This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
That's a different situation by SixShutouts66
unless possessing the Y chromosome gives us an advantage of more intelligence! If so, female contestants should be given a $10,000 head start. I realize that being born male had nothing to do with her success, and the previous leading female money-winner was gracious and fair.
As a side note, GAMES magazine had a discussion over 10 years ago why leading chess players were almost all male. Beside usual reasons (chess itself wasn't interesting and young women are too life-oriented to spend a large amount of time on games), a female professor noted that the very high-end and low-end of the IQ spectrum were over-represented by males. Perhaps IQ testing covers traditional male supposed strengths.