Can you be both a creative thinker and a critical thinker?
Yes, it is surely possible. In fact, I feel that the people that we call 'geniuses' do (or did) precisely that. They were able to use the logical part of their brain and the creative part SIMULTANEOUSLY. I'm talking about people like Einstein, DaVinci, Beethoven, etc. They saw both structure AND beauty. I think that it is a matter of 'balancing your brain'. You probably have heard of the classifications that the left-brain is logical and the right-brain is creative. And further, you are probably aware that in most people, one side 'dominates'. The key, I think, is to get BOTH operating. Things kind of seem to become limitless. (For most of my life I was a 'logical' thinker dominant brain type. I'm having quite a bit of fun allowing my creative side to participate equally in my life now. I'm a guitarist/songwriter, mainly in the classical music/folk-rock styles. In the past year my ability to improvise has 'taken off', because I am ALLOWING the creative side to participate equally. :) There's actually a biological part in the brain called the corpus callosum (i.e. the 'brain pan') which is the 'bridge' between the two hemispheres of the brain. If one can get that 'bridge' 'open to traffic', look out world! (I think.) ---------- And I guess I can see from your comments that you are what would be classified as 'right-brain creative'. That side 'dominates'. In fact, it is dominating SO much that it is actually giving you a FEAR emotion in an attempt to remain dominant !! (This is almost similar to a drug addict's brain response if told that drugs will not be available.) So . . . you need to take a 'leap of faith'. Have NO FEAR. You will NOT lose your creativity by accessing your logical brain. You will likely find your creativity HUGELY increased ;) Have fun !! :-D
What is the evolutionary advantage of homosexual humans and animals?
It has been proposed that homosexuality offers the same advantage as grandparents.The argument goes something like this: It starts with focusing on evolution as a mechanism which selects genes, not one which sorts out the offspring of individuals. That opens up a lot of room to explain species with non-reproductive members from ants to humans.Humans, for example, put a lot of resources into raising children, and the ones who get more and better support tend to do better and are more likely to pass on their genes. It’s not too hard to see how that works vertically, as it were. Most species don’t live long beyond child-bearing age, but humans do. Indeed, humans can live long enough past their reproductive years to see an entire new generation grow up. Why do we live so long? One suggestion is that more post-reproductive years provide additional labor to see to one’s grandchildren, who still carry a significant number of one’s genes (that is, a quarter of them). It’s a way of putting more resources into raising successful children and increasing the odds of genes being passed on.The evolutionary advantage in homosexuality, then, is something similar, providing that advantage with a horizontal relationship. Exclusive homosexuals who will, because of that, never reproduce are fairly rare. They’re not passing on their own genes, yes, but they can help take care of their siblings’ children. Most people have brothers and sisters, who share on average half of their genes, so the nieces and nephews share the same kinds of genetic similarity to their aunt or uncle that a grandparent does. From the point of view of passing on genes, there’s something of an advantage there.And this may explain why there’s something of a correlation between birth order and male homosexuality. That is, men with more older brothers are more likely to be gay. There may be some epigenetic mechanism at work here.Now, all of this may be completely wrong. Our understanding of human sexuality and sexual orientation is ever-changing, and there’s a lot we simply don’t know and are filling in with conjecture. But it’s at least a plausible case.
Are men naturally more artistically creative than women?
Spuddy: Whoever once said there weren't other designers on the Jimmy Choo's line? I only mentioned Jimmy Choo because he was the originator and he is a fashion designer. You then brought up a woman designer on the line as if that somehow contradicts whether or not Jimmy Choo is a designer. It doesn't. According to my sources, Jimmy Choo still designs. Whether it's for his original line or not is irrelevant. The fact is, he's a fashion designer. You still didn't show where I claimed anyone "invented" fashion. And, why would you assume I know nothing of it? Must be because I'm a male. My girlfriend is majoring in fashion merchandising, so I've gained quite a bit of knowledge from her.
Who is more intelligent or smarter — men or women?
Disclaimer: This answer is based on my observation as a kid till now, in an Indian context.Both are equally intelligent. While in school, girls used to seem more intelligent because of social stigma attached to girls. Girls ended up playing lesser than boys, making them interested in studies more than boys. Boys spent most of the time playing and breaking things may be. For example, I was always given dolls to play with. Dolls were boring. I would have liked a car more. So I ended up making those dolls my students and me the teacher. That is how I played with the dolls. But boys had more fun things to play with. They would break open the toy car, look at the parts and then receive scoldings from parents and then they would not feel like studying. While in college, boys seemed more interested in studying (making them seem more intelligent) than girls again because of social stigma. Boys had to score well so they can get a job at the very least. Most girls were there because they did not have a goal. Others were rich so they just wanted a degree. Others knew that their parents will marry them off and then they won't be allowed to work because that is the way in their community. So they wanted an engineering degree so that they will get an engineer husband who earns well. Only a few girls like me and a few other naturally gifted were really interested in studying. So the boys seemed more intelligent. I did not say they were. I said they seemed. This was about my years of learning. The most wise people I know now are JK Rowling, Opera Winfrey, Bob Proctor, Shah Rukh Khan, Anupam Kher, my boss (a lady), two Buddhist monks (one a lady who looks like from the US and other a gentlemen who looks like from Europe. There were other few Buddhist monks as well but they were ordinary. Not as intelligent as these two). So it is a really a tough competition. So I think both are equal.Although looking at the way women are suppressed and confined into the houses, and not allowed to be educated much, I have a feeling that there may be more women who are intelligent but are suppressed so much that they are not recognised at all. So I have a feeling that there are more intelligent girls. Thanks for the a2a.