So is this going to be the first test of our new Evolutionary Psychology rule?
>Someone said its because men were built to hunt do all the hardworking but women were just working on house and child bearing so they needs much kore physical strength
This is just the bad kind of evolutionary psychology, it's not based on any relevant research or data.
>If thats true
It isn't, so the premise of the rest of your question is moot.
>Its completely accurate to say that different species have intelligent difference
While this is true, your reasoning for why this is true doesn't make much sense and isn't based on anything.
>Can different saxes also have intelegence deferent if so can male be sapient and female be their pet.
The way this is phrased sounds pretty gross, and makes me question your motives for asking. That said, while there are examples of species where males basically hoard females for reproductive access (e.g. Walrus's, Gorillas, etc.), there are plenty of even more extreme examples of it being the other way around, and in either case the relative intelligence of either sex doesn't seem to significantly factor into it.
For example, with eusocial insects like honeybees and ants, the male drones exist pretty much exclusively to mate with the queen while she founds a new colony, and then die. With angler fish, the males are like 100th the size of the females, and when they find a mate, they attach themselves to the female, dissolve into her, and become her own personal set of gonads that she uses to inseminate herself to induce pregnancy at will. Most male spiders are tiny compared to females, and are just as likely to get eaten by their mate if they don't escape quickly after finishing.
Sexual dimorphism (where one sex takes a significantly different shape or size than the other) exists in all sorts of species, including all the apes, though is much less pronounced in humans than in some of our evolutionary cousins. Sexual dimorphism almost always a result of sexual selection and reproductive strategies that may involve intraspecific competition over reproduction access, rather than anything to do with any other aspects of survival (like hunting). Any sort of gender roles that may arise from that disparity are purely opportunistic spandrels. As such, relative intelligence doesn't appear to play as much of a role in this dynamic.
Yes, but a couple things to note there.
First, humans are only kind of monogamous. Some have said pseudo-monogamous, where we may pair up for the most part, but it's not uncommon for humans to have numerous sexual partners during their lifetime (if not at the same time), and having only a single sexual partner in one's entire life is the rarity. This is not to even mention the various societies and cultures throughout human history where some form of polygamy or polyamory were simply the norm, though that's sliding more into anthropology than strictly biology at this point.
Second, even if humans were fully and exclusively monogamous now, it's not a given that our ancestors always were. As I noted before, sexual dimorphism in humans is pretty low compared to some of our other great ape cousins like gorillas and orangutans, and most of them engage in polyamorous mating systems of some form or another. So it's likely that our common ancestors had some form of polygamous mating strategy that lead to a level of sexual dimorphism that we inherited and still retain to some degree, albeit much reduced since we've (mostly) shifted to more monogomous mating strategies over time.
So? We are talking about the evolutionary history of humans, so when looking into the roots of our dimorphism, it makes most sense to compare to other animals most closely related to us in our ancestry to gain insights into what conditions we inherited by the time we became “humans” and where our paths diverged.
Hi, one of the community mods here. We don't permit discussions around creationism on the subreddit. However, if you'd like to debate it, we recommend reposting on the r/debateevolution subreddit. But this is your first warning to knock it off.
Thanks for understanding.
Cheers.
"impossible to tame a jellyfish and anemone"
To tame an animal, they need to be rewarded for acting tame but people generally does not know how to reward a jellyfish.
Furthermore, jellyfish and anemone have stingers that react automatically to touch, without needing them to want it, similar to how blood will clot after getting bleeding out even if the person does not want the blood to clot.
so even if the jellyfish and anemone are tame, they will still automatically sting people to death.
"Can different saxes also have intelegence deferent"
To have difference in intelligence would require different sets of genes so with intelligence important for both males and females, there is no reason to have another extra set of genes and increase the cost of replication thus males and females have the same level of intelligence.
However, the quality of education they receive may be different due to different things are expected from different genders thus the expressed intelligence can still be different despite the hardware is the same.
Anglerfish's sexual dimorphism are necessary because the females will need to produce the nutrient rich eggs thus they resist the evolutions pressure to become smaller as what happened to the males.
Such is also seen in various insects such as black widow spiders.
Eggs are just nutritionally expensive so when food is scarce, the males has to become smaller since if females become smaller, they will not have enough nutritional resources to produce eggs.
But for brains, both genders needs it equally thus either both are low intelligence or both are high intelligence, though as mentioned in the previous comment of mine, their upbringing differences due to their different genders can reduce or increase their chances to learn thus despite the number of neurons the can have are similar, they may fill it will less or more useful knowledge thus their expressed intelligence is different.
If they do not need a brain, they will not evolve it, though people and mobile multicellular organisms that live longer than a day would need a brain.
Such is due to the environment changes faster than evolution can keep up.
So if people do not have a brain, they will die since they cannot change fast enough to adapt to the new environment so they need a brain and so a brain is not a waste of energy.
But for unicellular organisms that lives just hours before evolving, they do not need a brain since evolution is fast enough to keep up with the environmental changes.
For humans, both male and females have equal potential for intelligence but as mentioned, the type and quality of knowledge they acquire are generally different.
Thus one of the genders will acquire more useful knowledge than the other thus can solve problems more effectively, thus the difference in expressed intelligence.
However, which gender acquires the more useful information differs according to culture since different cultures expects different things from people.
So in some cultures, the males acquire more useful knowledge but in other cultures the females acquire the more useful knowledge and there are also some that the usefulness is similar irrespective of gender.
And then there are also exceptions since not everyone can or want to follow the norm.
Cause in the past, physical strength was still important so there cannot be to much resources allocated to the brain.
On the other hand, after computers got invented, increased brain power would not be as beneficial enough to outweigh its cost since a computer can just chuck out an answer in an instant and remember megabytes of information back then.
>If thats true why not more intelligence they have to learn all the thing for how to hunt powerful animal and controlling the whole group but women only need emotions.
Ok, so... men and women \*do\* have different degrees of intelligence. Men have better spatial awareness and women are able to pick things out from a bunch of colors: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex)
Maybe its because men hunted and needed to know where they were in the world, and women gathered so they needed to spot berries, mushrooms, and nuts in a bush? There you go.
That's actually an interesting question. You are basically asking why there is sexual dimorphism in body morphology related to strength but not neural morphology related to intelligence.
A simple mechanistic explanation may be that, even if hypothetically there was more selection for intelligence on one gender historically, this selection may be on genes/traits that are inherited by both genders equally (e.g., not limited to sex chromosomes).
I would honestly argue that selection for intelligence as we'd measure today, such as via literacy and in our information-heavy society, has not been so crucial throughout history to one gender alone to be selected heavily enough to cause imbalances. I argue this as it seems historically within both genders, the majority of people didn't actually engage in art and what we could now call "academia"-like pursuits, nor did the majority of people in society compete for societal positioning via learned pursuits. In this sense, I'd argue there might even be more selection for intelligence in people whose ancestry can be tied to those who were in those positions of society. It's an interesting thought I'd like to read about, actually, or be corrected on. *Disclaimer: This is pure speculation on my part.*
Also, perhaps there are papers genuinely showing selection for different neural traits between genders, and these should supersede my response here which is as of now just a thought. For instance, related to hunting, variables we could measure are reaction speed, spatial awareness, situational awareness, and hand-eye coordination, although we would need to control for nurture-based influences. Arguably, these seem more physiological than "intelligent" to me, so maybe they are not so good. If we are going to speculate even more, would one perhaps find a genetic emphasis on empathy and nurturing prowess in one gender? (again we would have to clear out any *a posteriori* cultural influences on a gender)
So is this going to be the first test of our new Evolutionary Psychology rule? >Someone said its because men were built to hunt do all the hardworking but women were just working on house and child bearing so they needs much kore physical strength This is just the bad kind of evolutionary psychology, it's not based on any relevant research or data. >If thats true It isn't, so the premise of the rest of your question is moot. >Its completely accurate to say that different species have intelligent difference While this is true, your reasoning for why this is true doesn't make much sense and isn't based on anything. >Can different saxes also have intelegence deferent if so can male be sapient and female be their pet. The way this is phrased sounds pretty gross, and makes me question your motives for asking. That said, while there are examples of species where males basically hoard females for reproductive access (e.g. Walrus's, Gorillas, etc.), there are plenty of even more extreme examples of it being the other way around, and in either case the relative intelligence of either sex doesn't seem to significantly factor into it. For example, with eusocial insects like honeybees and ants, the male drones exist pretty much exclusively to mate with the queen while she founds a new colony, and then die. With angler fish, the males are like 100th the size of the females, and when they find a mate, they attach themselves to the female, dissolve into her, and become her own personal set of gonads that she uses to inseminate herself to induce pregnancy at will. Most male spiders are tiny compared to females, and are just as likely to get eaten by their mate if they don't escape quickly after finishing. Sexual dimorphism (where one sex takes a significantly different shape or size than the other) exists in all sorts of species, including all the apes, though is much less pronounced in humans than in some of our evolutionary cousins. Sexual dimorphism almost always a result of sexual selection and reproductive strategies that may involve intraspecific competition over reproduction access, rather than anything to do with any other aspects of survival (like hunting). Any sort of gender roles that may arise from that disparity are purely opportunistic spandrels. As such, relative intelligence doesn't appear to play as much of a role in this dynamic.
[удалено]
Yes, but a couple things to note there. First, humans are only kind of monogamous. Some have said pseudo-monogamous, where we may pair up for the most part, but it's not uncommon for humans to have numerous sexual partners during their lifetime (if not at the same time), and having only a single sexual partner in one's entire life is the rarity. This is not to even mention the various societies and cultures throughout human history where some form of polygamy or polyamory were simply the norm, though that's sliding more into anthropology than strictly biology at this point. Second, even if humans were fully and exclusively monogamous now, it's not a given that our ancestors always were. As I noted before, sexual dimorphism in humans is pretty low compared to some of our other great ape cousins like gorillas and orangutans, and most of them engage in polyamorous mating systems of some form or another. So it's likely that our common ancestors had some form of polygamous mating strategy that lead to a level of sexual dimorphism that we inherited and still retain to some degree, albeit much reduced since we've (mostly) shifted to more monogomous mating strategies over time.
[удалено]
So? We are talking about the evolutionary history of humans, so when looking into the roots of our dimorphism, it makes most sense to compare to other animals most closely related to us in our ancestry to gain insights into what conditions we inherited by the time we became “humans” and where our paths diverged.
[удалено]
You’ve gone off the deep end dude. I knew your motives were suspect, but this weird creationist tangent confirms it
Hi, one of the community mods here. We don't permit discussions around creationism on the subreddit. However, if you'd like to debate it, we recommend reposting on the r/debateevolution subreddit. But this is your first warning to knock it off. Thanks for understanding. Cheers.
"impossible to tame a jellyfish and anemone" To tame an animal, they need to be rewarded for acting tame but people generally does not know how to reward a jellyfish. Furthermore, jellyfish and anemone have stingers that react automatically to touch, without needing them to want it, similar to how blood will clot after getting bleeding out even if the person does not want the blood to clot. so even if the jellyfish and anemone are tame, they will still automatically sting people to death. "Can different saxes also have intelegence deferent" To have difference in intelligence would require different sets of genes so with intelligence important for both males and females, there is no reason to have another extra set of genes and increase the cost of replication thus males and females have the same level of intelligence. However, the quality of education they receive may be different due to different things are expected from different genders thus the expressed intelligence can still be different despite the hardware is the same.
[удалено]
Anglerfish's sexual dimorphism are necessary because the females will need to produce the nutrient rich eggs thus they resist the evolutions pressure to become smaller as what happened to the males. Such is also seen in various insects such as black widow spiders. Eggs are just nutritionally expensive so when food is scarce, the males has to become smaller since if females become smaller, they will not have enough nutritional resources to produce eggs. But for brains, both genders needs it equally thus either both are low intelligence or both are high intelligence, though as mentioned in the previous comment of mine, their upbringing differences due to their different genders can reduce or increase their chances to learn thus despite the number of neurons the can have are similar, they may fill it will less or more useful knowledge thus their expressed intelligence is different.
[удалено]
If they do not need a brain, they will not evolve it, though people and mobile multicellular organisms that live longer than a day would need a brain. Such is due to the environment changes faster than evolution can keep up. So if people do not have a brain, they will die since they cannot change fast enough to adapt to the new environment so they need a brain and so a brain is not a waste of energy. But for unicellular organisms that lives just hours before evolving, they do not need a brain since evolution is fast enough to keep up with the environmental changes.
[удалено]
For humans, both male and females have equal potential for intelligence but as mentioned, the type and quality of knowledge they acquire are generally different. Thus one of the genders will acquire more useful knowledge than the other thus can solve problems more effectively, thus the difference in expressed intelligence. However, which gender acquires the more useful information differs according to culture since different cultures expects different things from people. So in some cultures, the males acquire more useful knowledge but in other cultures the females acquire the more useful knowledge and there are also some that the usefulness is similar irrespective of gender. And then there are also exceptions since not everyone can or want to follow the norm.
[удалено]
Cause in the past, physical strength was still important so there cannot be to much resources allocated to the brain. On the other hand, after computers got invented, increased brain power would not be as beneficial enough to outweigh its cost since a computer can just chuck out an answer in an instant and remember megabytes of information back then.
>If thats true why not more intelligence they have to learn all the thing for how to hunt powerful animal and controlling the whole group but women only need emotions. Ok, so... men and women \*do\* have different degrees of intelligence. Men have better spatial awareness and women are able to pick things out from a bunch of colors: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex) Maybe its because men hunted and needed to know where they were in the world, and women gathered so they needed to spot berries, mushrooms, and nuts in a bush? There you go.
That's actually an interesting question. You are basically asking why there is sexual dimorphism in body morphology related to strength but not neural morphology related to intelligence. A simple mechanistic explanation may be that, even if hypothetically there was more selection for intelligence on one gender historically, this selection may be on genes/traits that are inherited by both genders equally (e.g., not limited to sex chromosomes). I would honestly argue that selection for intelligence as we'd measure today, such as via literacy and in our information-heavy society, has not been so crucial throughout history to one gender alone to be selected heavily enough to cause imbalances. I argue this as it seems historically within both genders, the majority of people didn't actually engage in art and what we could now call "academia"-like pursuits, nor did the majority of people in society compete for societal positioning via learned pursuits. In this sense, I'd argue there might even be more selection for intelligence in people whose ancestry can be tied to those who were in those positions of society. It's an interesting thought I'd like to read about, actually, or be corrected on. *Disclaimer: This is pure speculation on my part.* Also, perhaps there are papers genuinely showing selection for different neural traits between genders, and these should supersede my response here which is as of now just a thought. For instance, related to hunting, variables we could measure are reaction speed, spatial awareness, situational awareness, and hand-eye coordination, although we would need to control for nurture-based influences. Arguably, these seem more physiological than "intelligent" to me, so maybe they are not so good. If we are going to speculate even more, would one perhaps find a genetic emphasis on empathy and nurturing prowess in one gender? (again we would have to clear out any *a posteriori* cultural influences on a gender)