[DrCiao]

	Originally Posted by VENUS 2020 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why is it that when men do something great it is ingenious, and when women do the same it's regarded as an "accident"?

In those examples above- Mrs Fields Cookies, MaryKay, those ladies did not set out to start a business. They were "discovered" by other investors who thought their products had a wide appeal.

Originally Posted by Thinker To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I think it is interesting that the entrepreneurs cited above are all high profile and (in most cases) extraordinarily financially successful.....there are plenty well below them in the bell curve that are worthwhile studying .....and probably more realistic. The thing I find interesting is that the success of someone like Zuckerberg (and possibly the early success of Gates) was "freakish". It can help to study these type of outcomes, but in my view it may be more helpful to think about the complete spectrum of entrepreneurs. Modelling success on "outliers" is prone to yielding misleading information.

I think when we focus on "iconic" figures in history- especially Gates and Zuckerberg, we often forget that they are the public face to a company that was built upon many people and many investors that set it in motion. To be completely objective, there is nothing remarkable about what Zuckerberg created- what he created an exact copy of another social networking site already developed in Asia, but you don't really see Asians suing Americans for copyright infringement. Asia happens to be a great testing ground for the American market.

What we have in our favor is the English language. English is a global language, whereas if everyone were fluent in Asian languages, you can bet that facebook would not have such a wide demographic and instead we would all be on cyworld, mixi or Qzone:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That women don't generally do the same is an issue of ability and supply, not of "being taken seriously". Ditto for Nobel-level academic innovation. Very High Level Success = f (education, N-ach, N-pow, social skills, observing ego, work ethic, IQ, right brained intelligence, luck, promethean zeal, role models, pursuing interests, need to impress opposite sex, willingness to pay necessary price, social networks, other shit)

I think education gives women legitimacy in the business world. As for us men, there had already been several precedents of men establishing companies without an education. And even an education can be deemed contrary to the working ethic as we might spend time learning dead languages and esoteric historical facts and appreciation of global aesthetics instead of developing a skill and learning the value of a strong work ethic.

	Originally Posted by ummon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This could very well be true. The problem of course is wether these male entrepreneurs got taken seriously themselves. See for example Bill Gates' traffic program. :D I would in general say that women are more likely to actually go and get an education if they want to achieve something, whereas men tend to be less driven. I guess in that respect women are more INTJish than men.

Male entrepreneurs are taken seriously if they are engineers because they spend time creating and also executing their vision. So much of it is marketing though and I wonder how in the next generation of entrepreneurs with the influx of engineers and outsourcing to other nations how we will reconcile that fact.

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not quite. Testosterone increases risk-taking behavior and aggression. Men have more testosterone than women. To blame such a difference solely on how boys and girls are raised is nonsense.

An influx of testosterone instigates violence and aggression. Nerds are the men with the least testosterone, and yet they have the most influence in technology companies. How do you explain that?

[gypsy stardust]

Still waiting for some reputable evidence that up until the 1950s it was unheard of for a middle class family not to have servants, or that the cost of living in the UK is VERY LOW compared to the US.

[Latro]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Huh?...I think those guys had/have around 160? 160 is high, but it isn't obscenely high.

160 is 4 standard deviations to the right of the mean. The probability of having an IQ of 160 or higher is about 3*10^-5. That means only about 200,000 people in the world have an IQ that high. I don't know what your standard for obscene is, but that seems obscene to me.

	Originally Posted by castalia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What? So academia was not pushed into Western societies BEFORE the 1970s? Academia in itself if inherently a male creation and geared toward an environment that supports males. Women have entered academia in significant numbers only within the past 30 years or so. It is one thing to get a degree from an academic institution and another to get hired to teach or conduct research.

Academia is a male creation--sure, at least historically speaking, I'll roll with this, and won't poke at the assertion in the present.
Academia is (emphasis on the present tense here) geared toward an environment that supports males--what? Can you clarify what you mean by this? Note that the first point does not imply the second point on its own; nothing fundamentally prevents a mix of people with a male majority from creating an environment which supports both males and females.

Just checking over the directory of the math department at my university, by the way, the fraction is something like 70 male/30 female. It's not a vast majority, and it probably varies quite considerably from department to department. I'd hazard a guess that the math department is probably one of the most extreme examples.

[Causa Mortis]

I think education gives women legitimacy in the business world. As for us men, there had already been several precedents of men establishing companies without an education. And even an education can be deemed contrary to the working ethic as we might spend time learning dead languages and esoteric historical facts and appreciation of global aesthetics instead of developing a skill and learning the value of a strong work ethic.

You completely missed the boat.

Plainly, very high level achievement is about two key things: having the aptitude to achieve at a very high level, and being willing to pay the price to achieve at a very high level. The "price" of founding an Apple or winning a Nobel in physics is extremely high. Women have no reason to pay the price, and so don't really achieve at a high level.

Two groups of people with roughly the same set of abilities. One group consistently outperforms the other. There's only one reason why - there's something motivating one group a hell of a lot more than the other.

In the case of men and women, its because very high achievement men get LOTS more sexual selection than low achievement men. Ergo why you see more risk taking and career orientation with men - the rewards are both economic and sexual. Men don't really give a shit about a woman's career.

That women don't achieve in founding new companies and in winning Nobels is not that they're not "taken seriously" - its that they have no reason to pay the enormous price of great achievements.

[DrCiao]

	Originally Posted by gypsy stardust To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Still waiting for some reputable evidence that up until the 1950s it was unheard of for a middle class family not to have servants, or that the cost of living in the UK is VERY LOW compared to the US.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Lovely lady, I wonder if perhaps you are obsessively focused on this detail instead of perhaps looking at the larger picture of your gender in entrepreneurial endeavors?

I did already give a couple of sources earlier in the thread- wondering if you missed those?

Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You completely missed the boat. Plainly, very high level achievement is about two key things: having the aptitude to achieve at a very high level, and being willing to pay the price to achieve at a very high level. The "price" of founding an Apple or winning a Nobel in physics is extremely high. Women have no reason to pay the price, and so don't really achieve at a high level. Two groups of people with roughly the same set of abilities. One group consistently outperforms the other. There's only one reason why - there's something motivating one group a hell of a lot more than the other. In the case of men and women, its because very high achievement men get LOTS more sexual selection than low achievement men. Ergo why you see more risk taking and career orientation with men - the rewards are both economic and sexual. Men don't really give a shit about a woman's career. That women don't achieve in founding new companies and in winning Nobels is not that they're not "taken seriously" - its that they have no reason to pay the enormous price of great achievements.

I think it's fairly interesting Causa- how you always bring back the dialogue back to sexual selection. I'm not certain high achievement men get lots more sexual selection, lots of men historically have suffered retribution as a result- and it seems we accept their accomplishments when the status quo has burnt itself out and their discoveries are rarely appreciated during the majority of their lifetimes. Also perhaps if a woman accomplishes great things- she must hide her identity?

Giving due credit- and high achievement are sometimes not in sync.

[Causa Mortis]

Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think it's fairly interesting Causa- how you always bring back the dialogue back to sexual selection. I'm not certain high achievement men get lots more sexual selection, lots of men historically have suffered retribution as a result- and it seems we accept their accomplishments when the status quo has burnt itself out and their discoveries are rarely appreciated during the majority of their lifetimes. Also perhaps if a woman accomplishes great things- she must hide her identity? Giving due credit- and high achievement are sometimes not in sync.

Lets take the archetypal example - Bill Gates. Epic nerd. Scrawny. Marginal social skills. Kind of a nerd-asshole. Huge glasses. A paltry 5'10. Routine pit stains. And yet his sexual selection was gigantic - virtually any woman he knew and who was single practically threw themselves at him - because he built a massive fucking company and could satisfy a woman's need for safety and

Also - how did he build this company? With a mix of innovation, machiavellian behavior, and moxy. Nobody gave it to him - he had to take it.

Zuckerberg I won't comment on - its too obvious an example to even mention.

[DrCiao]

Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lets take the archetypal example - Bill Gates. Epic nerd. Scrawny. Marginal social skills. Kind of a nerd-asshole. Huge glasses. A paltry 5'10. Routine pit stains. And yet his sexual selection was gigantic - virtually any woman he knew and who was single practically threw themselves at him - because he built a massive fucking company. Also - how did he build this company? With a mix of innovation, machiavellian behavior, and moxy. Nobody gave it to him - he had to take it.

Scrawny? Marginal social skills? Do you know Bill Gates personally to make that assessment? I'm going to extrapolate that he is a charismatic person, in addition to having the resources to build his company. If you read his books, you will notice that Bill Gates is not a power-hungry Machiavellian control freak. He believes in giving his employees as much information and self-agency as possible so that they can make the best decisions by themselves without him.

I don't really know anything about his romantic liaisons with women to know whether or not women threw themselves at him, but I do know that in the first year of Microsoft (correct me if I'm wrong) created 0 income, and by the 3rd year amassed $130K. Most people did not take his company very seriously until it suddenly caught on fire in the late 80s when the timing of the release of personal computers was eclipsed by his software interface. In fact his Harvard professors gave him a "C" for his ideas.

And having random women throw themselves at you is going to make your sexual selection more difficult as to filter out the noise from the sound you desire to hear. I think of sexual selection falling on a bell curve- the more at the opposite ends you are on the spectrum, the harder it is going to be to find what you are looking for.

[Causa Mortis]

Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Scrawny? Marginal social skills? Do you know Bill Gates personally to make that assessment? I'm going to extrapolate that he is a charismatic person, in addition to having the resources to build his company. If you read his books, you will notice that Bill Gates is not a power-hungry Machiavellian control freak. He believes in giving his employees as much information and self-agency as possible so that they can make the best decisions by themselves without him. I don't really know anything about his romantic liaisons with women to know whether or not women threw themselves at him, but I do know that in the first year of Microsoft (correct me if I'm wrong) created 0 income, and by the 3rd year amassed $130K. Most people did not take his company very seriously until it suddenly caught on fire in the late 80s when the timing of the release of personal computers was eclipsed by his software interface. In fact his Harvard professors gave him a "C" for his ideas.

I don't think you know the man at all. His character - other than his money and achievements - would normally repel women.

	And having random women throw themselves at you is going to make your sexual selection more difficult as to filter out the noise from the sound you desire to hear. I think of sexual selection falling on a bell curve- the more at the opposite ends you are on the spectrum, the harder it is going to be to find what you are looking for.

I've had times in my life where I had no sexual selection, times where I had a little, and times where I had TONS. I can tell you that life is better when you have tons.


Let me make my argument with a video instead:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[DrCiao]

Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't think you know the man at all. His character - other than his money and achievements - would normally repel women. I've had times in my life where I had no sexual selection, times where I had a little, and times where I had TONS. I can tell you that life is better when you have tons. Let me make my argument with a video instead: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm having a hard time following your train of thought. Why would Bill Gates' character repel most women? Can you give examples?

Let me make my argument with a video instead:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[gypsy stardust]

	Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Lovely lady, I wonder if perhaps you are obsessively focused on this detail instead of perhaps looking at the larger picture of your gender in entrepreneurial endeavors? I did already give a couple of sources earlier in the thread- wondering if you missed those?

I saw the links you posted earlier. They don't support your claim. Care to try again?

Then there is the unsubstantiated claim that the cost of living in the UK is very low compared to the US. Evidence?

And I'll thank you to keep your lovely lady comments to yourself. I don't appreaciate it as you very well know.

[QuantumEnigma]

	Originally Posted by VENUS 2020 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why is it that when men do something great it is ingenious, and when women do the same it's regarded as an "accident"?

The same reason women do twice the work for half the credit.


Anyway, there are a number of excellent points brought up by other members, but I think the requirements of networking are being undervalued.
Assumptions:
-successful entrepreneurs rely a great deal on networking
-most introductions/networking opportunities are quick
-men do not expect women to be entrepreneurs
-men (and women) tent to instantly respect prestigious academic degrees
Conclusion: in order to quickly establish credibility with male contacts, it is advantageous for a woman to have an impressive degree. Without one, she may be dismissed out of hand while a man would not have been.

In my own personal experience (awesome degree; male dominated professional field), my degree is mentioned on exactly two occasions: 1) the interview 2) when my manager introduces me to someone it is important for him to impress. This has been true across several managers and several companies.

[Causa Mortis]

	Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm having a hard time following your train of thought. Why would Bill Gates' character repel most women? Can you give examples?

He's short, nerdy, wore huge glasses, was infamous for having pit stains, is infamous for having poor social skills, and is average across the board. Except $$$. Its more obvious for Zuckerberg.

---------- Post added 04-08-2012 at 09:56 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Let me make my argument with a video instead: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thank you for making my point entirely.

[AlfredSchnittke]

"160 is 4 standard deviations to the right of the mean. The probability of having an IQ of 160 or higher is about 3*10^-5. That means only about 200,000 people in the world have an IQ that high. I don't know what your standard for obscene is, but that seems obscene to me."

That doesn't seem obscene to me.

Obscene would be an IQ level where you can count the number of people who have that IQ on your fingers. That is obscene.

200,000 others in the world just like you does not seem obscene to me. Rare, exceptional, and certainly profound, yes. But obscene connotes something much more extreme.

Aren't you the chap that said he valued precise language? o.O

[zibber]

And he speaks of gender disparity.

	Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Lovely lady

Disable avatars and see cock's influence removed from discussion.

[Cooper]

	Originally Posted by gypsy stardust To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I saw the links you posted earlier. They don't support your claim. Care to try again? Then there is the unsubstantiated claim that the cost of living in the UK is very low compared to the US. Evidence? And I'll thank you to keep your lovely lady comments to yourself. I don't appreaciate it as you very well know.

Here is the UK v US cost of living comparison.....


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[DrCiao]

	Originally Posted by Causa Mortis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He's short, nerdy, wore huge glasses, was infamous for having pit stains, is infamous for having poor social skills, and is average across the board. Except $$$. Its more obvious for Zuckerberg.

I don't know, I think those are not indicative of character, but personal hygiene issues that could be solved with a stylist.

A person's character is unchangeable, but wearing huge glasses Is something that could be corrected by a visit with a personal shopper.

	Thank you for making my point entirely.

Which was? Most preteen girls would find that geeky blond kid adorable.

---------- Post added 04-09-2012 at 03:33 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Here is the UK v US cost of living comparison..... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is there a triple echo in here?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I was worried gypsy stardust was going to take your place in the automatic "source?" line of reasoning. Good thing you're back to your own self(ves)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[gypsy stardust]

So... still dodging?

[Cooper]

	Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is there a triple echo in here? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I was worried gypsy stardust was going to take your place in the automatic "source?" line of reasoning. Good thing you're back to your own self(ves) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Provide accurate sources instead of off the wall bullshit and you won't have to worry about being called on it. Its unfortunate to see you are still your old self......

[Integer]

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"160 is 4 standard deviations to the right of the mean. The probability of having an IQ of 160 or higher is about 3*10^-5. That means only about 200,000 people in the world have an IQ that high. I don't know what your standard for obscene is, but that seems obscene to me." That doesn't seem obscene to me. Obscene would be an IQ level where you can count the number of people who have that IQ on your fingers. That is obscene. 200,000 others in the world just like you does not seem obscene to me. Rare, exceptional, and certainly profound, yes. But obscene connotes something much more extreme. Aren't you the chap that said he valued precise language? o.O

It's 1 in 35,000 people. Obscene is just a matter of semantics here.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"160 is 4 standard deviations to the right of the mean. The probability of having an IQ of 160 or higher is about 3*10^-5. That means only about 200,000 people in the world have an IQ that high. I don't know what your standard for obscene is, but that seems obscene to me." That doesn't seem obscene to me. Obscene would be an IQ level where you can count the number of people who have that IQ on your fingers. That is obscene. 200,000 others in the world just like you does not seem obscene to me. Rare, exceptional, and certainly profound, yes. But obscene connotes something much more extreme. Aren't you the chap that said he valued precise language? o.O

It's hard to reason about very large numbers. 200,000 people doesn't seem obscene until you divide it by 7,000,000,000 and get a number like 3*10^-5, which is about 1/35000.

Then interpret that number a little bit. Imagine meeting a new, randomly chosen person every day for the entire duration of your life, birth to death, supposing for purposes of argument that you die at age 100, and neglecting changes in the IQ metric over time. Then the expected number of people with that IQ that you will meet in your lifetime is about 1.1. That is, meeting someone with an IQ in excess of 160 is literally a once in a lifetime event. That seems plenty obscene to me.

Incidentally, the "count on your fingers" level is 189 and above. The "unique" level is 195 and above. (Both of these are too high for statistical manipulations like this to actually be reliable, but it gives you an idea.)

[DrCiao]

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"160 is 4 standard deviations to the right of the mean. The probability of having an IQ of 160 or higher is about 3*10^-5. That means only about 200,000 people in the world have an IQ that high. I don't know what your standard for obscene is, but that seems obscene to me." That doesn't seem obscene to me. Obscene would be an IQ level where you can count the number of people who have that IQ on your fingers. That is obscene. 200,000 others in the world just like you does not seem obscene to me. Rare, exceptional, and certainly profound, yes. But obscene connotes something much more extreme. Aren't you the chap that said he valued precise language? o.O

I find people with genius level IQ often very childish and unable to relate to the people around him. I'm guessing most of us have not known personally known someone with a verified genius IQ. I think what is more valuable is a person who is intelligent with people skills. Anyone who grew up with a Western or Asian education can be placed in the top percentile of an IQ test- it really doesn't test for anything aside from mathematical and spatial skills.

[AlfredSchnittke]

Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's hard to reason about very large numbers. 200,000 people doesn't seem obscene until you divide it by 7,000,000,000 and get a number like 3*10^-5, which is about 1/35000. Then interpret that number a little bit. Imagine meeting a new, randomly chosen person every day for the entire duration of your life, birth to death, supposing for purposes of argument that you die at age 100, and neglecting changes in the IQ metric over time. Then the expected number of people with that IQ that you will meet in your lifetime is about 1.1. That is, meeting someone with an IQ in excess of 160 is literally a once in a lifetime event. That seems plenty obscene to me. Incidentally, the "count on your fingers" level is 189 and above. The "unique" level is 195 and above. (Both of these are too high for statistical manipulations like this to actually be reliable, but it gives you an idea.)

You are completely failing to take into account relativity of measure/quantity.

Is 3*10^-5 an objectively small number?... No.

The word obscene was used. Obviously in some metaphorical sense. Let us recall how the Oxford English dictionary defines obscene: "offending against moral principles; repugnant".

The number in question should be so small as to be offensive that it exists at all. Relatively speaking a 1/35,000 chance doesn't strike me as disgustingly small, heck, it's a better odds than winning the lottery.

The 189 level suffices. While you might at least have a chance of meeting someone with a 160 IQ in your lifetime in your scenario, you have virtually no hope of meeting someone with a 189+. As you've said yourself, at that level the whole measure actually "crashes" the system in some sense, indeed it "offends" the whole measurement of IQ because it is so high. That looks precisely like something obscene to me. Therefore it is only that level of IQ that I should think of when someone says someone has an "obscenely high IQ".

[AlfredSchnittke]

Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I find people with genius level IQ often very childish and unable to relate to the people around him. I'm guessing most of us have not known personally known someone with a verified genius IQ. I think what is more valuable is a person who is intelligent with people skills. Anyone who grew up with a Western or Asian education can be placed in the top percentile of an IQ test- it really doesn't test for anything aside from mathematical and spatial skills.

I'm not like you, or all of the normal folks. I detest the qualities you admire.

I love those with little to no social skills, but brilliant minds, they are the best kind of human being in my eyes.

My best friend, and one of my brothers are both individuals of this sort. I would love to meet more, but they are rather rare.

[DrCiao]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm not like you, or all of the normal folks. I detest the qualities you admire. I love those with little to no social skills, but brilliant minds, they are the best kind of human being in my eyes. My best friend, and one of my brothers are both individuals of this sort. I would love to meet more, but they are rather rare.

If you're talking about musical, literary and scientific "geniuses", then I agree with you. However, you're correlating a standardized high IQ with scientific, creative and literary genius- and often you will find that is not the case with people of "brilliant minds."

Living in a cave, working on calculus problem sets all day does not make one a genius- rather, those people who can readily perceive humanity are often the ones we cite as "geniuses".

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by DrCiao To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you're talking about musical, literary and scientific "geniuses", then I agree with you. However, you're correlating a standardized high IQ with scientific, creative and literary genius- and often you will find that is not the case with people of "brilliant minds."

Perhaps a little, but I still prefer someone who spends all of their time in caves writing out new calculus methods to your average human being.

Call it a preference.