000000
Ex-Bluelighter
thanx jeenius, youre a babe.
-
Life Advice & Visual Arts
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules 🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌 📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸 -
LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari
Are men smarter than women? (merged)
- Thread starter fairnymph
- Start date
Molybdenum
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2003
- Messages
- 542
(deleted description of broader male IQ curve that's right at the start of the thread)
Of course, it's questionable whether these results are actually indicative that there are less female geniuses or more male idiots. Perhaps the bottom males tend to be more rebellious than the bottom females, and so they actively bomb the test. Other studies have demonstrated that women show a significant performance boost on the math sections of tests when they are specifically instructed that this test produces similar results in both genders, which is a pretty amazing result if you think about it.
Of course, it's questionable whether these results are actually indicative that there are less female geniuses or more male idiots. Perhaps the bottom males tend to be more rebellious than the bottom females, and so they actively bomb the test. Other studies have demonstrated that women show a significant performance boost on the math sections of tests when they are specifically instructed that this test produces similar results in both genders, which is a pretty amazing result if you think about it.
Last edited:
xtcxtc
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 30, 1999
- Messages
- 1,978
Storm over gender gap moves into a gray area
By Natalie Angier and Kenneth Chang
The New York Times Tuesday, January 25, 2005 http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/24/news/gender.html
Disparities in science not easily explained
When Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, suggested this month that one factor in women's lagging progress in science and mathematics might be innate differences between the sexes, he slapped a bit of brimstone into a debate that has simmered for decades. And although his comments elicited so many fierce reactions that he quickly apologized, many were left to wonder: Did he have a point?
.
Has science found compelling evidence of inherent gender disparities in the relevant skills, or perhaps in the drive to succeed at all costs, that could help account for the persistent paucity of women in science generally, and at the upper tiers in particular?
.
Researchers who have explored the subject of gender differences from every conceivable angle and organ say that, yes, there are a host of discrepancies between men and women: in their average scores on tests of quantitative skills, in their attitudes toward math and science, in the architecture of their brains.
.
Yet despite the public's desire for tidy and definitive answers to complex questions, researchers warn that the mere finding of a difference in form does not mean that a difference in function or output inevitably follows.
.
"We can't get anywhere denying that there are neurological and hormonal differences between males and females, because there clearly are," said Virginia Valian, a psychology professor at Hunter College who wrote the 1998 book "Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women." "The trouble we have as scientists is in assessing their significance to real-life performance."
.
For example, neuroscientists have shown that women's brains are about 10 percent smaller than men's, on average, even after accounting for women's comparatively smaller body size.
.
But through history, people have cited anatomical distinctions in support of overarching hypotheses that turn out merely to reflect the societal and cultural prejudices of the time.
.
A century ago, the French scientist Gustav Le Bon pointed to the smaller brains of women - closer in size to those of gorillas, he said - and said that explained the "fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason in women."
.
Overall size aside, some evidence suggests that female brains are relatively more endowed with gray matter - the prized neurons thought to do the bulk of the brain's thinking - while men's brains are packed with more white matter, the tissue between neurons.
.
To further complicate the portrait of cerebral diversity, new brain imaging studies from the University of California, Riverside, suggest that men and women with equal IQ scores use different proportions of their gray and white matter when solving problems like those on intelligence tests.
.
Men, they said, appear to devote 6.5 times as much of their gray matter to intelligence-related tasks as do women, while women rely far more heavily on white matter.
.
What such discrepancies may or may not mean is anyone's conjecture.
.
"It is cognition that counts, not the physical matter that does the cognition," argued Nancy Kanwisher, a professor of neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
.
When researchers do study sheer cognitive prowess, many have been impressed with how similarly young boys and girls master new tasks.
.
"We adults may think very different things about boys and girls, and treat them accordingly, but when we measure their capacities, they're remarkably alike," said Elizabeth Spelke, a professor of psychology at Harvard. She and her colleagues study basic spatial, quantitative and numerical abilities in children ranging in age from 5 months through 7 years.
.
"In that age span, you see a considerable number of the pieces of our mature capacities for spatial and numerical reasoning coming together," Spelke said. "But while we always test for gender differences in our studies, we never find them."
.
In adolescence, though, some differences in aptitude begin to emerge. But the modest size and regional variability of the gender differences in math scores, as well as an attitudinal handicap that girls apparently pack into their pencil case, convince many researchers that neither sex has a monopoly on basic math ability and that culture rather than chromosomes explains findings like the gap in math SAT scores.
.
Yet Summers and others have observed that while average math skillfulness may be remarkably analogous between the sexes, men tend to display comparatively greater range in aptitude. Males are much likelier than females to be found on the tail ends of the bell curve, among the superhigh scorers and the very bottom performers.
.
But few researchers who have analyzed the data believe that the greater representation of men among the high-end scores can explain more than a small fraction of the sex disparities in career success among scientists. .
it may not explain all but i believe it would explain much more than "a small fraction.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
By Natalie Angier and Kenneth Chang
The New York Times Tuesday, January 25, 2005 http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/24/news/gender.html
Disparities in science not easily explained
When Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, suggested this month that one factor in women's lagging progress in science and mathematics might be innate differences between the sexes, he slapped a bit of brimstone into a debate that has simmered for decades. And although his comments elicited so many fierce reactions that he quickly apologized, many were left to wonder: Did he have a point?
.
Has science found compelling evidence of inherent gender disparities in the relevant skills, or perhaps in the drive to succeed at all costs, that could help account for the persistent paucity of women in science generally, and at the upper tiers in particular?
.
Researchers who have explored the subject of gender differences from every conceivable angle and organ say that, yes, there are a host of discrepancies between men and women: in their average scores on tests of quantitative skills, in their attitudes toward math and science, in the architecture of their brains.
.
Yet despite the public's desire for tidy and definitive answers to complex questions, researchers warn that the mere finding of a difference in form does not mean that a difference in function or output inevitably follows.
.
"We can't get anywhere denying that there are neurological and hormonal differences between males and females, because there clearly are," said Virginia Valian, a psychology professor at Hunter College who wrote the 1998 book "Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women." "The trouble we have as scientists is in assessing their significance to real-life performance."
.
For example, neuroscientists have shown that women's brains are about 10 percent smaller than men's, on average, even after accounting for women's comparatively smaller body size.
.
But through history, people have cited anatomical distinctions in support of overarching hypotheses that turn out merely to reflect the societal and cultural prejudices of the time.
.
A century ago, the French scientist Gustav Le Bon pointed to the smaller brains of women - closer in size to those of gorillas, he said - and said that explained the "fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason in women."
.
Overall size aside, some evidence suggests that female brains are relatively more endowed with gray matter - the prized neurons thought to do the bulk of the brain's thinking - while men's brains are packed with more white matter, the tissue between neurons.
.
To further complicate the portrait of cerebral diversity, new brain imaging studies from the University of California, Riverside, suggest that men and women with equal IQ scores use different proportions of their gray and white matter when solving problems like those on intelligence tests.
.
Men, they said, appear to devote 6.5 times as much of their gray matter to intelligence-related tasks as do women, while women rely far more heavily on white matter.
.
What such discrepancies may or may not mean is anyone's conjecture.
.
"It is cognition that counts, not the physical matter that does the cognition," argued Nancy Kanwisher, a professor of neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
.
When researchers do study sheer cognitive prowess, many have been impressed with how similarly young boys and girls master new tasks.
.
"We adults may think very different things about boys and girls, and treat them accordingly, but when we measure their capacities, they're remarkably alike," said Elizabeth Spelke, a professor of psychology at Harvard. She and her colleagues study basic spatial, quantitative and numerical abilities in children ranging in age from 5 months through 7 years.
.
"In that age span, you see a considerable number of the pieces of our mature capacities for spatial and numerical reasoning coming together," Spelke said. "But while we always test for gender differences in our studies, we never find them."
.
In adolescence, though, some differences in aptitude begin to emerge. But the modest size and regional variability of the gender differences in math scores, as well as an attitudinal handicap that girls apparently pack into their pencil case, convince many researchers that neither sex has a monopoly on basic math ability and that culture rather than chromosomes explains findings like the gap in math SAT scores.
.
Yet Summers and others have observed that while average math skillfulness may be remarkably analogous between the sexes, men tend to display comparatively greater range in aptitude. Males are much likelier than females to be found on the tail ends of the bell curve, among the superhigh scorers and the very bottom performers.
.
But few researchers who have analyzed the data believe that the greater representation of men among the high-end scores can explain more than a small fraction of the sex disparities in career success among scientists. .
it may not explain all but i believe it would explain much more than "a small fraction.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
xtcxtc
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 30, 1999
- Messages
- 1,978
FIRESTORM RAGES
Yes, men and women have different abilities Charles Murray
The New York Times Tuesday, January 25, 2005
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/24/opinion/edmurray.html
Sex education at Harvard
WASHINGTON Forty-six years ago, in "The Two Cultures," C.P. Snow warned of the dangers when communication breaks down between the sciences and the humanities.
.
The reaction to remarks by Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, about the differences between men and women was yet another sign of a breakdown that takes Snow's worries to a new level: the wholesale denial that certain bodies of scientific knowledge exist.
.
Summers' comments, at a supposedly off-the-record gathering, were mild. He offered, as an interesting though unproved possibility, that innate sex differences might explain why so few women are on science and engineering faculties, and he told a story about how nature seemed to trump nurture in his own daughter.
.
To judge from the subsequent furor, one might conclude that Summers was advancing a radical idea backed only by personal anecdotes and a fringe of cranks. In truth, it's the other way around. If you were to query all the scholars who deal professionally with data about the cognitive repertoires of men and women, all but a fringe would accept that the sexes are different, and that genes are clearly implicated.
.
How our genetic makeup is implicated remains largely unknown, but our geneticists and neuroscientists are doing a great deal of work to unravel the story. When David Geary's landmark book "Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences" was published in 1998, the bibliography of technical articles ran to 52 pages - and that was seven years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of articles have been published since.
.
This scholarship shows a notable imbalance, however. Scholarship on the environmental sources of male-female differences tends to be stale (wade through a recent assessment of 172 studies of gender differences in parenting involving 28,000 children, and you will discover that two-thirds of the boys were discouraged from playing with dolls - but were nurtured pretty much the same as girls in every other way);
Hmmmmnnnnn - i suspect the above is arguable or overstated.
but scholarship about innate male-female differences has the vibrancy and excitement of an important new field gaining momentum. A recent example is "The Essential Difference," published in 2003 by Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University, which presents a grand unified theory of male and female cognition that may well be a historic breakthrough.
.
"Exciting" is the right word for this work, not "threatening." We may not know the answers yet, but they will be more interesting than, say, a discrete gene for science that clicks on for men differently than it does for women. Rather, it will be a story of the interaction of many male and female genetic differences, and the way a person's environment affects those differences. Few of the answers will lend themselves to simplistic verdicts of "males are better" or vice versa. For every finding favoring males, there will be another favoring females.
.
Some people will find the results threatening because they find any group differences threatening, but such fears will be misplaced. We may find that innate differences give men, as a group, an edge over women, as a group, in producing, say, terrific mathematicians. But knowing that fact about the group difference will not change another fact: that some women are terrific mathematicians. The proportions of men and women mathematicians may never be equal, but who cares? What's important is that all women with the potential to become terrific mathematicians have full opportunity to do so.
.
Of course, new knowledge will not be without costs. Perhaps knowing that there is a group difference will discourage some women from even trying to become mathematicians or engineers or circus clowns. We - scientists, parents, educators, employers - must do everything we can to prevent such unwarranted reactions. And the best way to do that is to put the individual's abilities, not group membership, at the center of our attention.
.
Against the cost of the new knowledge is the far greater cost of obliviousness, which can lead us to pursue policies that try to make society conform to expectations that conflict with what human beings really are. In the study of gender, large and growing bodies of good science are helping us understand human abilities. It is time to accept their existence, their seriousness and their legitimacy.
as one of the co-authors of "the Bell Curve" some may suggest he is not unbiased on the subject; but it would be hard to refute much of what he claims above.
Yes, men and women have different abilities Charles Murray
The New York Times Tuesday, January 25, 2005
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/24/opinion/edmurray.html
Sex education at Harvard
WASHINGTON Forty-six years ago, in "The Two Cultures," C.P. Snow warned of the dangers when communication breaks down between the sciences and the humanities.
.
The reaction to remarks by Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, about the differences between men and women was yet another sign of a breakdown that takes Snow's worries to a new level: the wholesale denial that certain bodies of scientific knowledge exist.
.
Summers' comments, at a supposedly off-the-record gathering, were mild. He offered, as an interesting though unproved possibility, that innate sex differences might explain why so few women are on science and engineering faculties, and he told a story about how nature seemed to trump nurture in his own daughter.
.
To judge from the subsequent furor, one might conclude that Summers was advancing a radical idea backed only by personal anecdotes and a fringe of cranks. In truth, it's the other way around. If you were to query all the scholars who deal professionally with data about the cognitive repertoires of men and women, all but a fringe would accept that the sexes are different, and that genes are clearly implicated.
.
How our genetic makeup is implicated remains largely unknown, but our geneticists and neuroscientists are doing a great deal of work to unravel the story. When David Geary's landmark book "Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences" was published in 1998, the bibliography of technical articles ran to 52 pages - and that was seven years ago. Hundreds if not thousands of articles have been published since.
.
This scholarship shows a notable imbalance, however. Scholarship on the environmental sources of male-female differences tends to be stale (wade through a recent assessment of 172 studies of gender differences in parenting involving 28,000 children, and you will discover that two-thirds of the boys were discouraged from playing with dolls - but were nurtured pretty much the same as girls in every other way);
Hmmmmnnnnn - i suspect the above is arguable or overstated.
but scholarship about innate male-female differences has the vibrancy and excitement of an important new field gaining momentum. A recent example is "The Essential Difference," published in 2003 by Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University, which presents a grand unified theory of male and female cognition that may well be a historic breakthrough.
.
"Exciting" is the right word for this work, not "threatening." We may not know the answers yet, but they will be more interesting than, say, a discrete gene for science that clicks on for men differently than it does for women. Rather, it will be a story of the interaction of many male and female genetic differences, and the way a person's environment affects those differences. Few of the answers will lend themselves to simplistic verdicts of "males are better" or vice versa. For every finding favoring males, there will be another favoring females.
.
Some people will find the results threatening because they find any group differences threatening, but such fears will be misplaced. We may find that innate differences give men, as a group, an edge over women, as a group, in producing, say, terrific mathematicians. But knowing that fact about the group difference will not change another fact: that some women are terrific mathematicians. The proportions of men and women mathematicians may never be equal, but who cares? What's important is that all women with the potential to become terrific mathematicians have full opportunity to do so.
.
Of course, new knowledge will not be without costs. Perhaps knowing that there is a group difference will discourage some women from even trying to become mathematicians or engineers or circus clowns. We - scientists, parents, educators, employers - must do everything we can to prevent such unwarranted reactions. And the best way to do that is to put the individual's abilities, not group membership, at the center of our attention.
.
Against the cost of the new knowledge is the far greater cost of obliviousness, which can lead us to pursue policies that try to make society conform to expectations that conflict with what human beings really are. In the study of gender, large and growing bodies of good science are helping us understand human abilities. It is time to accept their existence, their seriousness and their legitimacy.
as one of the co-authors of "the Bell Curve" some may suggest he is not unbiased on the subject; but it would be hard to refute much of what he claims above.
DigitalDuality
Bluelighter
I tend to be very adrogenous (sp?) when it comes to personality traits and gender roles.. psychologically speaking.. but for the most part, i don't think it has anything to do with level of intelligence.
I think our pre-defined gender roles in this society raises women to be more emotive and less analytical as Kittyinthedark suggests. Where as men are pressured to be more analytical, but emotionally detached..at least more than the average female.
The times i've found intellectually strong, analytical females, they get written off as nerds or even dykes. I for instance was very emotional growing up and was ragged on for it pretty harshly.
I do think the more our gender roles disappear, applying this generalization to men and women becomes much more difficult to apply and have it be even somewhat accurate though.
That being said, i think these roles we play out (most of us anyways) are responsible for most of our misunderstandings and conflicts in our relationships with one another. Not so much of one person being right or wrong, but simply not getting where the hell the other comes from.
I think our pre-defined gender roles in this society raises women to be more emotive and less analytical as Kittyinthedark suggests. Where as men are pressured to be more analytical, but emotionally detached..at least more than the average female.
The times i've found intellectually strong, analytical females, they get written off as nerds or even dykes. I for instance was very emotional growing up and was ragged on for it pretty harshly.
I do think the more our gender roles disappear, applying this generalization to men and women becomes much more difficult to apply and have it be even somewhat accurate though.
That being said, i think these roles we play out (most of us anyways) are responsible for most of our misunderstandings and conflicts in our relationships with one another. Not so much of one person being right or wrong, but simply not getting where the hell the other comes from.
Last edited:
dap
Ex-Bluelighter
I am sure there are some very intelligent women, but men take the cake on who is smarter... Just look at the world's smartest people. Men just naturally are smart, while women spend most their time trying to outsmart men. I hope this doesnt sound horrible of me... But i believe this. Women however embody alot of... intelligence that men lack. I learned almost everything I know from women... However I am still a jerk.
Edvard Munch
Bluelighter
Who's smarter? Men, of course. Women are good at baking cookies and giving head, however.
JudgeFishy
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2003
- Messages
- 282
I think men and women are equally dumb.
000000
Ex-Bluelighter
boys have a penis, girls have a vagina
xtcxtc
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 30, 1999
- Messages
- 1,978
jeenius tell that to Natalie Angier and Kenneth Chang and the many others denigrating Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard for very tactfully suggesting much less than that.
btw your point has been made countless times already in this thread.
btw your point has been made countless times already in this thread.
jeenius
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2004
- Messages
- 454
^^fine, now it's gone
edit: everyone please ignore.. was tired/cranky
approximation of what I said: The intelligence of males plots to a slightly "wider" gaussian distribution than that of females. Thus, the most intelligent and the least intelligent are a little more likely to be male. Those of average intelligence are a little more likely to be female. It all averages out and there's no inherent difference.
Actually, to be more accurate than I was before, there are a few known, very *specific* tasks that males are known to perform better on, and some where females do better. The male tasks are generally related to mental rotation, and the female ones are related to spatial memory (and possibly language, I think).
edit: everyone please ignore.. was tired/cranky
approximation of what I said: The intelligence of males plots to a slightly "wider" gaussian distribution than that of females. Thus, the most intelligent and the least intelligent are a little more likely to be male. Those of average intelligence are a little more likely to be female. It all averages out and there's no inherent difference.
Actually, to be more accurate than I was before, there are a few known, very *specific* tasks that males are known to perform better on, and some where females do better. The male tasks are generally related to mental rotation, and the female ones are related to spatial memory (and possibly language, I think).
Last edited:
What an interesting thread.
I personally think that woman are quite smart but they have natural blocks and limitations, as do men.
( I apologize if this is offensive) From my experience, you can easily trick most woman into doing or believing almost anything and sometimes they will stare at you with a blank look whenever your trying to explain something complicated to them, and you have to be careful with using innuendo or metaphors because woman just don't think that way. It's not womans fault though, I think they are constantly distracted by their emotions and they can't do much about it. I can only imagine how hard it must be trying think strait with all those complicated emotions constantly going through their head.
Most Men are easily distracted by cars, girls and explosions. When they are distracted it's as if their thinking precoces is diminished greatly aswell. Now imagine men talking tests with cars, girls and explosions constantly happening around them and they can't do anything about it. I'm pretty sure that most men wouldn't do all that well.
Both genders have limitations and it just so happens that some womans limitations directly effect their logic but to say that men are smarter is wrong. Our limitations make us equal.
I personally think that woman are quite smart but they have natural blocks and limitations, as do men.
( I apologize if this is offensive) From my experience, you can easily trick most woman into doing or believing almost anything and sometimes they will stare at you with a blank look whenever your trying to explain something complicated to them, and you have to be careful with using innuendo or metaphors because woman just don't think that way. It's not womans fault though, I think they are constantly distracted by their emotions and they can't do much about it. I can only imagine how hard it must be trying think strait with all those complicated emotions constantly going through their head.
Most Men are easily distracted by cars, girls and explosions. When they are distracted it's as if their thinking precoces is diminished greatly aswell. Now imagine men talking tests with cars, girls and explosions constantly happening around them and they can't do anything about it. I'm pretty sure that most men wouldn't do all that well.
Both genders have limitations and it just so happens that some womans limitations directly effect their logic but to say that men are smarter is wrong. Our limitations make us equal.
everythinginside
Ex-Bluelighter
I agree there... but I don't agree with what jeenius said..
Men are actually the holders of the good 'spatial abilities' title.
Men have a three-demensional map laid out in their heads, and can easily memorize an entire city in less time than a woman of equal "intellect" could. Men can drive a virtual car through their virtual city, inside their minds, and have pretty good recall of many things on the way to their destination.
Woman, however, are more language and symbol-dominated... they 'usually' rely on landmarks to find their way, such as a sign... an odd shaped fence.. a tree... a weird rock on the side of the road.
Women are usually better communicators.
Men are usually better coordinators.
They each have their place, although under one partial light, men make women look like idiots, and under the same-but opposite light, women are the geniuses...
It's alot like polarity.
Men are actually the holders of the good 'spatial abilities' title.
Men have a three-demensional map laid out in their heads, and can easily memorize an entire city in less time than a woman of equal "intellect" could. Men can drive a virtual car through their virtual city, inside their minds, and have pretty good recall of many things on the way to their destination.
Woman, however, are more language and symbol-dominated... they 'usually' rely on landmarks to find their way, such as a sign... an odd shaped fence.. a tree... a weird rock on the side of the road.
Women are usually better communicators.
Men are usually better coordinators.
They each have their place, although under one partial light, men make women look like idiots, and under the same-but opposite light, women are the geniuses...
It's alot like polarity.
Strawberry_lovemuffin
Bluelighter
DiveRoll said:
How funny: reverse "women" and "men" in your paragraph and this is almost entirely my experience.
I'm always having to "dumb things down" so men in my life can understand me (bluelight is a different matter)... and using big words and metaphors completely bamboozles them. Men in my life like to be talked to straight and direct; there's not a lot of subtext going on there.
anna!
Bluelight Crew
^ I was going to say exactly the same thing about that paragraph. Maybe women are just not as good at explaining things 8)
There is one man in my life who is smarter than me, as far as I'm concerned, and that's my dad! I've always found men to be very rigid in their intellect and less able to think laterally. If you watch programs like Rebel Billionaire (the Richard Branson equivalent of The Apprentice), it is generally apparent that women are much better at solving problems and thinking creatively. My personal opinion is that that makes them smarter, and not whether they're able to recreate equations from a textbook (although a lot of women I know/have known have been excellent at doing that as well!).
There is one man in my life who is smarter than me, as far as I'm concerned, and that's my dad! I've always found men to be very rigid in their intellect and less able to think laterally. If you watch programs like Rebel Billionaire (the Richard Branson equivalent of The Apprentice), it is generally apparent that women are much better at solving problems and thinking creatively. My personal opinion is that that makes them smarter, and not whether they're able to recreate equations from a textbook (although a lot of women I know/have known have been excellent at doing that as well!).
kandyraverchick
Ex-Bluelighter
Strawberry_lovemuffin said:How funny: reverse "women" and "men" in your paragraph and this is almost entirely my experience.
I'm always having to "dumb things down" so men in my life can understand me (bluelight is a different matter)... and using big words and metaphors completely bamboozles them. Men in my life like to be talked to straight and direct; there's not a lot of subtext going on there.
haha - SLM & Anna, that makes 3 of us...
