Yes, I agree that "men think ... more often and more seriously" is said too categorically. It would be more correct to say "men satisfy their concern about their thoughts and emotions more often than women do".

Data is indirect. Often families exhibit the following picture: some Lady Madonna, children at her feet, is somehow trying to make ends meet, while her beloved is a man with a foolish grin who sits alone on a hill and day after day watches the world spinning round. Then he comes down with some brilliant idea (say, an invention of bicycle) - or he doesn't. And his Dear Prudence is still sitting with a child at her breast and wonders how to feed the rest.

Though this may be considered an evidence of "Women don't have time to do any career/scientific/personal growth because they are tied to family" idea, I am trying to prove another thing. Consider some milder situation when the woman does have time and opportunity to go up, not being tied to her family (for example, her fool on the hill is a rich man who doesn't keep all his money in a big brown bag inside the zoo). It's quite possible nowadays. How many such women will go for it? As evidence (say, number of Nobel prize winner women) shows, very few. They'd prefer to abandon all the soul's needs (I mean - need for creating, improving yourself) and go for creating her family and providing it with stability and comfort.

I can't provide you with the data you asked for to check the theory directly (say, some examples of women who preferred family to career - we simply don't know such women), but the theory satisfies some facts (possibility of women to become famous + few number of such women) so far. To prove the theory wrong, you should provide data which condradicts with the theory rather than claim not believing it.

So, again to the main point: the reason for the multiplicity of men among whom we call "genii" is neither due to intellect, nor to sexism, but due to the nature of women who have different priorities in life.

PS: Please, rommie, don't get irritated with what I say. I feel you are about to take offence with it because of belonging to the "women's camp". I don't know you well, but you said you are interested in getenics. What if you are one of the few women with original "priorities"?

Okay, I think I see a flaw in your reasoning. The flaw is that you do not, in fact, have direct observational evidence of what ANYBODY thinks - male or female - except for yourself. It follows therefore that your "observations" are in fact CONCLUSIONS based on indirect evidence, such as your observation of behaviour. In other words, you are attempting to explain observed behaviour as a consequence of a hypothesis which is itself derived from the very observed behaviour you seek to explain.

Simply put, you are engaged in circular reasoning. Circular reasoning does not have any logical validity.

Of course, if I'm wrong, and you really DO have direct observational evidence of what other people think, then I know a good few neurologists who would be very interested in borrowing whatever technology you used with which to make such observations.

Rommie

PS. Of course I'm not irritated by your reasoning in this thread. I am simply fascinated by the notion that any one human can believe they know what another human is thinking. Also, you do not need to ascribe me to one camp or another - I'm not even human.

Not in my case. If that were true, I wouldn't be feeling the way I am feeling right now, I'd be able to remain cold and control my feelings.

If for some unexpected reason you (Bubr) came to study women from a objective approach, you wouldn't need to use men values and characteristics as reference, so, you would be seeing both, men and women as equals. That would imply a great effort for minds molded by milleniums by preconceived ideas.

A few questions, Elena:

1) Do you believe men and women are EQUAL in any sense?
2) Is there any way to be objective while observing anything from INSIDE, which is, in this case, talking about men and women while being male?

You are amazingly right - I use my own "reference frame", that's the only way of thinking. Any attempt to pretend being "objective" in this issue - is definitely cheating.

Maybe, I shouldn't have released such a viewpoint to women's ears (sorry, eyes? ) and leave it for my own purposes only. But as long as I had, you don't have to treat it as an absolute truth, try to transform it into your frame of reference.

The reason of having such a theory (despite of its subjectiveness) is in possibility to predict some consequences of men's and women's behavior and explain observed anomalies. In my reference frame, of course