Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Education Science

Report Claims Men More Intelligent Than Women 1523

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the written-by-men dept.
Jeremy Dean writes "In controversial research reported all over the place, Richard Lynn, the emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University claims that, on average, men are more intelligent than women. Let battle commence! As the research is not yet published there's nothing more to go on than the press reports. The co-author of the study, Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, is apologetic about the findings. In the BBC News report he states that the paper will go on to argue that despite their disadvantage in IQ, there is evidence that women utilise their (lesser!) talents better than men. This simply begs the question of what use IQ tests are if they don't predict anything in the real world."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Report Claims Men More Intelligent Than Women

Comments Filter:
  • The good professor (Score:5, Informative)

    by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:10AM (#13404055) Homepage Journal
    It seems he's not a stranger to controversy:

    The professor has caused outrage in the past with claims that white people are more intelligent than blacks and that criminal traits are genetically inherited.

  • Re:Just in... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mr2001 (90979) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:19AM (#13404130) Homepage Journal
    Why can't I get paid to spout idiotic claptrap all day?

    Because apparently you don't know the difference between opinions and measurable data. Whether or not the conclusion in TFA is correct, at least it's possible to measure intelligence.

    It is not possible to scientifically measure whether one color or flavor is "better" than another; the closest you could get is polling ice cream lovers to see which flavor is more popular.
  • Old Psych Joke (Score:4, Informative)

    by SandSpider (60727) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:23AM (#13404177) Homepage Journal
    Q: "What is intelligence?"

    A: "Intelligence is what IQ Tests Measure."
    (Yeah, I know it's not actually funny)

    Basically, the psychologists make this construct they term intelligence quotient, and they try to make a test that will measure the construct. If they can get reliability across a number of tests, plus a few more things, then you have a number that you can attribute to "Intelligence," which is really handy if you want to make a test that determines if men or women have more of this "Intelligence".

    That's pretty much it. Oh, okay, that's not all, but in effect, you see if anything else correlates with Intelligence, and if so, then you'll be relatively safe in betting that, whatever positively correlates with it, means that other correlations will similarly relate. So if people who are more intelligent are more likely to get a particular neurodegenerative disease, and men have more intelligence than women, then chances are, more men will have this disease than women.

    However, presuming that Intelligence means anything other than what it correlates with in tests is foolish. It's not necessarily a predictor of success, it's not necessarily a predictor of the ability to solve problems other than the ones covered in the IQ tests, and it's not necessarily a predictor that you're a better person. It just means that you have a higher amount of the traits covered by this particular construct.

    =Brian
  • Problem is (Score:2, Informative)

    by truckaxle (883149) * on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:24AM (#13404183) Homepage
    Debating this here on slashdot is quite pointless as there are no females here to defend themselves :(
  • by Alaren (682568) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:27AM (#13404207)

    Agreed. Short version: don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Long version: I just about choked when I read the submitter's parting shot at IQ testing.

    IQ testing is controversial. It is a test of normalization; "100" is always "average" because the scale is consistently normalized against the population. Higher-than-average IQ is one of the best predictors of a great many things--that's scientifically demonstrable. Many of those things are viewed as positive--again, this would be expected from a test based around checking averages.

    Where people go wrong is when they notice trends in race (IIRC, blacks average one standard deviation lower than whites; asians average something like three points higher than whites) or gender (which was the subject of this study apparently). The trends themselves are hard to dispute, because the test is the same for everyone. But of course we all want to know why the trends pan out. We ask: Was the test biased to whites? Did the minorities come from low-income backgrounds? Is there some genetic link between intelligence and race or gender? Ad infinitum...

    Of course everyone can see why these studies are considered offensive or inappropriate or just plain wrong. But the studies themselves are about the "why" and the "how"--and often these studies are inquiries so heavy-burdened with emotionally charged issues that even if they're handled properly, the findings will probably do more harm than good.

    All of that said, this is a far cry from saying that IQ tests don't tell us "anything at all!" Like it or hate it, IQ tests are reasonably good predictors of one's potential precisely because they are normalized to function in precisely that way.

  • Re:Mod parent (Score:5, Informative)

    by mc6809e (214243) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:29AM (#13404214)
    Yeah, especially after RFTA'ing.. you really just wanna piss on the head of this guy. He also claims that White people are more intellegent than black...

    Take a look at Wikipedia's entry on race and intelligence [wikipedia.org].

    There might be some truth to it.

    But none of that means people should discriminate, of course. Everyone needs to be given a chance. Just don't expect equal outcomes.

  • by Mandrel (765308) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:40AM (#13404299)
    There's also Howard Gardner's [howardgardner.com] eight types of intelligence [pareonline.net].

    1. Verbal-Linguistic -- The ability to use words and language
    2. Logical-Mathematical -- The capacity for inductive and deductive thinking and reasoning, as well as the use of numbers and the recognition of abstract patterns
    3. Visual-Spatial -- The ability to visualize objects and spatial dimensions, and create internal images and pictures
    4. Body-Kinesthetic -- The wisdom of the body and the ability to control physical motion
    5. Musical-Rhythmic -- The ability to recognize tonal patterns and sounds, as well as a sensitivity to rhythms and beats
    6. Interpersonal -- The capacity for person-to-person communications and relationships
    7. Intrapersonal -- The spiritual, inner states of being, self-reflection, and awareness
    8. Naturalistic -- The ability to discern patterns in nature
  • by k98sven (324383) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:54AM (#13404400) Journal
    "some people" are mostly psychologists out to sell books.

    IQ is a load of bunk. So is EQ. The whole notion of what we call human intelligence can be described in one, two or even 10 simple, easily quantified parameters is stupid and unscientific.

    The idea that emotion and intelligence (or: Sense and Sensibility) are two distinct things is antique philosophical claptrap, with little justification in reality.

    Results in neurology (a real science, as opposed to most psychology) indicate that not only are these things nondistinct, but rather that human emotions provide the foundation for what we call 'intelligence', even of the abstract kind.
    Read, for instance Descartes' Error [amazon.com], by Antonio Damasio.

  • Re:Oh boy... (Score:5, Informative)

    by thogard (43403) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:57AM (#13404420) Homepage
    In general male bell curves are wider than women's. Its true of height, weight, IQ, most diseases. It also appears to be true of others things such as the ability drive (most race car drivers are men and the people with the worst driving records are almost always men). Women tend to have much better language skills on average than men but the most of the best writers are male and in modern countries most of the few illiterate tend to be male as well.

    It has to be something about instability of that Y chromosome. The X seems to be much more stable.
  • Yeah, whatever... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Goonie (8651) * <robert.merkel@TI ... ra.org minus cat> on Friday August 26, 2005 @01:01AM (#13404446) Homepage
    This is the same guy who published a book [wikipedia.org] which claimed that differences in GDP were explainable in terms of the differences in mean IQ between countries, using data that claimed that the average IQ in Equatorial Guinea was 59.

    While I'm sure the average Equatorial Guinean is poorly educated and might well have received insufficient iodine as a child, that figure is so insanely low (more than 2.7 standard deviations below the global mean of 100) as to fail the laugh test.

  • by tarunthegreat2 (761545) on Friday August 26, 2005 @01:03AM (#13404455)
    Don't forget the popular: Not all men are fools - some are bachelors.
  • IQ tests are crap (Score:2, Informative)

    by mr_angry (668532) on Friday August 26, 2005 @01:11AM (#13404494) Journal
    The crappiest of craps. I officially declare all IQ tests to be worthless. No test will ever measure / analyze all the various capabilities of a person.

    Tests and other things have repeatedly suggested that i was lame and dumb, so i'm biased. My parents were told to not send me to school, cause i wouldn't succeed the wise people said.

    Well i succeeded more than other *normal* people.

    Don't believe the hype, yo.

    Using my brain for a second here, i wonder how this *expert* told his wife about his findings. Or maybe he prefer men.

    Stolen from the bbc article :
    The only thing IQ tests prove is how good you are at doing IQ tests.
    Matthew, Cheshire, UK
  • why the outrage? (Score:4, Informative)

    by dh003i (203189) <.dh003i. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday August 26, 2005 @01:32AM (#13404623) Homepage Journal
    Regarding the argument of some that it is reasonable for women to be hostile to this, due to past injustices...Past injustices don't justify a paranoid, unintellectual reaction to studies. Either this is true, or it isn't.

    I'd also note that many of the things you describe as "rights", aren't or shouldn't be. "The right to vote" is newspeak for "the 'right' to aggress against others" (namely, to openly express and act upon one's desire to take that which they haven't earned). Regarding discrimination in the workplace, no-one has the "right" to work at a specific company. I'd argue, however, that there are alot of managers who would like nothing more than to have all female employees. Furthermore, to the extent that women are discriminated against* in the workplace, this creates a profit opportunity for entrepreneurs willing to hire them at lower wages.

    On a related argument, a professor of mine gave a very interesting lecture, for which I have notes [mises.org], discussing the wage-gap between men and women and the glass ceiling. He argues that the "wage gap" (women receiving 70% the pay of men) is really nothing more than the result of the fact that women (not men) get pregnant, and tend to thus take time off and stay at home to be parents. When you look at never-married men vs. never-married women, and teenaged boys vs. teenaged girls, there is no statistically significant wage-gap.

    As regards the glass-ceiling, he argues this is due to a difference in the dispersions of IQ among men and women. He argues that although the average IQ of men and women may be the same, the distribution for women is more concentrated on the mean, while the distribution for men is less concentrated on the mean (fatter tails). That is, there are fewer very dumb or very smart women, and more very dumb or very smart men. Likewise with regards to other social characteristics, such as aggression. If you look at the highest peaks of many areas -- chess, business, science, etc -- they are dominated by men; however, you also see prisons and insane-asylums overwhelmingly occupied by men.

    The reason for this is that men are expendable, and women are not. If 99% of the female population dies out, the human race is in severe trouble; if 99% of the male population dies out, the remaining 1% (provided adequate fecundity and stamina) can relatively quickly repopulate.

    Interestingly, someone else brought up the issue of "emotional quotient" or "EQ". From their description of it, it seems to measure maturity, the ability to sacrafice immediate gratification for more long-term gratification. As emotional intelligence is "an awareness of and ability to manage emotions and create motivation", this would seem to be an appropriate characterization of part of the issue. Economists -- particularly those of the Austrian school -- call this "time-preference". Lower time-preferences are civilizing forces, and lead to success. Criminals and children, for example, are characterized by high time-preference (a rapist is someone who simply can't wait; children will give up $1000 tomorrow for $1 today; etc). I don't see why this doesn't fall under the rubric of general "intelligence".

    * The term "discriminate" here is used in the very narrow sense, in that being female is considered as a negative aspect, all else equal. In reality, all private property, and every choice of free people, is based on discrimination.
  • Re:Let me be the 1st (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nimloth (704789) on Friday August 26, 2005 @01:37AM (#13404661)
    You guys with mod points need to read the thread or article before using them... Half the comments here talk about how the author of this research is the same guy who concluded that white people were smarter than black people, and that lighter-colored black people were smarter than darker-colored black people.

    So in conclusion -- according to him -- blacks and women are dumb. Caucasian males is the way to go.
  • But there is! (Score:3, Informative)

    by mrchaotica (681592) on Friday August 26, 2005 @03:01AM (#13405035)
    Basketball and breakdancing fall under "Body-Kinesthetic," which was fourth in the list. (Breakdancing also has a component of "Musical-Rhythmic," which was fifth.)
  • by Brandybuck (704397) on Friday August 26, 2005 @03:06AM (#13405058) Homepage Journal
    It doesn't demonstrate causality

    Of course not. Go read the post again. IQ is predictive, not causitive. As a predictor it's very good. I would be quite willing to bet $100 that a person with a 120 IQ is more successful than a person with an 80 IQ. I'll even let you choose the success metric. This doesn't mean that everyone with an 80 IQ is a failure, or that everyone with a 120 IQ is a success. It only means its predictive enough that I'm willing to bet $100 on it.

    My high school had a "gifted" program for students with high IQs, and a "special" program for students with low IQs. I'll let you take a wild guess as to which group has more successes today, twenty years later. Or if you prefer, you can guess as to which had the fewest failures.
  • Asperger's (Score:3, Informative)

    by guybarr (447727) on Friday August 26, 2005 @03:10AM (#13405070)
    This is especially the case among the borderline-Asperger's-Syndrome types that like to frequent Slashdot

    Wow, I looked it up on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and found a description of myself - thanks for the info.
  • by CAIMLAS (41445) on Friday August 26, 2005 @04:44AM (#13405486) Homepage
    Sorry, this is relevant in the context of this person claiming to have been denied the vote, how?

    Unless she is over 100 years old or so, she's full of shit. She hasn't been denied a damn thing; in fact, if she's under 30 or so, chances are she's gotten more opportunity than most males due to female-specific scholarships and affirmative action.
  • by Hideyoshi (551241) on Friday August 26, 2005 @05:22AM (#13405649)
    Because a charlatan like Richard Lynn told you so? Have you ever even been to Africa? Some eugenicist quack without any knowledge of a single African language invents numbers out of whole cloth through "geographical averaging" [sic], chooses to ignore or downplay the Flynn Effect as it suits him, compares incomparable datasets separated by decades, uses tiny samples to stand in for entire countries, and just because the results match the racial prejudices of morons like you, it's simply eaten up uncritically. Unlike you, I've actually spent lots of time in Africa, and I know for a fact that the average person I've met in my time there was no less intelligent than the average European or white American, especially when spoken to in his or her own language. Your crap about "pure" blacks and "interbreeding" (as if people of different colors were different species) only says just how far gone you are in Nazi thinking.
  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Friday August 26, 2005 @05:57AM (#13405761) Journal
    I admit I haven't heard of this particular study of his before, and now after a quick reading, I hate to admit it's suspicious at best. Not so much the numbers as the methodology: sample sizes seem to be too small, and interpolating IQ by location is most certainly a very stupid idea given the nature of the study (since they operate on nations, not ethnicities, they have to acknowledge the existence of distinct borders between those, and from there the fact that IQ samples can be very different in two neighboring countries). Not to mention the apparent "manual correction" of outdated or otherwise inconsistent results. I was clearly wrong there, and I apologise.

    Furthermore, after reading all this, I can certainly understand the concerns some people have over the numbers presented in this study. Perhaps it is indeed best to wait with conclusions and see if there will be any other studies, quite possibly disproving this one. Or maybe the guy did get it right this time - even if he was biased, he might've been right all along...

    Either way, people who dismiss the study solely because it is "non-PC" (or, simply put, conflicts with their dogmas) are still missing the point.

  • Occams Razor (Score:2, Informative)

    by Paradigma11 (645246) <Paradigma11@hotmail.com> on Friday August 26, 2005 @06:06AM (#13405789)
    IAAPS, i am a psychologist soon, and i dont think that this study infers in any way that there are biological differences between the sexes. there are many obvious differences in the way man and woman get treated in society that will most likely contribute to differences in intelligence tests. since you have many, many observable facts like rolemodels, sexism, pregancy that can and will on average hinder woman in their intellectual development there is no reason to infer a biological one. i dont say that there isn't, there just isn't any reason to imply. think about the way our brain/mind works, how adaptable it is to different stimuli/situations. lets make an inadequate comparison that will spark some +funny posts :) you got 2 computers. one is running linux, the other windows. you see differences in some task specific performance. would you attribute that to differences in the underlying hardware without knowing a thing about it?
  • by Grendel Drago (41496) on Friday August 26, 2005 @08:24AM (#13406365) Homepage
    From the summary:

    This simply begs the question of what use IQ tests are if they don't predict anything in the real world.

    No, it doesn't. That's not what begging the question means. Perhaps it raises that question. Begging the question is assuming the wanted conclusion.

    So, for instance, if the professor said, "IQ tests measure immutable intelligence. Women do less well on IQ tests. Therefore, women are less intelligent," when it's not precisely known if there is a single thing measurable as intelligence (as opposed to a number of factors which tend to correlate, but don't lend themselves to organizing humans on a Great Chain of Being, white boys up near the top and black folks down near the bottom.)

    Remember, Steven Jay Gould said that there are four factors that are necessary for this interpretation of intelligence: it must be reliably measurable. It must be a single linearly-rankable quality. It must be heritable (well, for the race-based portion of this trope). And it must be immutable. Drop any of those four (three for the sex-based portion) and the whole argument collapses.

    All that his data shows is a correlation between sex (or, elsewhere, race) and what is measured by IQ tests. (Did You Know that the Alfred Binet, inventor of IQ tests, was strongly opposed to any interpretation of IQ as a real thing instead of just an average, or of its being considered immutable? Yeah, he's been doing a slow rotisserie in his grave since Yerkes and Goddard brought his work to America.)

    Remember, folks, correlation ain't causation. Very basic stuff, here. And yet so persistent.

    --grendel drago
  • by Grendel Drago (41496) on Friday August 26, 2005 @09:32AM (#13406877) Homepage
    You will accept that Black people are (for example) more likely to develop anaemia than White people, or more likely to have curly hair than White people, and so on, but nobody treats Black people differently because of this. These are just irrelevant statistics.

    The reason why the debate over intelligence is so turbulent is because while saying "black folks get sickle-cell anemia more often" isn't an effort to place everyone on a partial order, to rank them and decide that one group is better than another. The effort to consider intelligence as a single number, as something unitary and immutable (and heritable, if we're talking about race) is irrevocably tied to the idea that we're all on a scale from nothingness to divine perfection---the same idea that leads to people thinking of "evolution" as inevitably proceeding "upward", of spiders and giant redwoods as "less evolved" than humans.

    This is a holdover from the idea of the Great Chain of Being, which was a method by which scientists used to arrange everything on a scale, with snot and rocks at the bottom, then monkeys and black people, then finally white people, angels and God. Except the angels and God weren't around, so white people were in charge. 'Cause that's the way it was meant to be.

    Do you see why talking about intelligence is different from talking about sickle-cell anemia?

    --grendel drago
  • Dr. Lynn makes a number of points, arguable and agreeable depending on your slant. I'm not going to argue with his research - that's stupid. I will argue with this conclusions. I think this is one of the better (or worst, if you prefer) examples of how academics use scholarly intelligence to make up for what they lack in common sense. Read his web page [rlynn.co.uk], and tell me if you agree on that point.
  • by raehl (609729) <raehl311&yahoo,com> on Friday August 26, 2005 @10:10AM (#13407239) Homepage
    If the measure of "intelligence" used is an IQ test,I don't find it surprising that white men are found to be, on average, more intelligent than either women or blacks. In fact, if the study is of IQ test results, that's exactly the result I'd expect.

    But not because white men are, at birth, smarter than black men or women. It's because you can be trained to do better at IQ tests, and also because IQ tests show a bias towards certain skills.

    If you have done a lot of problems that are similar to the problems on IQ tests, you'll do better at IQ tests. People who have access to good education will do better on IQ tests than people who do not, a trend that follows wealth, which in the United States at least, tends to follow race.

    I'd also expect men to do better on IQ tests than women because a lot of IQ test questions relate to spacial reasoning (figures that need to be manipulated in space), something men's brains may be better at doing that women's brains. This may make men naturally ore "intelligent" in regards to this particular subset of problems, but put some emotional reasoning questions on that IQ test and you may find that bias goes away.

    If you were to do this same study with POOR white people and POOR black people, at a young age, in the same set of school districts, I would guess you would find that the IQ scores were pretty much the same.

    Anyway, the moral ofthe story is that if this test is based on IQ test scores, it doesn't say 'Men are smarter than women". It says that "Men get better IQ test scores than women", which could very well just show a gender bias in the test.
  • Re:Oh boy... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rei (128717) on Friday August 26, 2005 @10:13AM (#13407271) Homepage
    I simply picked the wealthiest author since Marcus Aurelius. What, do you want me to do a statistical analysis of all authors?

    A lot of people don't realize just how wealthy she is. As I mentioned to a poster below who brought up Steven King - King's net worth is around 65m$. Rowling's is around 1B$.

    In modern times, excepting in technical fields (where there still is a gender gap) and historically male-dominated styles (such as sci-fi), female authors tend to be as high grossing or higher grossing than male authors.

    Some people here are only considering "classic" works as defining "great authors". This introduces a huge bias, however, because women used to be heavily, actively discouraged from professional work except for in a handful of fields (writing not among them).
  • by autopr0n (534291) on Friday August 26, 2005 @11:06AM (#13407798) Homepage Journal
    From the same guy [fair.org]: What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality. ... Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization? Slashdot posting stories from leading racists? Awsome.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26, 2005 @11:49AM (#13408252)
    Try naming some "realistic drama" type shows where the female characters are the smarter/in-charge/competent characters. That would be more convincing.

    Er... Crossing Jordan... The Closer... Law & Order (Realizing that it has had a 15yr run and an ensemble cast: The DA has been a woman, attorneys for the defense and prosecution are often female and very smart / competent, the captain of the detective squad is currently female and quite in charge, the medical examiner is female and smart...), add in SVU with Det. Olivia Benson and assistant DA Novak, Boston Legal (OK, only sometimes a drama... but Schmidt is a partner, and wouldn't you call her smarter / more competent / in-charge than Crane?), Veronica Mars (I haven't seen it, but appears to focus on the life of a smart 17yr old female private investigator). Maybe you watch the wrong shows.
  • by jafac (1449) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:34PM (#13408696) Homepage
    Try naming some "realistic drama" type shows where the female characters are the smarter/in-charge/competent characters.

    Profiler, Dark Angel, Firefly, Xena.

    Then again, I haven't had my satellite hooked up in about two years, so I don't know how shows are trending these days. All the above shows are "archaic".
  • by TaleSpinner (96034) on Friday August 26, 2005 @12:35PM (#13408703)
    > Try naming some "realistic drama" type shows where the female characters are the smarter/in-charge/competent characters. That would be more convincing.

    "The Closer"

  • by Harodotus (680139) * on Friday August 26, 2005 @02:02PM (#13409531) Homepage

    Attempting to find this answer for you I instead found a research paper (with references) that stated the opposite conclusion.

    From the article Gender Differences in Cognitive Functioning by Heidi Weiman [luc.edu]

    Before the advent of advanced brain imaging technologies, a large body of research accumulated on some of the behavioral characteristics indicative of the sex-related cognitive abilities of males and females. Behavioral studies, along with brain imaging research, autopsies, and animal research have begun to provide converging lines of evidence for some biological differences in the cognitive functioning of the sexes.

    The differences between the intellectual capacities of the sexes appear to be in patterns of ability, rather than in overall intellectual functioning (Kimura, 1992). Attention and perception, which occur at the earliest stages of information processing, appear to differ between the sexes and may ultimately provide some clues in regard to differences that occur later on in cognitive processing. Infant girls have been found to gaze longer at visual stimuli than boys, and males are much more likely to be diagnosed with attention related problems. Baker's review of sex-related perceptual differences (as cited in Halpern, 2000) suggests that there are variations in all of the sensory systems. Males tend to be more adept at dynamic visual acuity, which involves the ability to detect slight movements in the field of vision. Males are also more adept than females in temporal cognition, the ability to recognize the passage of time. Females tend to be more sensitive to touch, odors, taste, and sounds --much of which is detectable shortly after birth.

    Males have consistently shown an advantage in visual-spatial abilities, such as aiming at stationary or moving targets, as well as throwing and intercepting projectiles (Kimura, 1992). Males also perform better, and differently, than females in navigation. Whereas females are inclined to use landmarks as guides, males tend to rely on direction, distance, and geometric shapes for navigating their way through a route. Males also excel at quantitative problem solving, and mental rotation, or tasks involving the underlying cognitive processes of maintaining and manipulating a visual image in working memory (Halpern, 2000). It has been theorized that, evolutionarily, many of these abilities would have been important for survival when humans lived in hunter-gatherer societies, where males navigated unfamiliar terrain while hunting, and females foraged more nearby areas gathering food. An evolutionary theory regarding ADHD has been proposed as well. According to this theory, the ability to vigilantly scan the horizon, on alert to novel stimuli, such as stampeding buffalo, would have served the prehistoric hunter well (Hartmann, 2001). Recent genetic research suggests that there is scientific evidence to support this theory (Seay, 2002). It is conceivable that some cultures would value and reinforce different kinds of skills and behaviors, including perseverance and novelty-seeking, especially when advantageous to survival. Additionally, evidence on the evolution of the cerebral cortex suggests brain-behavior relationships, particularly in regard to the development of the prefrontal lobes, seat of the Executive Functions, including planning and organization, maintenance and flexibility of mental set, and self-regulation, such as delayed gratification and the inhibition of impulses --deficits often associated with ADHD.

    In 1995, Shaywitz et al. identified evidence for gender differences in the functional organization of the brain for language, in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study. Behaviorally, females have consistently shown an advantage for verbal abilities, including earlier language acquisition and longer attention spans than males for conversation (as cited in Kruger, 2001). Females also tend to excel at memory ta

  • by kidcharles (908072) on Friday August 26, 2005 @02:26PM (#13409756)
    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271 [fair.org]

    Here's some choice bits:

    Murray and Herrnstein describe Lynn as "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences." Here's a sample of Lynn's thinking on such differences: "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." (cited in Newsday, 11/9/94)


    Elsewhere Lynn makes clear which "incompetent cultures" need "phasing out": "Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?" (cited in New Republic, 10/31/94)


    This guy would be a cartoonish sci-fi villain if he wasn't real.
  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Friday August 26, 2005 @03:02PM (#13410055) Homepage Journal
    Males tend to be more adept at dynamic visual acuity, which involves the ability to detect slight movements in the field of vision. [...] Females also tend to excel at tasks involving manual dexterity and perceptual speed, such as visually identifying matching items.

    Hey, thanks for the info.
    Well, that sure kills the GP's "Visual Acuity falls as a no contest for women. ". There's a contest, right there!
    I knew that couldn't be right...

    From my art background, I can tell you one thing though: Women are (usually) better at colours, men at lines.

    In fact, in the comic book industry, women are usually colorists, or doing the word bubbles. While men (admitedly, there's more of them to begin with) are more likely to be pencillers or inkers.

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

Working...