Judge by the Result
Pratyatosa
Judge by the result: Srila Prabhupada produced Sadaputa, Drutakarma, and Madhu Pandit. Siddhaswarupananda produced Tulsi Gabbard and Radha Mitchell. Narayana Maharaja produced Chrissie Hynde and Crispian Mills.
The incredible success of these great personalities should be an inspiration for the rest of us. They are obviously divinely empowered, and we can use their success and fame as a great preaching tool.
By way of contrast, what have the ISKCON "gurus" produced? Nothing but embarrassment for Srila Prabhupada and a version of ISKCON which is impossible to manage! These so-called gurus are simply envious fault-finders who dare to criticize great saintly persons such as Madhu Pandit and Tulsi Gabbard! It is our duty to not support these rascals in any way, shape or form until they agree to return to the bargaining table and come to an agreement with Madhu Pandit. Otherwise they are going to have to suffer greatly in the future. Therefore it is for their own good that we try to force them to cooperate with Madhu Pandit. Ambarisa is in favor of such cooperation, but he needs to be encouraged to be more forceful! What he probably doesn't realize is that a majority of his godsibblings would be very grateful if he were to make such a bold move, especially in the long run.
(I have posted Facebook comments similar to the above with Ambarisa Prabhu tagged. He has never complained about it even though he has sent me private messages on other subjects, he has commented on other tagged posts/comments of mine, and he has "liked" other tagged posts/comments of mine.)
Jack Eskildsen
I have always been surprised how much attacks Tulsi Gabbard gets. When I listen to her speak she is great and she is not even scared to confront the satanic elements in government. |
From: Pratyatosa
To: Istagosthi
Subject: Judge by the Result
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2016 1:12:53 PM
Pratyatosa
Melanie L Nagel
Tulsi GabbardCongresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is one of many distinguished guests speaking at the Sept ISKCON 50 Gala in Washington DC.
-- I will no longer be using my AOL account, please use: malati...@gmail.com effectively immediately.
Pratyatosa
That's great news! Thank you very much for your input.
But they should also invite Madhu Pandit Prabhu to speak. A Hare Krishna devotee starting/running the largest school lunch program in the world (which feeds 1.5 million children every school day) is something that we should all be proud of. To have him speak in Washington DC would be great preaching, don't you think? It might even be the key to making the Gala front page news! :-)
Pratyatosa
Prabhupāda:
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 1.218
Judge by the result: Srila Prabhupada produced Sadaputa, Drutakarma, and Madhu Pandit. Siddhaswarupananda produced Tulsi Gabbard and Radha Mitchell. Narayana Maharaja produced Chrissie Hynde and Crispian Mills.
The incredible success of these great personalities should be an inspiration for the rest of us. They are obviously divinely inspired, and we can use their success and fame as a great preaching tool.
By way of contrast, what have the ISKCON "gurus" produced? Nothing but embarrassment for Srila Prabhupada and a version of ISKCON which is impossible to manage! These so-called gurus are simply envious fault-finders who dare to criticize great saintly persons such as Madhu Pandit and Tulsi Gabbard! It is our duty to not support these rascals in any way, shape or form until they agree to return to the bargaining table and come to an agreement with Madhu Pandit. Otherwise they are going to have to suffer greatly in the future. Therefore it is for their own good that we try to force them to cooperate with Madhu Pandit. Ambarisa is in favor of such cooperation, but he needs to be encouraged to be more forceful! What he probably doesn't realize is that a majority of his godsibblings would be very grateful if he were to make such a bold move, especially in the long run.
(I've posted Facebook comments similar to the above with Ambarisa tagged. He has never complained about it even though he has sent me messages on other subjects, he has commented on other tagged posts/comments of mine, and "liked" other tagged posts/comments of mine.)
Dear Mother Malati Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!
That's great news! Thank you very much for your input.
But they should also invite Madhu Pandit Prabhu to speak. A Hare Krishna devotee starting/running the largest school lunch program in the world (which feeds 1.5 million children every school day) is something that we should all be proud of. To have him speak in Washington DC would be great preaching, don't you think? It might even be the key to making the gala front page news! :-)Ys, Ptd
Brenda
Editorial: Women’s Lib (What your “boyfriend” doesn’t want you to read)
By Howard Charles Best, March 20, 2006
(LLBest.com, hbe...@gmail.com)
Introduction
The propaganda goes something like this: “You can compete with the men in the career job market. Just take birth control pills to put off having children, get a college degree, get a high paying job, and away you go!” What they don’t tell you is that all forms of birth control can potentially destroy a woman’s health. Birth control pills can cause breast cancer (Messing around with a woman’s hormones is just asking for trouble: http://www.mercola.com/2004/oct/27/birth_control.htm). Condoms can cause yeast infections. (Every time that you get an infection, especially if you take anti-biotics to get rid of it, your immune system becomes weaker, your health is impaired, and your longevity is decreased.) They also don’t tell you that having your first child when you’re older is not good for your health or for your baby’s health!
Also, women take birth control pills so that they can enjoy sex life without restriction, but the birth control pills cause them to gain weight, especially as they get older, so the result is that no one wants to have sex with them anyway! Ironic, isn’t it?
Another thing that they don’t tell you is that sex within marriage for the purpose of producing children to be raised in a God conscious environment is much more pleasurable than sex in other situations. According to my wife, it’s “10 times as pleasurable!” Unless there is at least a chance of the woman’s becoming pregnant, the sex act is not very satisfying for either of the partners, and after some time actually becomes boring, especially for the man, who may then be tempted to seek out new, more interesting partners.
Now-a-days, it seems like the only way that a young woman can get a young man to marry her is for her to agree to take birth control pills, have sex with him whenever he wants, work at a full-time 40-hour-a-week job, clean the house, do the cooking, do his laundry, and mend his clothes! If she’s lucky, maybe he’ll help a little with the cooking and cleaning! In order to satisfy his lust, she has to risk ruining her health and becoming unattractive by gaining weight due to the undesirable side effects of the birth control pills. All this because her slimeball so-called husband is unwilling to let a child interfere with his unrestricted sense gratification or with his so-called wife’s bringing home a paycheck! When she becomes fat and ugly, there’s a good chance that he’ll divorce her in favor of a younger, slimmer, more attractive woman. Does this sound like a good deal for the so-called wife? And now women think that they are liberated! Does this sound like something an intelligent woman would agree to?
Proof That Women Are Less Intelligent
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that all women are less intelligent than all men. All that I’m saying is that the average intelligence of men is higher, and that the most intelligent men are much more intelligent than the most intelligent women.
The Internet is known as “the great equalizer” because anyone in the world has an equal opportunity to create a great website, but when it comes to the really, really great websites, such as Amazon™, Yahoo™, Ebay™, Paypal™, Google™, Facebook™, and YouTube™, who created them? Men, mostly white American men! How do the women’s libbers explain this? Try asking anyone, man or woman, about the fact that not one woman has created a billion dollar dot-com business, and they don’t have an answer. The women’s libbers are mysteriously silent on the issue of finding equal opportunities on the Internet. Obviously, they “missed the boat,” were “asleep at the switch,” and the “women’s liberation movement” is never going to live it down!
I’ve noticed that when you walk into a Best Buy™, where the employees are not paid on commission, you will see plenty of female sales people, but if you walk into a Rex™, where the sales people are paid based upon commission, you won’t find even one female employee! Why is that? Could it be that women know that they can’t compete with men on an equal footing? How do the women’s libbers explain this?
The women’s libbers say that women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but if that’s true, then why don’t they ever invent anything really, really significant? Check for yourself. Go down the CNN.COM™ list of the “Top 25 Innovations” and see how many were invented by a woman! Zero! How do the women’s libbers explain this?
1. The Internet
2. Cell phone
3. Personal computers
4. Fiber optics
5. E-mail
6. Commercialized GPS
7. Portable computers
8. Memory storage discs
9. Consumer level digital camera
10. Radio frequency ID tags
11. MEMS
12. DNA fingerprinting
13. Air bags
14. ATM
15. Advanced batteries
16. Hybrid car
17. OLEDs
18. Display panels
19. HDTV
20. Space shuttle
21. Nanotechnology
22. Flash memory
23. Voice mail
24. Modern hearing aids
25. Short Range, High Frequency Radio
Here’s another example that I found on the Internet:
|
None of the above named greatest inventors are women! How do the women’s libbers explain this?
Cooking is supposed to be the domain of women, but I remember my mother telling me that the world’s best chefs are men!
And what about all of the world’s greatest classical music composers both past and present? Hundreds of men, but not one single woman! How do the women’s libbers explain this?
Examples of Successful Women
My wife started having children with me when she was 18 years old, and we’ve never used any kind of birth control. Not even once! Now she has a daughter, a son-in-law, a daughter-in-law, and two grown sons to protect her when she gets old. She earned three university degrees, including a PhD, after her children were grown, and she travels all over the world as an educational consultant! She says that now she is happier than she’s ever been, and she’s just as skinny now as she was the day I married her!
Another example of a happy, successful woman who got married and started having children when she was very young is my mother’s mother. She had ten children: five girls and five boys! She lived to be 102, and was happy, healthy and alert right up to the very end!
Conclusions
1. The Internet is proof positive that women are not as intelligent as men!
2. The best time for a woman to have a career is after her children are grown. (When women knew their place in society, and their roles as submissive wives, home-makers, and mothers were well defined, they were much more intelligent, happy, and satisfied than today’s career oriented women. Therefore, women, if they are really intelligent, should return to their traditional roles. If they get married and have children when they are young and healthy, then they will be happy and healthy for their entire lives. If a woman gives birth when she is still young, her health and her natural beauty will be enhanced, and she will have a better chance of having children that are healthy/intelligent.)
3. A young woman who’s actually intelligent will not waste her time and her virginity on young men her own age who are not yet ready to settle down, get married, and immediately begin having children. She will look for an older man who is ready, willing and able to get married and to start having children immediately. The best time for a woman to attract a husband who is young, strong, handsome, healthy, wealthy, and intelligent, is when she is young! If she is still a virgin, then this is an important additional bonus. Because of the Internet and websites such as eHarmony.com, finding a highly qualified, highly compatible mate is much easier than it used to be.
4. More good news is that although women can never hope to compete with men on the material platform, and simply become frustrated and unhappy trying to do so, they are completely equal to men on the spiritual platform. This is because we are all, according to the great religions of the world, God’s creations, and in His eyes, we are all His beloved children. We all have an equal opportunity to know Him and to love Him. According to all of these same religions, to know and to love God is the actual goal of life, so what is the problem?
____
The internet is NOT "proof positive that women are less intelligent than men,"
as you put it. And if you're relying only on the internet, your intelligence is automatically questioned.
On the contrary, scientific studies have shown over and over that women are more intelligent than men. And contrary to what Srila Prabhupada said, women's brains are larger than mens' when you take into account their body weight in direct proportion to their brain size. Women actually have more brain mass than men when you take into account their overall weight .
Women simply have more to deal with, which makes them appear less intelligent. They are juggling more issues than men.
Women often have to negotiate children and great physical suffering every month for several days through hellish monthly cycles, which cause most women some pain, or great pain.
Most men do not have a clue about this, and because they have no clue, they label them,"the weaker sex."
But I believe if women are celibate, and see through the deceit god created through sex, women can overcome and lead healthy independent lives.
I agree with you, the pill is deadly, but so is dependence upon a man...any man!
There are no qualified men, period. Even the Pandavas, who were supposed to be exalted, got drunk and gambled off their wife, Draupadi. Women should never believe a man, especially your "boyfriend!"
Pratyatosa
On the contrary, scientific studies have shown over and over that women are more intelligent than men.
Mario Pineda
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prabhupadanuga" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to istagosthi+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi.
Jasomatinandan das Cape Town
Mario Pineda
In Iskcon Cape Town (aka the Mother City) temple in the nineties, women used to distribute more books during the competitive December book marathon most years, possibly because they were harder working. Intelligence is of different types (IQ- intellect , EQ emotional, SQ- spiritual quotient) and both genders display them differently. It may be misplaced to measure them by the same scale for mundane measurments.
--
Brenda
The 4 Biggest Myths About the Human Brain
What is it that makes the human brain so special? Sure it's big — but it's far from the biggest brain around. You've heard that your brain contains 100 billion neurons — but where does that number really come from, and how does it stack up against other species?
You may think you know the answers to these questions, but there's a good chance you've been misinformed about what makes our brain more special than any other brains on Earth. Here are four of neuroscience's biggest brain myths, and why they're all wet.
Top image via Shutterstock
Myth #1: There are 100 billion neurons in the human brain.
Neurons are the fundamental building blocks of any nervous system. These cells, the tree-like branches of which reach out and become entwined with those of their neighbors, form the vast electrical and chemical network that is our brain, processing information about our surroundings, orchestrating our actions in response to those surroundings, and even controlling our subconscious bodily functions. It's our neurons that allow our brains to do all of these things more rapidly and efficiently than any machine ever made; as we recently reported, even a toddler is smarter than the smartest AI.
Given the indispensable role that these cells play, one would expect scientists to have some idea of just how many neurons we've got jumbled up together in the space between our ears; and for many years, we thought we did. Flip through the pages of a few neuroscience textbooks, scientific research articles, or science magazines and you'll find that many of them put the number of neurons in the human brain at a nice, round 100-billion — and they typically do so without citing a reference.
Why no references? According to neuroscientist Herculano-Houzel, it's because there was no direct estimate of total neuron quantity in the human brain until 2009, when she and her team rounded up the brains of four recently deceased men, brought them to a laboratory, and liquefied them, using a novel technique called "isotropic fractionation." Herculano-Houzel and her team dissolved each brain into a homogenous mixture of "brain soup" (her words, not ours), took samples from the soups, measured the number of neurons in each sample, and then scaled up to find the neuronal content of each brain bisqué.
"We found that on average the human brain has 86 billion neurons," explained Herculano-Houzel in a recent Nature podcast. She continues:
Not one [of the brains] that we looked at so far has the 100 billion. Even though it may sound like a small difference, the 14 billion neurons amount to pretty much the number of neurons that a baboon brain has, or almost half the number of neurons in the gorilla brain. So that's a pretty large difference, actually.
Myth #2: A bigger brain is a better brain
If you were to round up a handful of closely related species, crack open their heads and scoop out their brains, you would probably start to notice correlations between the animals' absolute brain sizes and cognitive abilities. Among mammals, for example, primates (like us) and cetaceans (like dolphins) have bigger brains than insectivores (like anteaters), and possess what most would agree is a proportionally greater range in cognitive abilities. Based on this observation alone, you might feel inclined to argue that brain size is a good predictor of cognitive ability.
This bigger = better relationship collapses, however, as soon as you start comparing species across orders (order being the taxonomic rank above family, genus and species in the hierarchy of biological classification). Cows, for example, have larger brains than just about any species of monkey, but unless they're very, very good at hiding it, cows are almost certainly less cognitively capable than most, if not all, "lesser-brained" primates. Similarly, the brain of a capybara — the largest rodent in the world — may weight over 70 grams, but their cognitive skills pale in comparison to those of a capuchin monkey, whose brain weighs just 50 grams.
Of course, for the purposes of our discussion on the human brain, the most compelling evidence that bigger does not equal better is exemplified by the difference in size between our brains and the brains of larger mammalian species, like whales and elephants. Shown here is a depiction of a human brain beside a noticeably bigger elephant brain. The average human brain weighs in at around 3 pounds, and an elephant brain can weigh close to four times that much, but the biggest brains of all come sperm whales, and weigh an average of 17 pounds.
With brains that can weigh six times as much as a human's, how is it that sperm whales are not our cognitive superiors?
Myth #3: Human brains are the largest relative to their body size
This myth dates back at least as far as Aristotle, who in 335 BC wrote: "Of all the animals, man has the brain largest in proportion to his size." It's an easy trap to fall into, especially when you're trying to explain the differences between brain size and intelligence in, for example, humans and whales. Today, many people use the same reasoning as Aristotle to assert that the relationship between brain size and intelligence isn't about the weight of a species' brain, but rather the ratio of its brain weight to its body weight.
Explore this line of reasoning in great enough detail, however, and you'll find that it provides yet another incomplete picture for what we see in nature. Sure, a person's brain-to-body ratio is huge compared to that of an elephant (about 1/40 versus 1/560, respectively); but it's pretty much equal to what you find in a mouse (also 1/40), and it's actually smaller than the ratio you encounter in some small birds (1/12).
To circumvent the limitations of a basic, brain-to-body mass ratio, researchers devised a more complex measurement, known as the "encephalization quotient" (or "EQ"), that measures the ratio of an animal's brain and body size relative to other, similarly sized animals. In doing so, EQ not only takes into account that brain size tends to increase with body size, but that brain size does not necessarily increase at the same rate as body size.
When scientists compare animals' encephalization quotients, they find that humans rank higher than any species on the planet. This table, via a recently published review on external measures of cognition, features the encephalization quotient of humans compared to a number of other animals (click to enlarge). For more information on EQ, check out the section titled "Encephalization Quotient" in the research paper from which this table is taken.
Myth #4: A bigger brain contains more neurons than a smaller brain
But even the encephalization quotient is inherently flawed, for one very important reason: a bigger brain does not necessarily contain more neurons than a smaller brain — a fact that will bring us back to myth number one, and the question of how many neurons a human brain actually contains.
Scientists have obviously known for quite some time that the brains of mammals can vary dramatically in size from species to species. Until very recently, however, most studies have assumed that neuronal density — i.e. the number of neurons relative to the mass of an animals brain — was more or less constant across various mammalian orders. This assumption, however, could not be further from the truth.
This myth was handily debunked by Herculano-Houzel and her team when they used the same brain soup method that they used to measure the number of neurons in a human brain to measure the total neurons for a variety of mammalian species. Her team's results, which have been published over the course of numerous studies now, illustrate that the brains of different mammals follow different "scaling rules":
Primate brains (pictured here facing toward the left), were found to increase at the same rate that they gained neurons; if you compared a gram of brain matter from a large primate against a gram of brain matter from a smaller one, you could expect to find the same number of neurons.
Rodent brains, on the other hand (facing toward the right), were shown to increase in size faster than they gained neurons. As a result, larger rodents tended to have fewer neurons per gram of brain matter than smaller rodents.
Insectivores brains (identifiable here by their bluish hue), behaved like a combination of rodent and primate, with the cerebral cortex (click here to see a human cerebral cortex labeled in dark violet) and the cerebellum (click here to see ahuman cerebellum labeled in purple) increased in size faster than they gained neurons (like a rodent), and linearly (like a primate), respectively.
The upshot of all this is that among rodents, insectivors and primates, the primate brain appears to be built using the most economical, space-saving scaling rules. Herculano-Houzel writes:
A 10-fold increase in the number of neurons in a rodent brain results in a 35-fold larger brain; in contrast, a similar 10-fold increase in the number of neurons in a primate brain results in an increase in brain size of only 11-fold.
...A hypothetical rodent brain with 86 billion neurons, like the human brain, would be predicted to weigh an overwhelming 35 kg — a value that is way beyond the largest known brain mass [of any creature alive today].
Is the human brain an exceptional brain?
There are a lot of things to take away from our debunking of myth number four. For one thing, it demonstrates that relative brain size — even when factored into an an encephalization quotient — cannot be used as a reliable measure of neuron quantity across orders. By extension, it really drives home the point that brain size, body size, and the relationship between the two, are insufficient benchmarks for assessing cognitive abilities, and that such assessments could instead focus more attention on the total number of neurons that a species possesses.
However, it also reveals two seemingly counterintuitive facts about the human brain. The first is that our brains are, to some extent, pretty unexceptional. They may contain 86-billion neurons, but that is precisely the number that you would expect to find (based on the scaling rules of primates) for a brain of its size; if you increased a chimpanzee's brain to the size of a human's, you'd find it to have just as many neurons as your own.
And yet, it confirms that something about the human brain is undeniably special. Herculano-Houzel explains:
First, the human brain scales as a primate brain: this economical property of scaling alone, compared to rodents, assures that the human brain has many more neurons than would fit into a rodent brain of similar size, and possibly into any other similar-sized brain. And second, our standing among primates as the proud owners of the largest living brain assures that, at least among primates, we enjoy the largest number of neurons from which to derive cognition and behavior as a whole.
How our unprecedented neuron-count combines with things like genetics and overall brain structure to give rise to the world's most advanced cognitive abilities remains to be seen. For example — if a chimpanzee's brain could be scaled to the size of a human's, would we see its cognitive abilities leap to a level similar to our own?
Another as-of-yet unanswered question is how our neuron-count and scaling rules compare to those of other mammalian species — most notably those with bigger brains. To date, no studies have come up with a direct estimate of total neuron quantity in either an elephant or a cetacean brain.
Brenda
Why Brain Size Doesn't Correlate With Intelligence
We can nurture growth, but never really control it
Alexander Horowitz
You are a child who grew up.
The inevitability of a child’s growth is both celebrated and mourned. Under normal circumstances, parents can do little but stand back and watch as shoe sizes climb, squawks become babbles become words become speech (which soon becomes back talk) and a child’s knowledge of math, to say nothing of her texting dexterity, outpaces her parents’.
For human beings, growth in childhood leads to maturity, a relative concept: mature with respect to what?, one might ask of a teenager. Biologically, growth is the destiny of all successful organisms. But that growth comes in myriad possible forms—growth from zygote to neonate to adult, growth in size or stature, growth of an entire species. Another form, growth in brain size, has long been linked to success.
A recent study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B appears to suggest that, in a sampling of wild animals, average brain size—measured from craniums of museum specimens collected from urban and rural animals over the last century or so—is correlated with living around people. Both the city mouse (of the white-footed variety) and city vole (of the meadow variety) had larger cranial capacities than their rural cousins. Whether it was the more cerebral rodents that moved into the city, or whether the species adjusted to the novel challenges of an urban environment by growing their brains over generations, isn’t known. Regardless, headlines proclaimed: “City Mice Smarter Than Country Mice.”
Such news excites us humans, who take pride in our big brains. The notion that brain size indicates cognitive prowess is, of course, flattering for us. The further notion that cities house the bigger-brained—why, that’s hard for the urban sensibility to ignore.
What the headlines didn’t crow about was the researchers’ finding that only two of the ten investigated mammals had bigger brains in their urban variants. And the cranial capacity of two shrew species (short-tailed and masked) and two bats (little brown and big brown) grew bigger over the decades in rural, but not urban, settings.
People have long been tempted to link brain size and cognition. The intuitive notion that a “big brain” means “more intelligent” was first threatened some time ago, when we discovered animals with larger brains than ours: elephants and whales. Sure as we were of humankind’s superior intelligence, we still felt the need to prevail, so we gamely parried: Perhaps it is the brain size relative to body size that makes our brains the biggest. Though humans come out well there, too, this measure is biased toward birds and other small animals that have relatively large brains for their bodies. After more deliberation, scientists finally offered up the so-called “encephalization quotient”: brain size relative to the expected brain size in related taxa. On top: humans. Phew.
Consider, though, the strange case of that growing child. Every infant’s brain develops through a period of synaptogenesis—wanton proliferation of synapses, which are the connections between neurons—in the first year or so of life. But one could argue that it is when this intense brain growth ends that the real growth of the child qua individual begins. The next phase of brain development occurs in large part through an increase in synaptic pruning: paring of those connections that are not useful for perceiving, considering or understanding the world the child is facing. In this sense, it’s by downsizing that an individual’s brain is born.
Brain size, or the size of brain parts, can be a reasonable indicator of skill, to be sure. In individuals with sensory deprivation other sensory inputs take over the cortical area lying dormant. In the case of blindness, auditory or tactile somatosensory areas may grow in size, and hearing or touching sensitivity will improve accordingly. Dramatic as that compensatory growth may be, in the end the correlation between brain size and brain function is fraught.
Consider the humble dog, Canis familiaris. The brain of a wolf-size dog is about 30 percent smaller than that of an actual gray wolf, its ancestor. Has the dog become less smart since it went its own evolutionary way thousands of years ago? Judge for yourself: When the mere gaze from the dewy eyes of a member of this species causes you to get up from the couch, repair to the refrigerator and retrieve a hunk of cheese for your charge—well, you tell me who is smarter.
NEXT ARTICLE
How Climate Change is Helping Invasive Species Take Over
TAGS
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/#WWy2cBF8XvcUzTE9.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:09:01 PM UTC-4, Pratyatosa wrote:
Brenda
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:09:01 PM UTC-4, Pratyatosa wrote:
rainer hahn
from Wendy Stainton Rogers, Rex Stainton Rogers
(...)
What gradually became apparent, as tests were made more sophisticated, was that women and girls consistently scored higher, on average, on tests of verbal intelligence, and men and boys scored higher on tests of mathematical and spatial ability.........
(see Maccoby and Jacklin 1974 for a review)
--
Jack Eskildsen
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:istagosthi+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prabhupadanuga" group.
John Hanton
Nice reply Jack.
This is exactly the point, and real intelligence is to accept a pure devotee as ones spiritual master and learn from him, who is this Krishna.
When one uses his or her intelligence in this way, then Krishna reciprocates and gives more and more intelligence, to enable one go back to His abode and the shelter and service of His lotus feet. Anyone, whether man or woman, who does not do this, is less intelligent.
ys
Jitarati das
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 4:51 PM
To: istag...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Judge by the Result
Brenda
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 11:25:31 AM UTC-4, mario pineda wrote:
Hare Krishna. Srila Prabhupada did not make a difference spiritually among men and women.
If they are devotees, they are both intelligent. Non devotees men and women are both less intelligent.There are two books I read. One is called., The Mind of a Woman. The other., The Heart of a Man. Written by a couple that are clinical psychologists and Christian mystics. The books can be found at., www.lifepartners.orgThese books mirror what Srila Prabhupada taught. That is that women and men have different good qualities and weaknesses also. We also "love" in different ways. Men supply. Women have more friendly and warm dispositions. It should be noticed that Srila Prabhupada taught that women's faith is stronger than men's. Women are into personal communications and good relations, and more tolerant and patient than men, which are most important Vaisnava qualities. I'd say that women are more loyal too. Queen Kunti is an excellent example, who tolerated incredible suffering, yet never lost loyalty and faith in Sri Krishna, but of the contrary!There are other things to consider. If a child has been abused, they will grow up thinking it was their fault and will reject all god things.
If a man or woman are attracted to the same gender, this will also place a wedge between them and the opposite gender. I was married to a lady who is bi. I did not know and I think she was not "herself," until the Internet came. She had been abused as a child too, by he father. So it was not easy and she could not accept other views. She felt she had to suffer. She told me later, that what she really wanted, was that I beat her to a pulp!! Must have been really frustrating to her, because instead, I would take her to and pick her up at the airport when she went to see her girl friend. I am not making light of her situation. I cared for her and made sure she had near half a million when she left. I care for her and wish her the very best even now, but we have to share and not be in denial of personal situations or issues. We all have our issues and are responsible for doing or undoing our part for things to be better. This, we often fail to do!I agree that in this age, we men are not so qualified to guide a lady as it should be. On the other hand, we see no solution, buy having women be independent or be active bi or lesbian. Lesbian women are generally less loyal and more abusive to their partners than straight men are! So not easy fix to it all, since identifying with all the material things and not as a devotee of Krishna, is the "easy and best" thing to do! No doubt we men and women are deeper in the muck than we think!Jai Srila Prabhupada!Sincerely,Mahatma Das
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Pratyatosa <praty...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brenda <brendar...@gmail.com> wrote:On the contrary, scientific studies have shown over and over that women are more intelligent than men.Please name even one such study.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prabhupadanuga" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to istagosthi+...@googlegroups.com.
Pratyatosa
http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm