Reply to comment

I understand why your comment is annonymous. It's because you don't have the stones to put your name to such an ignorant response. It would put an identity to the an individual who obviously has low self-esteem as well as a low level of reading comprehension.

If you had been able to comprehend the above article you would have been able to understand that some of the same points you're trying to make are supported in the article. This makes the theme of your remarks reflexive, triggered solely by your inaccurate perception that because a few hot button words were used by a female researcher, that the article was out to get men.

I find your comments about creativity and gender otherwise amusing. As a man, my opinion of other men who use gender issues to try to bolster their low self-esteem in apologetic claims of victimization, is somewhat akin to the one that I had of pseudobullies who would pick-on smaller kids but fold the minute anyone stood up to them (real bullies only backed down after someone actually beat them up). One of them tried that on me once. He never did again. The real bullies, who were bigger, I was always able to outwit. The pseudo-bully, however, got my fist.

As a researcher in creativity, I know that your comment about multi-tasking and creativity being at the opposite ends of the same pole is patently stupid. I possess both skills and I can assure you that I have a record of doing both. I also witnessed how three high school physics students were able to figure out a screw-up that Stephen Hawking made that an entire planet of male PhDs never caught for 18 years. Those three (along with two boys) were girls http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/blog/6809-city-council-to-recognize-physi... . So much for girls not being able to hang with the boys in physics.

To be sure there are flaws in the article, but those flaws are mostly in relying on studies that are done using 20th century protocols. A new science that I have developed called technogninetics would certainly undermine the results of the study on multitasking by Ruben Gur, PhD, and Raquel Gur, MD, PhD, at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, because it would have brought into play the types of tasks that were given to the test subjects. Technocogninetics is the science of how things or devices effect human consciousness. It has proven to be the over-riding factor in determining flaws in studies published by two major universities so far, so it's not anything to sneeze at.

The way it would work in the Ruben/Raquel Gur test is in determining the types of tasks that would have to be completed and comparing them to what the subjects enjoy doing. For example, find out what types of things each subject likes to do and what things they really don't enjoy. Give each subject a single thing and a multi-tasking thing to do in each category. Then give each subject the types of tasks that were already done in the study. Now you can see an accurate scale of results showing how male and female subjects handle single versus multitasking assignments and if the level of interest is at all a factor in determining the skill at which those objectives are completed. You could also see the brain activity, which I predict, would show that the technocogninetic effect of the type of task would play a major role in how the brain activity was stimulated. This stimulation would subsequently skew the gender results and show a different set of outcomes. I can't predict, however, what those outcomes would be. It would be interesting to find out.

The take home on this is that although, there are differences between boys and girls, essentially those differences can be leveled by environment, training, psychology, and other factors, to a point that they are essentially stereotypes dervied from statistical groupings and not hard facts found consistantly in individual samplings.

It is not men, but very insecure little boys, who hurl spiteful remarks at anyone or anything that would seem to threaten the perception of male superiority over women. The irony is that real men know who they are and are secure in that knowledge. That's something that the pathetic little boys, who never grew-up, will never have and never did have, even when it was supposed to be strictly a man's world.