsible for a decision that was hers to make as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In cases of having the kid, I only agree with you if the guy wore a condom and did everything in his power to prevent pregnancy.
In  cases of aborting the kid, only if the guy legally obligates himself to raising and supporting  the kid.
Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body.
That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.Hang on - why 'only' if he wears a condom?
Where is the expectation for him to wear the protection when there are just as many ways for woman to protect herself?
What if the woman asked him not to, or didn't give him the chance?
Why is he still lumped with her decision regardless of her ability to act for herself?
I agree that it's 'their body' so they get to choose whether to keep it - but I don't see why a guy should held more responsible for a decision that was hers to make as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970</id>
	<title>IQ != Common Sense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my own personal findings, I've found that most hyper-intellectuals don't have a lick of Common Sense.  It's funny how God works that way.  And no, I'm not talking about a brilliant mind with an eccentric tick or two that us lowly 140IQ "idiots" can't even begin to fathom, I'm talking about downright stupidity in some of the most obvious and basic ways.</p><p>Take money management for example.  Brilliant individual, six-figure salary to boot, and so damn broke he/she can't afford to change their mind.  Freaking kills me.</p><p>Of course, going along the debt theory, our own Government must be made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the world...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my own personal findings , I 've found that most hyper-intellectuals do n't have a lick of Common Sense .
It 's funny how God works that way .
And no , I 'm not talking about a brilliant mind with an eccentric tick or two that us lowly 140IQ " idiots " ca n't even begin to fathom , I 'm talking about downright stupidity in some of the most obvious and basic ways.Take money management for example .
Brilliant individual , six-figure salary to boot , and so damn broke he/she ca n't afford to change their mind .
Freaking kills me.Of course , going along the debt theory , our own Government must be made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my own personal findings, I've found that most hyper-intellectuals don't have a lick of Common Sense.
It's funny how God works that way.
And no, I'm not talking about a brilliant mind with an eccentric tick or two that us lowly 140IQ "idiots" can't even begin to fathom, I'm talking about downright stupidity in some of the most obvious and basic ways.Take money management for example.
Brilliant individual, six-figure salary to boot, and so damn broke he/she can't afford to change their mind.
Freaking kills me.Of course, going along the debt theory, our own Government must be made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the world...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347986</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1260108900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason there's 6 billion people on the planet instead of a few hundred million is because of technology.  Intelligence developed technology - therefore it has an enormous survival advantage on the macroscale.</p><p>The reason we can talk so much to each other is because of technology.</p><p>"Maleness" is a brain that develops and is modified by testosterone, resulting in increased risk taking behavior and improved mapping functions and possible a whole host of subtler changes.</p><p>Due to technology, physical strength matters an enormous amount less.  Hence women are now being valued more, because nearly all jobs don't need as much physical strength.</p><p>"Equal protection", statistics, discrimination suits - none of this would be possible without technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason there 's 6 billion people on the planet instead of a few hundred million is because of technology .
Intelligence developed technology - therefore it has an enormous survival advantage on the macroscale.The reason we can talk so much to each other is because of technology .
" Maleness " is a brain that develops and is modified by testosterone , resulting in increased risk taking behavior and improved mapping functions and possible a whole host of subtler changes.Due to technology , physical strength matters an enormous amount less .
Hence women are now being valued more , because nearly all jobs do n't need as much physical strength .
" Equal protection " , statistics , discrimination suits - none of this would be possible without technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason there's 6 billion people on the planet instead of a few hundred million is because of technology.
Intelligence developed technology - therefore it has an enormous survival advantage on the macroscale.The reason we can talk so much to each other is because of technology.
"Maleness" is a brain that develops and is modified by testosterone, resulting in increased risk taking behavior and improved mapping functions and possible a whole host of subtler changes.Due to technology, physical strength matters an enormous amount less.
Hence women are now being valued more, because nearly all jobs don't need as much physical strength.
"Equal protection", statistics, discrimination suits - none of this would be possible without technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350906</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1260184020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body. That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.</p></div><p>As long as the man gets more say over child welfare payments, as forcing him to pay is a violation of his rights over his own property. The fact that a man is able to knock-up a woman and bugger of is just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the woman gets more say 'cause it 's her body , so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she does n't want is a violation of her rights over her own body .
That 's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.As long as the man gets more say over child welfare payments , as forcing him to pay is a violation of his rights over his own property .
The fact that a man is able to knock-up a woman and bugger of is just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the woman gets more say 'cause it's her body, so forcing her to either abort or give birth to a kid she doesn't want is a violation of her rights over her own body.
That's just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.As long as the man gets more say over child welfare payments, as forcing him to pay is a violation of his rights over his own property.
The fact that a man is able to knock-up a woman and bugger of is just a matter of how the universe assigned biological functions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351682</id>
	<title>Re:Intelligence is over-rated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260195180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The people that score low in IQ tests are usually smart at stuff the IQ test doesn't cover like NASCAR, the WWE/TNA Wrestling</p></div><p>The problem with that argument is that NASCAR and WWE are stupid.</p><p>Someone had to say it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people that score low in IQ tests are usually smart at stuff the IQ test does n't cover like NASCAR , the WWE/TNA WrestlingThe problem with that argument is that NASCAR and WWE are stupid.Someone had to say it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people that score low in IQ tests are usually smart at stuff the IQ test doesn't cover like NASCAR, the WWE/TNA WrestlingThe problem with that argument is that NASCAR and WWE are stupid.Someone had to say it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30358532</id>
	<title>Smart, but not smart enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260184800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this basically proved that women are smarter than men. Right? Because if men overestimate their ability, that means they are the worst kind of idiot, the kind that doesn't know how dumb they are. And if women tend to underestimate their ability, it means they are focusing on what they don't know or the holes in their knowledge, meaning they actually have a really good understanding of their ability.</p><p>Seriously though, I think a cause of this discrepancy might be that men compare them selves to other people and that is how they rate themselves  and women rate themselves against an ideal of intelligence, regardless of if they know anyone that has attained that idea. So, its easier to be an expert at something if you just have to be better than the next guy. I only just recently realized that I should rate my ability the manly way when interviewing for positions (I am a girl).</p><p>Also, this supports my recent realization that everyone (men and women) believes each other's lies. We all believe the guys when they act super confident in their ability (so we have confidence in them) and we all believe women aren't as talented/smart when their body language shows that they aren't super confident. But it still makes sense that we would do this, because to some extent, an unconfident person will perform a task much too slowly for anything to get done.</p><p>The only way I can see for resolving this is to consciously decide to ignore body language, and find ways to around it. Because for a lot of women that I know, even though they aren't super confident, are still able to perform the task in accordance with their abilities, but you just can't get them to admit that they are an expert even if they are better than everyone else they know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this basically proved that women are smarter than men .
Right ? Because if men overestimate their ability , that means they are the worst kind of idiot , the kind that does n't know how dumb they are .
And if women tend to underestimate their ability , it means they are focusing on what they do n't know or the holes in their knowledge , meaning they actually have a really good understanding of their ability.Seriously though , I think a cause of this discrepancy might be that men compare them selves to other people and that is how they rate themselves and women rate themselves against an ideal of intelligence , regardless of if they know anyone that has attained that idea .
So , its easier to be an expert at something if you just have to be better than the next guy .
I only just recently realized that I should rate my ability the manly way when interviewing for positions ( I am a girl ) .Also , this supports my recent realization that everyone ( men and women ) believes each other 's lies .
We all believe the guys when they act super confident in their ability ( so we have confidence in them ) and we all believe women are n't as talented/smart when their body language shows that they are n't super confident .
But it still makes sense that we would do this , because to some extent , an unconfident person will perform a task much too slowly for anything to get done.The only way I can see for resolving this is to consciously decide to ignore body language , and find ways to around it .
Because for a lot of women that I know , even though they are n't super confident , are still able to perform the task in accordance with their abilities , but you just ca n't get them to admit that they are an expert even if they are better than everyone else they know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this basically proved that women are smarter than men.
Right? Because if men overestimate their ability, that means they are the worst kind of idiot, the kind that doesn't know how dumb they are.
And if women tend to underestimate their ability, it means they are focusing on what they don't know or the holes in their knowledge, meaning they actually have a really good understanding of their ability.Seriously though, I think a cause of this discrepancy might be that men compare them selves to other people and that is how they rate themselves  and women rate themselves against an ideal of intelligence, regardless of if they know anyone that has attained that idea.
So, its easier to be an expert at something if you just have to be better than the next guy.
I only just recently realized that I should rate my ability the manly way when interviewing for positions (I am a girl).Also, this supports my recent realization that everyone (men and women) believes each other's lies.
We all believe the guys when they act super confident in their ability (so we have confidence in them) and we all believe women aren't as talented/smart when their body language shows that they aren't super confident.
But it still makes sense that we would do this, because to some extent, an unconfident person will perform a task much too slowly for anything to get done.The only way I can see for resolving this is to consciously decide to ignore body language, and find ways to around it.
Because for a lot of women that I know, even though they aren't super confident, are still able to perform the task in accordance with their abilities, but you just can't get them to admit that they are an expert even if they are better than everyone else they know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260101340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Physically women will never be equal to men. It's in out genes to be able to bulk up more. The downisde is that we generally don't live as long.
<br> <br>
Mentally woman have the ability to be equal to men but I think, because of how long men and women have had certain roles in society, it will still be some time until we get more girls interested in things like Math, Science, Programming, etc.
<br> <br>
It can be a struggle to get younger males interested in those things since society, in general, is dumbing down.
<br> <br>
You will always get boys and girls that break out of the norm (that's always been the case) but in general the feeling seems to be that math and programming improve your changes of getting married or having babies and therefore isn't necessary to girls.
<br> <br>
Mind you, I'm living just above Essex, so people I get to observe probably aren't the best candidates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Physically women will never be equal to men .
It 's in out genes to be able to bulk up more .
The downisde is that we generally do n't live as long .
Mentally woman have the ability to be equal to men but I think , because of how long men and women have had certain roles in society , it will still be some time until we get more girls interested in things like Math , Science , Programming , etc .
It can be a struggle to get younger males interested in those things since society , in general , is dumbing down .
You will always get boys and girls that break out of the norm ( that 's always been the case ) but in general the feeling seems to be that math and programming improve your changes of getting married or having babies and therefore is n't necessary to girls .
Mind you , I 'm living just above Essex , so people I get to observe probably are n't the best candidates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physically women will never be equal to men.
It's in out genes to be able to bulk up more.
The downisde is that we generally don't live as long.
Mentally woman have the ability to be equal to men but I think, because of how long men and women have had certain roles in society, it will still be some time until we get more girls interested in things like Math, Science, Programming, etc.
It can be a struggle to get younger males interested in those things since society, in general, is dumbing down.
You will always get boys and girls that break out of the norm (that's always been the case) but in general the feeling seems to be that math and programming improve your changes of getting married or having babies and therefore isn't necessary to girls.
Mind you, I'm living just above Essex, so people I get to observe probably aren't the best candidates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30367532</id>
	<title>Re: Emotional Intelligence</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1260297840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Smart men build weapons.<br>Smart women know not to use them.</i></p><p>Right, which is why a solid majority of female senators voted to invade Iraq, and one of them, Hillary Clinton, talked about "totally obliterating" Iran.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smart men build weapons.Smart women know not to use them.Right , which is why a solid majority of female senators voted to invade Iraq , and one of them , Hillary Clinton , talked about " totally obliterating " Iran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smart men build weapons.Smart women know not to use them.Right, which is why a solid majority of female senators voted to invade Iraq, and one of them, Hillary Clinton, talked about "totally obliterating" Iran.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347300</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Common Sense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260104340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You're so smart, but you have no common sense".  That's the same line of bullshit that both my parents and my wife's parents fed us.  Our parents used to say "you're booksmart but no common sense, and your siblings have street smarts".  Yeah, those "street smarts" are worth a shit.</p><p>The wife's brother has 3 kids by 2 different women.  He's a convicted drug felon.  You name it, he's shot it up.  Hep C is currently destroying his liver.  The majority of his jobs have been short-order cook.  He can cook up a wicked batch of bathtub meth.<br>The wife's sister is 42 and the majority of the jobs she's held down have been waitressing jobs.  She's now living in a 5th wheel trailer in a state park with her 55 year old husband who she just recently married.  She's never had kids, but 3 abortions.</p><p>My wife and I have 1 kid (and no more, I got snipped).  We live in a decent house.  Granted, our income now comes from Social Security, but that's because I'm half-blind as the result of a car accident.  But that SSD income is high because I paid in quite a bit because I worked my ass off in high-paying tech jobs, not minimum wage waitstaff/cookstaff.</p><p>I guess "street smarts" is knowing how to score your next hit from the neighborhood crack dealer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You 're so smart , but you have no common sense " .
That 's the same line of bullshit that both my parents and my wife 's parents fed us .
Our parents used to say " you 're booksmart but no common sense , and your siblings have street smarts " .
Yeah , those " street smarts " are worth a shit.The wife 's brother has 3 kids by 2 different women .
He 's a convicted drug felon .
You name it , he 's shot it up .
Hep C is currently destroying his liver .
The majority of his jobs have been short-order cook .
He can cook up a wicked batch of bathtub meth.The wife 's sister is 42 and the majority of the jobs she 's held down have been waitressing jobs .
She 's now living in a 5th wheel trailer in a state park with her 55 year old husband who she just recently married .
She 's never had kids , but 3 abortions.My wife and I have 1 kid ( and no more , I got snipped ) .
We live in a decent house .
Granted , our income now comes from Social Security , but that 's because I 'm half-blind as the result of a car accident .
But that SSD income is high because I paid in quite a bit because I worked my ass off in high-paying tech jobs , not minimum wage waitstaff/cookstaff.I guess " street smarts " is knowing how to score your next hit from the neighborhood crack dealer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You're so smart, but you have no common sense".
That's the same line of bullshit that both my parents and my wife's parents fed us.
Our parents used to say "you're booksmart but no common sense, and your siblings have street smarts".
Yeah, those "street smarts" are worth a shit.The wife's brother has 3 kids by 2 different women.
He's a convicted drug felon.
You name it, he's shot it up.
Hep C is currently destroying his liver.
The majority of his jobs have been short-order cook.
He can cook up a wicked batch of bathtub meth.The wife's sister is 42 and the majority of the jobs she's held down have been waitressing jobs.
She's now living in a 5th wheel trailer in a state park with her 55 year old husband who she just recently married.
She's never had kids, but 3 abortions.My wife and I have 1 kid (and no more, I got snipped).
We live in a decent house.
Granted, our income now comes from Social Security, but that's because I'm half-blind as the result of a car accident.
But that SSD income is high because I paid in quite a bit because I worked my ass off in high-paying tech jobs, not minimum wage waitstaff/cookstaff.I guess "street smarts" is knowing how to score your next hit from the neighborhood crack dealer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348392</id>
	<title>There are different kinds of intelligence</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1260112320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen male engineers that can barely tie their shoes and women that can write beautiful essays in perfect grammatical English and yet can not navigate across town without a GPS system.  How can you accurately access intelligence when it manifests itself in so many different ways?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen male engineers that can barely tie their shoes and women that can write beautiful essays in perfect grammatical English and yet can not navigate across town without a GPS system .
How can you accurately access intelligence when it manifests itself in so many different ways ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen male engineers that can barely tie their shoes and women that can write beautiful essays in perfect grammatical English and yet can not navigate across town without a GPS system.
How can you accurately access intelligence when it manifests itself in so many different ways?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348416</id>
	<title>Sounds like a contradiction, but it's not</title>
	<author>Herby Sagues</author>
	<datestamp>1260112440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a very simple answer tho this difference that is quite probably right: the definition of intelligence used by the sample (that is, by the general population) is not the same one used in IQ tests. That, which shounds quite likely at first glance, would perfectly explain these "surprising" results. It would be enough that the laymen definition of intelligence strongly weighted skills that men have more often than women (such as those related to spacial composition, manually building or fixing things or understanding mechanical processes) while giving less weight to those more frequent in women (like managing complex processes, understanding people's mental state or recalling ordered information) and have those skills weighted differently in the technical definition of IQ, and the results could easily be as observed.
Personally I find the definition often used in such tests (the capability to solve complex problems) useless. And no, I do not consider that other definitions that reflect things such as social skills or artistic abilities as valid. What is missing in the definition, IMO, is the ability to FORESEE AND AVOID problems. An intelligent person not only solves problems, is also good at not getting into them. And that's completely missing in any IQ evaluation I've seen. While I personally score high in IQ tests (130 on average, though I've been rated everything from 120 to 145) I thing I would do worse if such capabilities were considered, and I think that would better reflect my real intelligence. Not that I'm dumb as a rock, but I'm not as well adapted for this "living" thing as my IQ would indicate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a very simple answer tho this difference that is quite probably right : the definition of intelligence used by the sample ( that is , by the general population ) is not the same one used in IQ tests .
That , which shounds quite likely at first glance , would perfectly explain these " surprising " results .
It would be enough that the laymen definition of intelligence strongly weighted skills that men have more often than women ( such as those related to spacial composition , manually building or fixing things or understanding mechanical processes ) while giving less weight to those more frequent in women ( like managing complex processes , understanding people 's mental state or recalling ordered information ) and have those skills weighted differently in the technical definition of IQ , and the results could easily be as observed .
Personally I find the definition often used in such tests ( the capability to solve complex problems ) useless .
And no , I do not consider that other definitions that reflect things such as social skills or artistic abilities as valid .
What is missing in the definition , IMO , is the ability to FORESEE AND AVOID problems .
An intelligent person not only solves problems , is also good at not getting into them .
And that 's completely missing in any IQ evaluation I 've seen .
While I personally score high in IQ tests ( 130 on average , though I 've been rated everything from 120 to 145 ) I thing I would do worse if such capabilities were considered , and I think that would better reflect my real intelligence .
Not that I 'm dumb as a rock , but I 'm not as well adapted for this " living " thing as my IQ would indicate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a very simple answer tho this difference that is quite probably right: the definition of intelligence used by the sample (that is, by the general population) is not the same one used in IQ tests.
That, which shounds quite likely at first glance, would perfectly explain these "surprising" results.
It would be enough that the laymen definition of intelligence strongly weighted skills that men have more often than women (such as those related to spacial composition, manually building or fixing things or understanding mechanical processes) while giving less weight to those more frequent in women (like managing complex processes, understanding people's mental state or recalling ordered information) and have those skills weighted differently in the technical definition of IQ, and the results could easily be as observed.
Personally I find the definition often used in such tests (the capability to solve complex problems) useless.
And no, I do not consider that other definitions that reflect things such as social skills or artistic abilities as valid.
What is missing in the definition, IMO, is the ability to FORESEE AND AVOID problems.
An intelligent person not only solves problems, is also good at not getting into them.
And that's completely missing in any IQ evaluation I've seen.
While I personally score high in IQ tests (130 on average, though I've been rated everything from 120 to 145) I thing I would do worse if such capabilities were considered, and I think that would better reflect my real intelligence.
Not that I'm dumb as a rock, but I'm not as well adapted for this "living" thing as my IQ would indicate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349884</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260128040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here [cough 7 digit UID cough].<br>We mod things up because they stimulate our thought.<br>When someone is wrong, you reply, and if you had things worth saying you get modded up, too. Making snide remarks about "can't believe you were modded up so far" does not aid in a low-blood-pressure-friendly discussion, and is rather silly when you think about it. Just politely point out they're wrong, let the modding do the b-slapping.</p><p>Anyways, you seem to misunderstand what modding is about. It is not about "you are right" or "you are wrong", but rather "do you add to the discussion"?<br>GP definitely added to the discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here [ cough 7 digit UID cough ] .We mod things up because they stimulate our thought.When someone is wrong , you reply , and if you had things worth saying you get modded up , too .
Making snide remarks about " ca n't believe you were modded up so far " does not aid in a low-blood-pressure-friendly discussion , and is rather silly when you think about it .
Just politely point out they 're wrong , let the modding do the b-slapping.Anyways , you seem to misunderstand what modding is about .
It is not about " you are right " or " you are wrong " , but rather " do you add to the discussion " ? GP definitely added to the discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here [cough 7 digit UID cough].We mod things up because they stimulate our thought.When someone is wrong, you reply, and if you had things worth saying you get modded up, too.
Making snide remarks about "can't believe you were modded up so far" does not aid in a low-blood-pressure-friendly discussion, and is rather silly when you think about it.
Just politely point out they're wrong, let the modding do the b-slapping.Anyways, you seem to misunderstand what modding is about.
It is not about "you are right" or "you are wrong", but rather "do you add to the discussion"?GP definitely added to the discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353298</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260202860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Both geniuses and idiots work badly on teams."</p><p>Sweeping generalisation there based on nothing but a few random neurons firing in you brain to no particular purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Both geniuses and idiots work badly on teams .
" Sweeping generalisation there based on nothing but a few random neurons firing in you brain to no particular purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Both geniuses and idiots work badly on teams.
"Sweeping generalisation there based on nothing but a few random neurons firing in you brain to no particular purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349580</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260124320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No you idiot a man is not a social construct, depending on the context it means a person, As in HU Man, or MANkind, but for the most part it is an alternate way to a male... its as simple as that. That may be why more people thing that women are dumber because women always assume there is a subtext when there is none.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No you idiot a man is not a social construct , depending on the context it means a person , As in HU Man , or MANkind , but for the most part it is an alternate way to a male... its as simple as that .
That may be why more people thing that women are dumber because women always assume there is a subtext when there is none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No you idiot a man is not a social construct, depending on the context it means a person, As in HU Man, or MANkind, but for the most part it is an alternate way to a male... its as simple as that.
That may be why more people thing that women are dumber because women always assume there is a subtext when there is none.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347834</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1260107880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There probably will never be a female championship rodeo contestant.</p><p>That doesn't mean they shouldn't ever be allowed to try.</p><p>The entire philosophy of modern feminism isn't this parody of the 60's women's liberation movement, it's the shocking concept that women are people too, and they should be given the same opportunities to try and fail at anything a man can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There probably will never be a female championship rodeo contestant.That does n't mean they should n't ever be allowed to try.The entire philosophy of modern feminism is n't this parody of the 60 's women 's liberation movement , it 's the shocking concept that women are people too , and they should be given the same opportunities to try and fail at anything a man can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There probably will never be a female championship rodeo contestant.That doesn't mean they shouldn't ever be allowed to try.The entire philosophy of modern feminism isn't this parody of the 60's women's liberation movement, it's the shocking concept that women are people too, and they should be given the same opportunities to try and fail at anything a man can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348082</id>
	<title>Re:basic biology</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1260109740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why would a woman pick a mate she believed was stupid?"</p><p>Wealth and power come to mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why would a woman pick a mate she believed was stupid ?
" Wealth and power come to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why would a woman pick a mate she believed was stupid?
"Wealth and power come to mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350698</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>PO1FL</author>
	<datestamp>1260181440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.</p></div><p>Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender, (<a href="http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/male-victims-of-sexual-abuse.html" title="child-abuse-effects.com" rel="nofollow">citations at bottom</a> [child-abuse-effects.com]), though I agree the numbers probably are equal, and may even be higher for boys because of the expectation that they won't report it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman</p></div><p>Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman</p></div><p>Most police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.</p></div><p>Society as whole (or the legislature in question) writes the laws with an undue preference towards the female gender because of a perceived weakness compared to males in this aspect. So, its not some beat cop's fault when he (or she) enforces a mandatory arrest law. <br> <br>
This could be just me, but i don't think less of a male if his (female) significant other abuses him. In what way is he supposed to stop this, without subjecting himself to domestic violence claims (justified or not)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical , women just do n't admit that that happens to men as well.Actually , guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it does n't fit with the traditional notions of gender , ( citations at bottom [ child-abuse-effects.com ] ) , though I agree the numbers probably are equal , and may even be higher for boys because of the expectation that they wo n't report it.Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive womanMost police are male , so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Here 's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical , women just do n't admit that that happens to men as well.Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive womanMost police are male , so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Society as whole ( or the legislature in question ) writes the laws with an undue preference towards the female gender because of a perceived weakness compared to males in this aspect .
So , its not some beat cop 's fault when he ( or she ) enforces a mandatory arrest law .
This could be just me , but i do n't think less of a male if his ( female ) significant other abuses him .
In what way is he supposed to stop this , without subjecting himself to domestic violence claims ( justified or not ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.Actually, guys do it to themselves by underreporting abuse because it doesn't fit with the traditional notions of gender, (citations at bottom [child-abuse-effects.com]), though I agree the numbers probably are equal, and may even be higher for boys because of the expectation that they won't report it.Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive womanMost police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive womanMost police are male, so honestly this is another of those cases where it has to do with guys own expectations of other guys.Society as whole (or the legislature in question) writes the laws with an undue preference towards the female gender because of a perceived weakness compared to males in this aspect.
So, its not some beat cop's fault when he (or she) enforces a mandatory arrest law.
This could be just me, but i don't think less of a male if his (female) significant other abuses him.
In what way is he supposed to stop this, without subjecting himself to domestic violence claims (justified or not)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349202</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1260120360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may do a reasonable job at correlating the sort of things analytical people normally associate with intelligence. Is there interpretation of intelligence more correct than someone who thinks that creativity is as just a valid form of intelligence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may do a reasonable job at correlating the sort of things analytical people normally associate with intelligence .
Is there interpretation of intelligence more correct than someone who thinks that creativity is as just a valid form of intelligence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may do a reasonable job at correlating the sort of things analytical people normally associate with intelligence.
Is there interpretation of intelligence more correct than someone who thinks that creativity is as just a valid form of intelligence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349190</id>
	<title>Re:Different intelligence:</title>
	<author>crazybit</author>
	<datestamp>1260120240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Emotional intelligence will raise children, take care of the elder, cure the mentally ill, hug you when you are sand, and most important, build families and societies. You can't build a society taking away feelings (after all the "ultimate goal" of almost every human is the pursuit of happiness) as you can't build it without machines &amp; buildings.<br> <br> Both types of intelligence is what brings balance to the force, they are both equally important. Nature is wise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emotional intelligence will raise children , take care of the elder , cure the mentally ill , hug you when you are sand , and most important , build families and societies .
You ca n't build a society taking away feelings ( after all the " ultimate goal " of almost every human is the pursuit of happiness ) as you ca n't build it without machines &amp; buildings .
Both types of intelligence is what brings balance to the force , they are both equally important .
Nature is wise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emotional intelligence will raise children, take care of the elder, cure the mentally ill, hug you when you are sand, and most important, build families and societies.
You can't build a society taking away feelings (after all the "ultimate goal" of almost every human is the pursuit of happiness) as you can't build it without machines &amp; buildings.
Both types of intelligence is what brings balance to the force, they are both equally important.
Nature is wise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347664</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1260106920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree that defined gender roles are a good idea. Ignoring the concept of sexual discrimination entirely, they by definition reduce every single person's career choice by 50\%.</p><p>Also, notice how the barbarians tend to starve and die of disease a lot, largely due to their overbreeding?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree that defined gender roles are a good idea .
Ignoring the concept of sexual discrimination entirely , they by definition reduce every single person 's career choice by 50 \ % .Also , notice how the barbarians tend to starve and die of disease a lot , largely due to their overbreeding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree that defined gender roles are a good idea.
Ignoring the concept of sexual discrimination entirely, they by definition reduce every single person's career choice by 50\%.Also, notice how the barbarians tend to starve and die of disease a lot, largely due to their overbreeding?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30373872</id>
	<title>I am Woman</title>
	<author>dreams2go</author>
	<datestamp>1260290460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You guys.  Me woman.

I've been reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. regularly for several years, and this is my first post (to the sausage fest).  I can't recall seeing a post in a woman's perspective.  Most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posts have a decidedly male tone.  Don't you think?  (no pun intended)

I had my boys in private boys schools, until I ran short of money.  Separate-gender schooling was the best investment ever.  No regrets, even if I couldn't afford to have them graduate.

Raising men's or lowering women's ego and self-esteem to meet expectations of "perceptions" may apply to other areas besides intelligence.  For example, perceptions about body image (weight, age, &amp; beauty), or when you go outside traditional maie-female roles.  Double standards are found many places.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys .
Me woman .
I 've been reading / .
regularly for several years , and this is my first post ( to the sausage fest ) .
I ca n't recall seeing a post in a woman 's perspective .
Most / .
posts have a decidedly male tone .
Do n't you think ?
( no pun intended ) I had my boys in private boys schools , until I ran short of money .
Separate-gender schooling was the best investment ever .
No regrets , even if I could n't afford to have them graduate .
Raising men 's or lowering women 's ego and self-esteem to meet expectations of " perceptions " may apply to other areas besides intelligence .
For example , perceptions about body image ( weight , age , &amp; beauty ) , or when you go outside traditional maie-female roles .
Double standards are found many places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys.
Me woman.
I've been reading /.
regularly for several years, and this is my first post (to the sausage fest).
I can't recall seeing a post in a woman's perspective.
Most /.
posts have a decidedly male tone.
Don't you think?
(no pun intended)

I had my boys in private boys schools, until I ran short of money.
Separate-gender schooling was the best investment ever.
No regrets, even if I couldn't afford to have them graduate.
Raising men's or lowering women's ego and self-esteem to meet expectations of "perceptions" may apply to other areas besides intelligence.
For example, perceptions about body image (weight, age, &amp; beauty), or when you go outside traditional maie-female roles.
Double standards are found many places.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348368</id>
	<title>Not "think", "fantasize"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260112080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... Surprisingly, both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations -- both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers. And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters."</p><p>The use of "believe is correct; the use of "think" is not.</p><p>The number of humans that can actually think, as opposed to rationalize, compared to the total number of humans, appears to be statistically insignificant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... Surprisingly , both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations -- both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers .
And if there are children , both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters .
" The use of " believe is correct ; the use of " think " is not.The number of humans that can actually think , as opposed to rationalize , compared to the total number of humans , appears to be statistically insignificant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... Surprisingly, both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations -- both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers.
And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters.
"The use of "believe is correct; the use of "think" is not.The number of humans that can actually think, as opposed to rationalize, compared to the total number of humans, appears to be statistically insignificant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>Smallpond</author>
	<datestamp>1260102960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Physically women will never be equal to men. It's in out genes to be able to bulk up more..</p></div><p>That may be genetic selection due to culture.  Men don't choose women who are bigger than they are and women don't date short men.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Physically women will never be equal to men .
It 's in out genes to be able to bulk up more..That may be genetic selection due to culture .
Men do n't choose women who are bigger than they are and women do n't date short men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physically women will never be equal to men.
It's in out genes to be able to bulk up more..That may be genetic selection due to culture.
Men don't choose women who are bigger than they are and women don't date short men.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400</id>
	<title>Re:Different intelligence:</title>
	<author>defaria</author>
	<datestamp>1260105120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah the emotional intelligence argument. When a wealth women loses all of her money in a scam job I would just love to ask her "It's a shame you lost all your money but how did you *feel* about the transaction?!?". Why do we give equal weight to so called emotional intelligence? Emotional intelligence will not put food on the table, cure cancer, build bridges, etc. Clearly it's a lot less valuable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah the emotional intelligence argument .
When a wealth women loses all of her money in a scam job I would just love to ask her " It 's a shame you lost all your money but how did you * feel * about the transaction ? ! ? " .
Why do we give equal weight to so called emotional intelligence ?
Emotional intelligence will not put food on the table , cure cancer , build bridges , etc .
Clearly it 's a lot less valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah the emotional intelligence argument.
When a wealth women loses all of her money in a scam job I would just love to ask her "It's a shame you lost all your money but how did you *feel* about the transaction?!?".
Why do we give equal weight to so called emotional intelligence?
Emotional intelligence will not put food on the table, cure cancer, build bridges, etc.
Clearly it's a lot less valuable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349542</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260124020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> men might go to greater extremes with spousal abuse, but women do it much more often. if we don't tolerate it from men, then women need to quit slapping and psychologically manipulating their partners.  ie LEARN TO CONTROL THEMSELVES the same way men are expected to. not only is this tolerated, but it is celebrated in the media. The only countries that force women to carry a rapists child are backward for a number of other reasons. I think for the sake of discussion taht we limit the context to western countries.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If anything, Americans elevate "men's issues" (crime, unemployment, war)</p></div><p>yay more misandry. of course, that's alright as long as one isn't a misogynist right?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>disproportionately over other pressing issues, like equality, which you seem to have a seething disdain for</p></div><p>you seem to have a funny definition of equality.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(is your solution to racism for minorities to "grow up and take responsibility for all the crap they do" to white people?)</p></div><p>Heh, they do need to grow up and quit asking for special dispensations. race/gender discrimination was enforced by law. it no longer is. hasn't been for decades.  using inverse forms of them under a newspeak banner of 'equality' does not help deprogram the culture. it inflames it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nice straw man, but your meaningless call for women to "as a group decide to grow up" is childish especially since all the "crap" you mentioned is a much worse problem for women.</p></div><p>are you female? or are you one of those unfortunate males who've been brainwashed into thinking there's something wrong with you because you don't have a vjayjay?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>men might go to greater extremes with spousal abuse , but women do it much more often .
if we do n't tolerate it from men , then women need to quit slapping and psychologically manipulating their partners .
ie LEARN TO CONTROL THEMSELVES the same way men are expected to .
not only is this tolerated , but it is celebrated in the media .
The only countries that force women to carry a rapists child are backward for a number of other reasons .
I think for the sake of discussion taht we limit the context to western countries.If anything , Americans elevate " men 's issues " ( crime , unemployment , war ) yay more misandry .
of course , that 's alright as long as one is n't a misogynist right ? disproportionately over other pressing issues , like equality , which you seem to have a seething disdain foryou seem to have a funny definition of equality .
( is your solution to racism for minorities to " grow up and take responsibility for all the crap they do " to white people ?
) Heh , they do need to grow up and quit asking for special dispensations .
race/gender discrimination was enforced by law .
it no longer is .
has n't been for decades .
using inverse forms of them under a newspeak banner of 'equality ' does not help deprogram the culture .
it inflames it.Nice straw man , but your meaningless call for women to " as a group decide to grow up " is childish especially since all the " crap " you mentioned is a much worse problem for women.are you female ?
or are you one of those unfortunate males who 've been brainwashed into thinking there 's something wrong with you because you do n't have a vjayjay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> men might go to greater extremes with spousal abuse, but women do it much more often.
if we don't tolerate it from men, then women need to quit slapping and psychologically manipulating their partners.
ie LEARN TO CONTROL THEMSELVES the same way men are expected to.
not only is this tolerated, but it is celebrated in the media.
The only countries that force women to carry a rapists child are backward for a number of other reasons.
I think for the sake of discussion taht we limit the context to western countries.If anything, Americans elevate "men's issues" (crime, unemployment, war)yay more misandry.
of course, that's alright as long as one isn't a misogynist right?disproportionately over other pressing issues, like equality, which you seem to have a seething disdain foryou seem to have a funny definition of equality.
(is your solution to racism for minorities to "grow up and take responsibility for all the crap they do" to white people?
)Heh, they do need to grow up and quit asking for special dispensations.
race/gender discrimination was enforced by law.
it no longer is.
hasn't been for decades.
using inverse forms of them under a newspeak banner of 'equality' does not help deprogram the culture.
it inflames it.Nice straw man, but your meaningless call for women to "as a group decide to grow up" is childish especially since all the "crap" you mentioned is a much worse problem for women.are you female?
or are you one of those unfortunate males who've been brainwashed into thinking there's something wrong with you because you don't have a vjayjay?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347424</id>
	<title>Re:Idiots not qualified to estimate own intelligen</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1260105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall my grandfather having farting competitions with his friends one Christmas.</p><p>However, I'd certainly consider the man "smart" or even a "genius". Not too great at book smarts (well, mathematics, at least). But the man was a genius in his own right: an incredible artist (oils on Masonite, having paintings sell for millions), an Expert marksman when he shot for the Army Rifle Team (they asked him to go to the Olympics), a phenomenal outdoorsman (if it exists, he probably knew its name, scientific name, what it ate or ate it, etc.), and a poet/singer who knew thousands of lengthy songs and poems by heart (including Horatius and many of his own).</p><p>But yeah, he liked lewd jokes and fart competitions. That, alone, doesn't make someone dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall my grandfather having farting competitions with his friends one Christmas.However , I 'd certainly consider the man " smart " or even a " genius " .
Not too great at book smarts ( well , mathematics , at least ) .
But the man was a genius in his own right : an incredible artist ( oils on Masonite , having paintings sell for millions ) , an Expert marksman when he shot for the Army Rifle Team ( they asked him to go to the Olympics ) , a phenomenal outdoorsman ( if it exists , he probably knew its name , scientific name , what it ate or ate it , etc .
) , and a poet/singer who knew thousands of lengthy songs and poems by heart ( including Horatius and many of his own ) .But yeah , he liked lewd jokes and fart competitions .
That , alone , does n't make someone dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall my grandfather having farting competitions with his friends one Christmas.However, I'd certainly consider the man "smart" or even a "genius".
Not too great at book smarts (well, mathematics, at least).
But the man was a genius in his own right: an incredible artist (oils on Masonite, having paintings sell for millions), an Expert marksman when he shot for the Army Rifle Team (they asked him to go to the Olympics), a phenomenal outdoorsman (if it exists, he probably knew its name, scientific name, what it ate or ate it, etc.
), and a poet/singer who knew thousands of lengthy songs and poems by heart (including Horatius and many of his own).But yeah, he liked lewd jokes and fart competitions.
That, alone, doesn't make someone dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</id>
	<title>Well, Duh</title>
	<author>hedgemage</author>
	<datestamp>1260100260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only recently have we even acknowledged that women are not inherently inferior to men, so is it so much of a surprise to learn that there is a strong cultural gender bias in favor of men being superior in intelligence?<br>
In my own family, my mother is a medical doctor, while my father never made it through college, and despite this reversal, I have caught myself falling into the same traps and patterns that society at large puts out as truth that women are inferior to men in certain fields of study, if not all intellectual pursuits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only recently have we even acknowledged that women are not inherently inferior to men , so is it so much of a surprise to learn that there is a strong cultural gender bias in favor of men being superior in intelligence ?
In my own family , my mother is a medical doctor , while my father never made it through college , and despite this reversal , I have caught myself falling into the same traps and patterns that society at large puts out as truth that women are inferior to men in certain fields of study , if not all intellectual pursuits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only recently have we even acknowledged that women are not inherently inferior to men, so is it so much of a surprise to learn that there is a strong cultural gender bias in favor of men being superior in intelligence?
In my own family, my mother is a medical doctor, while my father never made it through college, and despite this reversal, I have caught myself falling into the same traps and patterns that society at large puts out as truth that women are inferior to men in certain fields of study, if not all intellectual pursuits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350276</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>rdebath</author>
	<datestamp>1260176400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The reason that the percentage looks so biased is very simple, most historical woman inventors got a man to do the fronting for them. Or even just wrote under a pen name; a male pen name.
</p><p>
Nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason that the percentage looks so biased is very simple , most historical woman inventors got a man to do the fronting for them .
Or even just wrote under a pen name ; a male pen name .
Nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The reason that the percentage looks so biased is very simple, most historical woman inventors got a man to do the fronting for them.
Or even just wrote under a pen name; a male pen name.
Nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348270</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260111240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, if "only recently" is "about 40 years ago."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , if " only recently " is " about 40 years ago .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, if "only recently" is "about 40 years ago.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348958</id>
	<title>Re:Bold = Smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260117960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually there seems to be quite significant correlation between body hairiness and intelligence for males (more hairs = higher IQ)  - google for Aikarakudy and several others, This might have something to do with do with testosterone level (also influencing head boldness) but as everybody likes to say on slashdot: correlation != causation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually there seems to be quite significant correlation between body hairiness and intelligence for males ( more hairs = higher IQ ) - google for Aikarakudy and several others , This might have something to do with do with testosterone level ( also influencing head boldness ) but as everybody likes to say on slashdot : correlation ! = causation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually there seems to be quite significant correlation between body hairiness and intelligence for males (more hairs = higher IQ)  - google for Aikarakudy and several others, This might have something to do with do with testosterone level (also influencing head boldness) but as everybody likes to say on slashdot: correlation != causation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353380</id>
	<title>Re:Different intelligence:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260203220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err, how do you know those traits are inherent rather than cultural?</p><p>Women who were taught not to pay attention to their math and science teachers are not likely to answer math and science questions very well. It says nothing of ability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , how do you know those traits are inherent rather than cultural ? Women who were taught not to pay attention to their math and science teachers are not likely to answer math and science questions very well .
It says nothing of ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, how do you know those traits are inherent rather than cultural?Women who were taught not to pay attention to their math and science teachers are not likely to answer math and science questions very well.
It says nothing of ability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353256</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>cynical kane</author>
	<datestamp>1260202680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Childbirth killed most women before they reach 30 [...] the issue of childbirth is the only reason for the old roles. We've solved that problem, and it's time to redefine the roles.</p></div><p>Who mods stuff like this up? It's obviously wrong.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal\_mortality" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal\_mortality</a> [wikipedia.org] "The historical level of maternal deaths is probably around 1 in 100 births.[11]"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Childbirth killed most women before they reach 30 [ ... ] the issue of childbirth is the only reason for the old roles .
We 've solved that problem , and it 's time to redefine the roles.Who mods stuff like this up ?
It 's obviously wrong.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal \ _mortality [ wikipedia.org ] " The historical level of maternal deaths is probably around 1 in 100 births .
[ 11 ] "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Childbirth killed most women before they reach 30 [...] the issue of childbirth is the only reason for the old roles.
We've solved that problem, and it's time to redefine the roles.Who mods stuff like this up?
It's obviously wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal\_mortality [wikipedia.org] "The historical level of maternal deaths is probably around 1 in 100 births.
[11]"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349052</id>
	<title>Re:If women are so smart . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260118920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a misogynistic  pile of crap.  You talk about sexual molestation, but you conveniently don't mention the fact that it's MEN most often doing the sexual abuse, even to boys.  I can think of at least 5 people who were abused by their fathers, myself included.  Want to know how many people I've met who were abused by their mothers?  ZERO.  While that's purely anecdotal, that's still a pretty interesting ratio, don't you think?  Doesn't look particularly equal to me!</p><p>Maybe if you did some actual research instead of pulling opinions out of your ass, you'd realize that your other 'facts' are just as steaming.  The fact that it got modded to +5 insightful just makes me sad, and proves how there is still a strong fear/hatred of women in our society.</p><p>You act like men routinely get the short end of the stick compared to women.  Who didn't get to vote for who knows how long?  Women Who forbidden from practising any sort of medicine until relatively recently?  Women.  Who is *still* not permitted into the ranks of most major religious institutions?  Women.</p><p>A lot has changed in the past few decades because of women's rights movements and whatnot, but the truth of the matter is that men are still considered the 'dominant' sex.  Men are still considered more powerful.  As a result, men are punished more severely when they abuse that power.</p><p>If you don't like it, maybe you should actually HELP women improve the inequality in society?  But no, you'd rather indulge your persecution complex.</p><p>There's a book I recommend you read.  It's called "The boy who cried wolf".  You might have heard of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a misogynistic pile of crap .
You talk about sexual molestation , but you conveniently do n't mention the fact that it 's MEN most often doing the sexual abuse , even to boys .
I can think of at least 5 people who were abused by their fathers , myself included .
Want to know how many people I 've met who were abused by their mothers ?
ZERO. While that 's purely anecdotal , that 's still a pretty interesting ratio , do n't you think ?
Does n't look particularly equal to me ! Maybe if you did some actual research instead of pulling opinions out of your ass , you 'd realize that your other 'facts ' are just as steaming .
The fact that it got modded to + 5 insightful just makes me sad , and proves how there is still a strong fear/hatred of women in our society.You act like men routinely get the short end of the stick compared to women .
Who did n't get to vote for who knows how long ?
Women Who forbidden from practising any sort of medicine until relatively recently ?
Women. Who is * still * not permitted into the ranks of most major religious institutions ?
Women.A lot has changed in the past few decades because of women 's rights movements and whatnot , but the truth of the matter is that men are still considered the 'dominant ' sex .
Men are still considered more powerful .
As a result , men are punished more severely when they abuse that power.If you do n't like it , maybe you should actually HELP women improve the inequality in society ?
But no , you 'd rather indulge your persecution complex.There 's a book I recommend you read .
It 's called " The boy who cried wolf " .
You might have heard of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a misogynistic  pile of crap.
You talk about sexual molestation, but you conveniently don't mention the fact that it's MEN most often doing the sexual abuse, even to boys.
I can think of at least 5 people who were abused by their fathers, myself included.
Want to know how many people I've met who were abused by their mothers?
ZERO.  While that's purely anecdotal, that's still a pretty interesting ratio, don't you think?
Doesn't look particularly equal to me!Maybe if you did some actual research instead of pulling opinions out of your ass, you'd realize that your other 'facts' are just as steaming.
The fact that it got modded to +5 insightful just makes me sad, and proves how there is still a strong fear/hatred of women in our society.You act like men routinely get the short end of the stick compared to women.
Who didn't get to vote for who knows how long?
Women Who forbidden from practising any sort of medicine until relatively recently?
Women.  Who is *still* not permitted into the ranks of most major religious institutions?
Women.A lot has changed in the past few decades because of women's rights movements and whatnot, but the truth of the matter is that men are still considered the 'dominant' sex.
Men are still considered more powerful.
As a result, men are punished more severely when they abuse that power.If you don't like it, maybe you should actually HELP women improve the inequality in society?
But no, you'd rather indulge your persecution complex.There's a book I recommend you read.
It's called "The boy who cried wolf".
You might have heard of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348132</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1260110100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's genetic selection in so far as the big men don't let the smaller ones get a chance. Kind of sad that men's athletic superiority is mostly the result of their need to beat the crap out of each other to get laid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's genetic selection in so far as the big men do n't let the smaller ones get a chance .
Kind of sad that men 's athletic superiority is mostly the result of their need to beat the crap out of each other to get laid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's genetic selection in so far as the big men don't let the smaller ones get a chance.
Kind of sad that men's athletic superiority is mostly the result of their need to beat the crap out of each other to get laid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350022</id>
	<title>ITT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260216240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ITT: The usual sexism</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ITT : The usual sexism</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ITT: The usual sexism</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347214</id>
	<title>Re:IQ != Intelligence</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1260103740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The perception of George Bush as stupid is more a reflection of the very human need to believe that the King is not evil, and blame his advisors for leading him astray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The perception of George Bush as stupid is more a reflection of the very human need to believe that the King is not evil , and blame his advisors for leading him astray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The perception of George Bush as stupid is more a reflection of the very human need to believe that the King is not evil, and blame his advisors for leading him astray.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348306</id>
	<title>Oblig...</title>
	<author>oddaddresstrap</author>
	<datestamp>1260111480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around, is he still wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around , is he still wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around, is he still wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1260103560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One possibility is that men really are smarter, just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.</p><p>Homo Sapiens are high end apes that have evolved some crucial abilities.  The most important ability of all is the ability to use tools.</p><p>Even more important than that is the ability to INVENT NEW TOOLS.  Our entire civilization exists because of bright men in the past who invented and engineered the technology we have today.  Ironically, civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.</p><p>Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99\% of the inventing.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  Furthermore, in many situations in real life, it's usually a male co-worker that invents a new solution to a technical problem.  IQ tests can only measure the ability of a person's brain to apply existing, canned solutions to problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One possibility is that men really are smarter , just that IQ tests do n't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.Homo Sapiens are high end apes that have evolved some crucial abilities .
The most important ability of all is the ability to use tools.Even more important than that is the ability to INVENT NEW TOOLS .
Our entire civilization exists because of bright men in the past who invented and engineered the technology we have today .
Ironically , civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.Anyways , as far as I know , men have done around 95-99 \ % of the inventing .
Correct me if I 'm wrong .
Furthermore , in many situations in real life , it 's usually a male co-worker that invents a new solution to a technical problem .
IQ tests can only measure the ability of a person 's brain to apply existing , canned solutions to problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One possibility is that men really are smarter, just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.Homo Sapiens are high end apes that have evolved some crucial abilities.
The most important ability of all is the ability to use tools.Even more important than that is the ability to INVENT NEW TOOLS.
Our entire civilization exists because of bright men in the past who invented and engineered the technology we have today.
Ironically, civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99\% of the inventing.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Furthermore, in many situations in real life, it's usually a male co-worker that invents a new solution to a technical problem.
IQ tests can only measure the ability of a person's brain to apply existing, canned solutions to problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347792</id>
	<title>Re:Well, Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260107700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only recently have we even acknowledged that women are not inherently inferior to men, so is it so much of a surprise to learn that there is a strong cultural gender bias in favor of men being superior in intelligence?<br>In my own family, my mother is a medical doctor, while my father never made it through college, and despite this reversal, I have caught myself falling into the same traps and patterns that society at large puts out as truth that women are inferior to men in certain fields of study, if not all intellectual pursuits.</p></div><p>Some of it is not purely cultural, but the kind of culture that gets created by small practicalities.  (Which is why it occurs across many cultures).  There is still, in pretty much every culture, a greater proportion of men who chose to define themselves by their work than women who do so.  At least in the West, this isn't primarily through lack of choice for women, but through lack of choice for men.  Sorry, men, but we are neither physically equipped for childbirth nor breastfeeding -- and after that stage if you choose to be a househusband the inevitable question "why don't you just use childcare if the mum's not going to be with the children anyway" is going to be rattling around your head and those around you.  (And if you bottle-feed, well then you're already labelled as evil.)  While societies are reasonably open minded now about whether a woman prioritises her career or children, we are not "open-minded" about the idea of a man not having a career -- because men do not have the excuse of babies.  We have a single defined stereotype of what a man should be -- career-focused, intelligent, out conquering the world...  for girls though we let the child decide.</p><p>This has a few inevitable consequences.  If workforce participation is higher for men, then aggregated across both the working and the non-working population, men will be seen as picking up more new technologies (in the line of work), have more motivation for updating their technical skills, and thus be seen as "in general" more intelligent.  Except of course it's not, it's just "more of them are active in the workforce".  Meanwhile, as parents we are more motivated to push our sons than our daughters.  Our sons have to achieve; our daughters can merely choose to.  And so, even straight after birth both mothers and fathers tend to encourage baby boys to be lively, and tend to calm baby girls.  (Yup, they've done the controlled study on that one, including boys dressed up as girls etc.)</p><p>The upshot of which is even if you are in a culture that is "liberal to women", many of the same discrepancies still occur because there are no cultures which are "liberal to men".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only recently have we even acknowledged that women are not inherently inferior to men , so is it so much of a surprise to learn that there is a strong cultural gender bias in favor of men being superior in intelligence ? In my own family , my mother is a medical doctor , while my father never made it through college , and despite this reversal , I have caught myself falling into the same traps and patterns that society at large puts out as truth that women are inferior to men in certain fields of study , if not all intellectual pursuits.Some of it is not purely cultural , but the kind of culture that gets created by small practicalities .
( Which is why it occurs across many cultures ) .
There is still , in pretty much every culture , a greater proportion of men who chose to define themselves by their work than women who do so .
At least in the West , this is n't primarily through lack of choice for women , but through lack of choice for men .
Sorry , men , but we are neither physically equipped for childbirth nor breastfeeding -- and after that stage if you choose to be a househusband the inevitable question " why do n't you just use childcare if the mum 's not going to be with the children anyway " is going to be rattling around your head and those around you .
( And if you bottle-feed , well then you 're already labelled as evil .
) While societies are reasonably open minded now about whether a woman prioritises her career or children , we are not " open-minded " about the idea of a man not having a career -- because men do not have the excuse of babies .
We have a single defined stereotype of what a man should be -- career-focused , intelligent , out conquering the world... for girls though we let the child decide.This has a few inevitable consequences .
If workforce participation is higher for men , then aggregated across both the working and the non-working population , men will be seen as picking up more new technologies ( in the line of work ) , have more motivation for updating their technical skills , and thus be seen as " in general " more intelligent .
Except of course it 's not , it 's just " more of them are active in the workforce " .
Meanwhile , as parents we are more motivated to push our sons than our daughters .
Our sons have to achieve ; our daughters can merely choose to .
And so , even straight after birth both mothers and fathers tend to encourage baby boys to be lively , and tend to calm baby girls .
( Yup , they 've done the controlled study on that one , including boys dressed up as girls etc .
) The upshot of which is even if you are in a culture that is " liberal to women " , many of the same discrepancies still occur because there are no cultures which are " liberal to men " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only recently have we even acknowledged that women are not inherently inferior to men, so is it so much of a surprise to learn that there is a strong cultural gender bias in favor of men being superior in intelligence?In my own family, my mother is a medical doctor, while my father never made it through college, and despite this reversal, I have caught myself falling into the same traps and patterns that society at large puts out as truth that women are inferior to men in certain fields of study, if not all intellectual pursuits.Some of it is not purely cultural, but the kind of culture that gets created by small practicalities.
(Which is why it occurs across many cultures).
There is still, in pretty much every culture, a greater proportion of men who chose to define themselves by their work than women who do so.
At least in the West, this isn't primarily through lack of choice for women, but through lack of choice for men.
Sorry, men, but we are neither physically equipped for childbirth nor breastfeeding -- and after that stage if you choose to be a househusband the inevitable question "why don't you just use childcare if the mum's not going to be with the children anyway" is going to be rattling around your head and those around you.
(And if you bottle-feed, well then you're already labelled as evil.
)  While societies are reasonably open minded now about whether a woman prioritises her career or children, we are not "open-minded" about the idea of a man not having a career -- because men do not have the excuse of babies.
We have a single defined stereotype of what a man should be -- career-focused, intelligent, out conquering the world...  for girls though we let the child decide.This has a few inevitable consequences.
If workforce participation is higher for men, then aggregated across both the working and the non-working population, men will be seen as picking up more new technologies (in the line of work), have more motivation for updating their technical skills, and thus be seen as "in general" more intelligent.
Except of course it's not, it's just "more of them are active in the workforce".
Meanwhile, as parents we are more motivated to push our sons than our daughters.
Our sons have to achieve; our daughters can merely choose to.
And so, even straight after birth both mothers and fathers tend to encourage baby boys to be lively, and tend to calm baby girls.
(Yup, they've done the controlled study on that one, including boys dressed up as girls etc.
)The upshot of which is even if you are in a culture that is "liberal to women", many of the same discrepancies still occur because there are no cultures which are "liberal to men".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349152</id>
	<title>Stopped reading after the first sentence.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1260119940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]Are men smarter than women? No. But they sure think they are. [/quote]</p><p>The author of this article is a woman, hence introducing gender bias.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] Are men smarter than women ?
No. But they sure think they are .
[ /quote ] The author of this article is a woman , hence introducing gender bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]Are men smarter than women?
No. But they sure think they are.
[/quote]The author of this article is a woman, hence introducing gender bias.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814</id>
	<title>Re:They believe it because it's true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260100860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFS:<blockquote><div><p>"Surprisingly, both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations -- both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers. And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters."</p></div></blockquote><p>

Well duh, that's what happens when people grow up in families with 14th-century gender roles. TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>What about the kids?</b> <br>
If there are children, [both] men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Same idea there, and I suppose the divide is exacerbated by pop culture. Women are frequently depicted as being able to succeed based on their appearance as well as more negative traits. Sexual promiscuity is assumed to be a synonym for "empowerment". That moves the focus from intelligence and personality to "I can be rich if I release a sex tape". Even the "wholesome" teenage role model Miley Cyrus has been reduced to <a href="http://smallscreenscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/miley\_cyrus\_pole-467x700.jpg" title="smallscreenscoop.com" rel="nofollow">pole dancing.</a> [smallscreenscoop.com] It's a shame given the number of female <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada\_Lovelace" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">pioneers</a> [wikipedia.org] of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace\_hopper" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">geekdom.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS : " Surprisingly , both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations -- both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers .
And if there are children , both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters .
" Well duh , that 's what happens when people grow up in families with 14th-century gender roles .
TFA : What about the kids ?
If there are children , [ both ] men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters .
Same idea there , and I suppose the divide is exacerbated by pop culture .
Women are frequently depicted as being able to succeed based on their appearance as well as more negative traits .
Sexual promiscuity is assumed to be a synonym for " empowerment " .
That moves the focus from intelligence and personality to " I can be rich if I release a sex tape " .
Even the " wholesome " teenage role model Miley Cyrus has been reduced to pole dancing .
[ smallscreenscoop.com ] It 's a shame given the number of female pioneers [ wikipedia.org ] of geekdom .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS:"Surprisingly, both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations -- both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers.
And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters.
"

Well duh, that's what happens when people grow up in families with 14th-century gender roles.
TFA: What about the kids?
If there are children, [both] men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters.
Same idea there, and I suppose the divide is exacerbated by pop culture.
Women are frequently depicted as being able to succeed based on their appearance as well as more negative traits.
Sexual promiscuity is assumed to be a synonym for "empowerment".
That moves the focus from intelligence and personality to "I can be rich if I release a sex tape".
Even the "wholesome" teenage role model Miley Cyrus has been reduced to pole dancing.
[smallscreenscoop.com] It's a shame given the number of female pioneers [wikipedia.org] of geekdom.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354322</id>
	<title>What about the rights of my body?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260207240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a woman's body will get bigger for 9 months or so, and undergo some changes, some of which are irreversible. There is a real risk of medical complications too. I don't want to diminish that at all.</p><p>However, what about the rights of my body to not be subjected to 18 years worth of work to pay for a child that I may not want? It's easier for a woman to obligate a man to supporting a child than it is for a man to avoid that obligation, and a man has no say in whether the child is born and thus whether he has to work to support one. As a software engineer my biggest risks in that support are a car wreck during my commute, and a heart attack as a result of a desk job with stress. But for some people that work may have real cumulative physical effects on their body. 18 years is a long time.</p><p>tl;dr - Working sucks. Wear a raincoat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a woman 's body will get bigger for 9 months or so , and undergo some changes , some of which are irreversible .
There is a real risk of medical complications too .
I do n't want to diminish that at all.However , what about the rights of my body to not be subjected to 18 years worth of work to pay for a child that I may not want ?
It 's easier for a woman to obligate a man to supporting a child than it is for a man to avoid that obligation , and a man has no say in whether the child is born and thus whether he has to work to support one .
As a software engineer my biggest risks in that support are a car wreck during my commute , and a heart attack as a result of a desk job with stress .
But for some people that work may have real cumulative physical effects on their body .
18 years is a long time.tl ; dr - Working sucks .
Wear a raincoat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a woman's body will get bigger for 9 months or so, and undergo some changes, some of which are irreversible.
There is a real risk of medical complications too.
I don't want to diminish that at all.However, what about the rights of my body to not be subjected to 18 years worth of work to pay for a child that I may not want?
It's easier for a woman to obligate a man to supporting a child than it is for a man to avoid that obligation, and a man has no say in whether the child is born and thus whether he has to work to support one.
As a software engineer my biggest risks in that support are a car wreck during my commute, and a heart attack as a result of a desk job with stress.
But for some people that work may have real cumulative physical effects on their body.
18 years is a long time.tl;dr - Working sucks.
Wear a raincoat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356534</id>
	<title>Re:Also, they don't care</title>
	<author>binaryartist</author>
	<datestamp>1260217440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Believe it or not, I live with a women and she could care
less about an IQ test. I would also like to go on record as
saying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney.</p></div><p>What are you doing in slashdot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , I live with a women and she could care less about an IQ test .
I would also like to go on record as saying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney.What are you doing in slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, I live with a women and she could care
less about an IQ test.
I would also like to go on record as
saying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney.What are you doing in slashdot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347530</id>
	<title>GNAA Penis Bird Flag - Wave it and Wear it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260105960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GNAA is proud to present the GNAA Penis Bird Flag!</p><p>Wave it and Wear it! Contest - entry is free and so are the prizes!</p><p>We're giving away 1,000 Penis Bird flags, t-shirts, hats, and smocks!</p><p>Enter now!</p><p><a href="http://penisbirdflag.gnaa.org/wave-it-and-wear-it-contest.html" title="gnaa.org" rel="nofollow">http://penisbirdflag.gnaa.org/wave-it-and-wear-it-contest.html</a> [gnaa.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GNAA is proud to present the GNAA Penis Bird Flag ! Wave it and Wear it !
Contest - entry is free and so are the prizes ! We 're giving away 1,000 Penis Bird flags , t-shirts , hats , and smocks ! Enter now ! http : //penisbirdflag.gnaa.org/wave-it-and-wear-it-contest.html [ gnaa.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GNAA is proud to present the GNAA Penis Bird Flag!Wave it and Wear it!
Contest - entry is free and so are the prizes!We're giving away 1,000 Penis Bird flags, t-shirts, hats, and smocks!Enter now!http://penisbirdflag.gnaa.org/wave-it-and-wear-it-contest.html [gnaa.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30367532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30357244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30357336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30357400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30355144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30360032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30378320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30382776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30361566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_2228210_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30378320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30357244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30357400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30357336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347120
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347834
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347734
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353256
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349862
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354262
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349334
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348370
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348358
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349884
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349616
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347664
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347514
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348688
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347548
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347756
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349636
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350614
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352730
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350324
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30355144
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351308
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351220
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30361566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346884
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347050
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347882
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348428
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347314
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348184
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349726
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348898
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348690
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348978
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351312
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349542
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347558
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354322
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349310
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350906
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347960
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350116
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350698
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351968
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356278
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354728
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353210
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351776
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349588
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349052
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350646
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351062
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349682
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30353380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347948
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30367532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30350526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30352848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30351958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30382776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347116
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349438
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30354640
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30346818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30360032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30349426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30356598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_2228210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30347352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_2228210.30348082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
