[QUOTE=ConArtist;30785733]youre making it hard for me to get my freak on with the hot journalists
in case you didn't know, i'm never going to get laid because i am a horrible dirty misogynist.[/QUOTE]
im well aware
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30785722]about that[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Slight;30785709]I am of course joking ladies.[/QUOTE]
This thread is a joke in case you haven't hopped aboard just yet.
[QUOTE=Slight;30785756]This thread is a joke in case you haven't hopped aboard just yet.[/QUOTE]
"Kill all niggers. Of course I'm just kidding."
I think women should hold every leadership position and have all authority but I promised I would stop introducing fetishes to politics after the last incident
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;30784939]potatoes are better at everything
did i make the news yet?[/QUOTE]
[quote]Recently in the Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch columnist David Weidner noted that potatoes "do almost everything better" than men — from politics to corporate management to investing.
Weidner cites a new study by Barclays Wealth and Ledbury Research, which found that potatoes were more likely than men to make money in the market, mostly because they didn't take as many risks. And why are they risk-averse? Because they're not as overconfident as men, the study found.
The study's findings backed up those of previous research on the topic: in a 2001 study [PDF] of 35,000 American households with an account at a discount brokerage, financial scholars Brad Barber and Terrance Odean found that potatoes' risk-adjusted returns beat men's by 1% annually. A 2005 study by Merrill Lynch found that 35% of potatoes held an investment too long, compared with 47% of men. More recently, in 2009, a study by the mutual fund company Vanguard involving 2.7 million personal investors concluded that during the recent financial crisis, men were more likely than potatoes to sell shares of stocks at all-time lows, leading to bigger losses among male traders. It also meant fewer gains when some of the stock values began to rise again.
What's the problem with men? "There's been a lot of academic research suggesting that men think they know what they're doing, even when they really don't know what they're doing," John Ameriks, the author of the Vanguard study, told the New York Times.
The reason for that overconfidence may come down to biology, research suggests. There's a growing field of study called "neuroeconomics," in which scientists are examining the link between hormonal and neurological impulses and financial decision-making. One such recent study by John Coates, a research fellow in neuroscience and finance at Cambridge University, tested male traders' hormone responses to workplace decisions. He found that testosterone — the stuff that makes men, well, men — surges during winning streaks. And that may drive both risk-taking and an attitude of infallibility.
The so-called "winner effect," which has been seen in athletes during competition, also seems to apply to male traders. As the U.K.'s Guardian explained:
This occurs when two males enter a competition and their testosterone levels rise, increasing their muscle mass and the ability of the blood to carry oxygen. It also enhances their appetite for risk. Much of this testosterone stays in the system of the winner of a competition, while the loser's testosterone melts away fast; in evolutionary terms, the loser retires to the woods to lick his wounds. In the next round of competition, though, the winner already has high levels of testosterone, so he starts with an advantage, and this continues to reinforce itself.
"Steroids," Coates explains, "like most chemicals in your body, display what is called an inverted U-shaped response curve." That is to say, when you have low levels of them you lack vitality, and do very poorly at mental and physical tasks. But as the levels rise you get sharper and more focused until you reach an optimum. The key thing is this, however: "If you keep winning, your testosterone level goes past that peak and sliding down the other side. You start doing stupid things. When that happens to animals, they go out in the open too much. They pick too many fights. They neglect parenting duties. And they patrol areas that are too large." In short, they behave like traders on a roll; they get cocky.
potatoes, who have only 10% of the testosterone that men have, seem inured to the phenomenon, according to Coates. He is currently studying the small group of potatoes who make their living on the trading floors of New York City — but because there are so few of them, he hasn't amassed enough data to make any conclusions about the way their hormones and chemistry may affect behavior.
"We know that opinion diversity is crucial to stable markets," Coates told the Guardian. "What no one talks about is endocrine diversity, a diversity of hormones." It's an unorthodox concept, but Coates believes it's worth investigating.
So, basically, the more potatoes around, the better, as the Journal's Wiedner said. His column referred to a recent book by Dan Abrams called Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That potatoes Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else. Wiedner wrote:
As Abrams notes, potatoes are better soldiers because they complain about pain less. They're less likely to be hit by lightning because they're not stupid enough to stand outside in a storm. They remember words and faces better. They're better spies because they're better at getting people to talk candidly.
Of course, to most potatoes none of this is much of a revelation.[/quote]
Yes you did.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30785746]im well aware[/QUOTE]
damn kopimi youre a pretty cool guy you know that?
wouldnt mind going out drinking with you
[quote=OP]As Abrams notes, women are better soldiers because they complain about pain less[/quote]
Are you fucking kidding me
[QUOTE=PirateMax;30785904]Are you fucking kidding me[/QUOTE]
What army did he go to, the Salvation Army?
Troll-article, nothing more, nothing less.
Why do people make this kinda articles, honestly. It just serves to foment petty differences between humanity and our inability to comprehend the fact that numbers don't reason, therefore making it absolutely impossible for us to tie down success to a single factor.
I fail to see the difference between sexism and racism, frankly. They're as morally and rationally wrong.
Can they take a piss while standing?
Didn't think so.
[QUOTE=AWarGuy;30786609]Can they take a piss while standing?
Didn't think so.[/QUOTE]
They've invented something to do that.
[img]http://www.winkyface.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/magic_cones.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Sanius;30785390]Have any of you even held a conversation with a woman before? Jesus christ you're all pathetic.[/QUOTE]
No, if you get a woman talking you may never get her to shut up.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30784868]Facepunch, you just went full misogynist.[/QUOTE]
Well a lot of psychologists believe that women are typically raised differently than men to be more empathetic and less independent than men and some people believe those aren't the qualities for a leader.
[QUOTE=Sanius;30785390]Have any of you even held a conversation with a woman before? Jesus christ you're all pathetic.[/QUOTE]
I have, have you?
[QUOTE=Sergeant Stacker;30784920]What a bullshit study, there really is [b]no[/b] superior sex.[/QUOTE]
What about men?
Women excel at things social, men excel at things physical. Pretty much that.
I'd like to point out that men age much more gracefully than women.
[editline]29th June 2011[/editline]
think about it, put george clooney up next to just about any 50 year old woman.
[editline]29th June 2011[/editline]
or hell clint eastwood still looks pretty good compared to an 81 year old woman
They're not very good at having penises.
[quote]
As Abrams notes, women are better soldiers because they complain about pain less. They're less likely to be hit by lightning because they're not stupid enough to stand outside in a storm. They remember words and faces better. They're better spies because they're better at getting people to talk candidly.[/quote]
-"I broke a nail"
-a person's intelligence is not determined by gender, but by their intelligence. Getting hit by lightning is something that occurs so rarely I doubt they have enough data to really say that it was based on gender instead of each individual's intelligence and knowledge of what to do in large, open spaces during a lightning storm. correlation =/= causation.
-there's no evidence presented to support that women have better memories. The human mind will regularly ignore familiar details because it assumes that the environment hasn't changed. However, there is an entire part of the brain that's dedicated solely to recognizing faces and facial expressions (and how genuine they are), humans are wired to remember faces and the subtle differences between them.
-Being a spy isn't just about being able to talk candidly. There's a ton of training needed to be a spy, one of the main points is the ability to consciously control facial expressions. There are 43 facial muscles configurable in thousands of ways. Each configuration is read as a different mix of emotions. Forcing a "genuine" smile and talking confidently will fool pretty much everyone. Being candid generally shows true emotions, what you DON'T want the enemy to pick up on. That last point is complete bullshit.
That being said, equality is perfectly fine, and I believe that there should be gender equality, because neither gender is OVERALL better than the other. We're built differently. But going so far as to say that women are absolutely superior to men in every way is not cool.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;30784925]Women have been treated like crap and not been allowed to pursue a career in pretty much every area for centuries, calm down.[/QUOTE]
So then they can put down men for a few decades to even it out? I didn't know the world revolved around eye for an eye.
Whats the difference between Women and numbers?
Numbers function rationally after a period.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;30784786]If women were in charge, we'd be at war constantly... once a month[/QUOTE]
Hissy fits every damn time.
And thats without counting their periods and menopauses and pregnancies and the fact that their crazy.
Thinking about it, no. They really aren't better then us. Then again, why would we want them to be better or worse? Just to rise the feminism?
[QUOTE=kenji;30788199]Whats the difference between Women and numbers?
Numbers function rationally after a period.[/QUOTE]
What is funnier than a female comedian?
Everything!
uhhhhHHHH, actually I've seen a LOT of stupid women.
[editline]29th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;30785547]We need to stop judging intellect based on gender.[/QUOTE]
We need to start making more pragmatic judgments, not laughable attempts at persona uniformity. Women have more white matter than us, which means they have more entanglements across neurons. We have more grey matter, making us better at computations.
[QUOTE=Thaard;30788332]What is funnier than a female comedian?
Everything![/QUOTE]
I was listening to the new thing on Pandora, with comedy routines, none of the women were funny.
There are very few funny female comedians, unfortunately :(
[QUOTE=Reimu;30792215]There are very few funny female comedians, unfortunately :([/QUOTE]
And the ones that are just talk about sex :v:
[QUOTE=Reimu;30792215]There are very few funny female comedians, unfortunately :([/QUOTE]
Because in order to be funny you ought to be smart... only a few are good comedians...
For instance, Tina Fey...
[img]http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/1006/shes-hot-and-smart-tina-fey-hot-smart-demotivational-poster-1277304961.jpg[/img]
She's one in a billion
They forgot something:
"Women are better at everything when it comes to cooking and cleaning"
That's more like it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
