Report Claims Men More Intelligent Than Women 1523
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."
Let me be the 1st (Score:3, Funny)
*SMACK*
Girlfriend: "Get back in line you stupid male."
Me: "Yes ma'am"
Re:Let me be the 1st (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let me be the 1st (Score:4, Informative)
So in conclusion -- according to him -- blacks and women are dumb. Caucasian males is the way to go.
Study worth nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the 1st (Score:5, Interesting)
No, he says no such thing. TFA refers to statistics. Differences in probablility and average. And the real significance is not in averages, but in the extremes.
Why do people get so upset at hearing claims that most geniuses are men, but will happily accept that most criminals are men? Did you know that the large majority of intellectually diabled people are male? Does that claim shock you too?
Secondly, "Caucasian males", as you put it, do not quite come out on top. [wikipedia.org]
Politically Correct != Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypothetically, in our enlightened modern climate of equality and fairness, even if were proven beyond doubt that (for example) men are more intelligent than women, would we accept it or (as most of the comments above, and on the BBC News feedback page) merely reject it out of hand?
Nobody would be up in arms if asian students were proven better at maths, or if gay people made better artists, or if women were proven more intelligent than men.
However, the first suggestion that the perceived majority group (straight white males) might be better than any minority, at anything, threatens us - just listen to the knee-jerk reaction of almost-unanimous disapproval.
The experimental procedure and results haven't been published yet - nobody even knows what the numbers are, how the trial was conducted or even what IQ test(s) were used, and yet here we have people who know nothing but a soundbite about the final conclusion of the study, already feeling justified in ripping it to shreds.
This has none of the justifications of considered intellectual doubt, and all of the hallmarks of instinctive emotional rejection.
Regarding the researcher's other work, does this necessarily prove he's a bigot? Could he (in fact) be merely discovering unexpected and therefore interesting statistical trends?
Racists claim that one race is unilaterally better than another, and this is (rightly) universally recognised as bad. However, wishful-thinking political correctness stipulates there's no difference between any groups of people, and this is clearly bullshit. Adults are stronger than kids. Men are generally stronger than women. Women are generally more empathic than men. And yes, black men on average have bigger (longer but thinner) penises than white men - look up the statistics.
These facts have been statistically proven time and time again, yet because they don't fit with our prevailing ideology we pretend they don't exist. This is no less intellectually dishonest than creationists who selectively ignore evidence that contradicts their position.
If we truly believing in science, mathematics and rationality means sometimes having to confront facts or possibilities that make us uncomfortable. Putting our hands over our ears and singing "Lalalalalala" is just as bad when we do it as when the ID or creationist crew do the same.
Assuming the study's accurate and valid, does this mean that women are stupid? No, it means that the average woman is (almost unmeasurably) less "intelligent" (whatever that means) than the average man. It means that men are more likely to be geniuses, not that women can't be.
Get down off your high-horses, reign in the emotion and behave in the same way we demand of the creationists - rational, sensible, and valuing Correct thoughts over Comfortable ones.
Re:Politically Correct != Correct (Score:5, Interesting)
In many cases the issue of intelligence differences is probably the best way to describe men vs women. Women are different than men. Their sensory perception and attention focus is as a group very different from men. Visual Acuity falls as a no contest for women. Attention to tedious jobs falls as a no contest for women. Mathematical and Logical Thinking falls to men each of these differences have pretty wide differences. These are well documented.
As to the racial differences these too are unbelievably well documented. There are wide racial differences in intelligence and behavior. These include temper and acuity in understanding of various subjects. Contrary to the test bias claims these can be verified by some pretty basic tests that are done at birth and measure only function. Being and RN I have been trained in such evaluations. If you will note, I am treading lightly here because I am not telling who is who. The data has been there for a very long time that there are big differences. These are not some esoteric minor inflections. They range from edge perception detection of motion being present in nearly all persons of some races to not appearing in persons of other races until about age 1. These range from temper differences of response being quite passive to outright violent to the same stimuli. Yes the Irish are more tempermental than the English. (Hense the "Fighting Irish") Race you see is not just black and white.
To be more specific, asians who are yellow or light brown skinned (generally because there are some exception races there) are the highest scoring on tests of visual acuity and moderate temper. They also score highest on mathematical skills. European whites range from this level in the north Germanic areas down to average in central europe and much below average in the balkins. (Hense the English word Moron, coming from people from the Albaina region -- Look up city names for fun folks) These of course are group averages. Black races have considerable ranges as well. I suppose I would be called a racist if I note their levels and so to prevent the Moderator Idiot curve from hitting me I will let readers guess here.
Have fun people, there is a wide and quite well known set of variances in people by race and by sex. But to print it is to suffer unscientific assault and to be wiped out in Political Correctness. Mods... Get a Life and quit calling Troll the facts.
Re:Missunderstanding (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are emotions and logical understanding mutually incompatible? Show me the emotion that doesn't have a logical cause? If I'm angry with someone, I have a reason. If I'm afraid of something, then I have a reason. It is not always wise to act on these feelings straight away but that has little to do with whether I can comprehend them or not.
Girls tend to do better at school (statistically shown many times) than boys because girls tend to study more. But I make the case that study, both through learning from others and from excercising the memory and analytical capabilities of the brain, does increase that hard to define thing called intelligence.
But the most important thing to consider when reading this report is that there are over six billion people on this planet and that's a lot of people to generalize over. I'm not going to dispense with the scientific method just because of the subject matter, but if it were the case that men were more intelligent than women on average, then that statistical difference would have to be enormous to justify taking it into consideration in daily life. And it clearly isn't, or people wouldn't be debating this.
We'll have to wait for the actual paper to be published to see what the basis is, since TFA(s) contain nothing except flamebait. But research into this has been going on for a long time so which has come first? The definition of intelligence and the realization that men fit it best? Or the ever finer analysis of the differences between men and women and the definition of intelligence based on that? Surely the latter should be considered as a factor as by this stage in the game, no scientist designing these tests is entering the field without prior knowledge of these differences.
And does it make a difference to how you evaluate this post if you knew whether I was male or female? Because it shouldn't, but this report implies it should.
Re:Missunderstanding (Score:4, Interesting)
With this in mind, one would sincerely hope that both genders are equipped with a full set of emotions.
Re:Missunderstanding (Score:4, Insightful)
This issue, like abortion, religion and others like that (...emacs vs. vi - oops, perhaps that doesn't go here) is so loaded that there is nobody there who is capable of serously and objectivly conducting an investigation of this.
The bigger problem with this, the way I see it, is that before we even get to comparing men vs. women, we need to define what "intelligence" is and how to measure it.
Interestingly there is an accepted and known test for machine intelligence --the Turing test, but for humans it is not as clear. Is a tribesman from Africa less intelligent than me? He knows how to kill a lion, while I might know what a Hilbert space is, so who is more intelligent?
Until there is a concrete and accepted definition of human intelligence there can be no study about who is more intelligent than whom.
One might as well say that "men have been shown to be better at 'blah' then women, while women consistently outperform men at 'foo', and both are equally good at 'x'." Untill those 'blah', 'foo' and 'x' are defined the statement will make no sense.
Re:Missunderstanding (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everything that gets flamed is flamebait.
This issue, like abortion, religion and others like that (...emacs vs. vi - oops, perhaps that doesn't go here) is so loaded that there is nobody there who is capable of serously and objectivly conducting an investigation of this.
There are FEW people capable of seriously and objectively investigating it, but far fewer who are willing to listen to them.
The bigger problem with this, the way I see it, is that before we even get to comparing men vs. women, we need to define what "intelligence" is and how to measure it.
FTFA:
I.Q. tests aren't perfect, far, far from it, I tend to say that they measure your ability to take an I.Q. test more than your intelligence, but it's something that can be measured, logged, and compared.
This study is interresting. It's not comforting, it's not in line with the current vogue of "everyone is the same" discourse, but that's no reason to NOT do the study, nor to refrain from publishing it.
If you want to debate the interpretation of the results, or the methodology, please, be my guest.
But if you object to the study itself because it's subject is sensitive, by god, STFU&GBTW!
Re:Let me be the 1st (Score:4, Funny)
Trying to imitate hip-hop or rap or whatever they're calling the bunch of guys with a rhyme dictionary and a drum machine nowadays.
It's funny 'cause of your sig.
No offense - just like the "poetic" irony
Re:Let me be the 1st (Score:4, Insightful)
Extremist religion. No shit, that's a large part of where Muslim extremists are getting there support in the west--Muslim kids trying to piss off their moderate parents. Fanatacism is the new punk. But it'll pass...
Re:Let me be the 1st (Score:3, Funny)
Of course our intelligence would be skewed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Since I'm a smart man... (Score:5, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new male overlords.... wait..."new"?
gag two:
If only there were some sexy chicks to say say gag one without the last bit, but I am afraid the situations a lot more grim that that. For one, no women will say that. And two, even if they did, it wouldn't be to anyone on slashdot.
gag three:
You know how there is a "womyn's room" in every uni? The idea being it's women without the "men". I want you to set up a "myn's" club in your local uni - our catchphrase will be "putting the myn back in womyn". Spread the meme.
</male crypto-fascist patriarchal bigotry>
</all that is funny and amusing>
wait... second closing tag is redundant.
try teh veal!!1
Re:Since I'm a smart man... (Score:5, Funny)
Ours is called the "Physics lab".
Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if we could just find a way to explain this to the ladies, there'd be much less unhappiness in this world.
Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:5, Insightful)
At the risk of ruining the joke... there is something to this. Not the ability to literally read minds, but the ability to detect and interpret the subtle non-verbal cues people display that can provide information regarding their mental and emotional state -- for example, a repositioning of the posture of the shoulders, or a slight change in breathing pattern, a miniscule change in facial coloring, or even possibly a change in pheromone composition. I suspect that when women get frustrated with men for "just not knowing" things, it is because they (the women) are used to being easily able to pick up these subtle hints themselves at a subconscious level, and therefore they take having that skill for granted and expect that everyone should be able to do it.
Many men, on the other hand, prefer explicit/formal communication and either dismiss these non-verbal cues as unimportant, or (just as likely) are unable to reliably detect them at all. This is especially the case among the borderline-Aspberger's-Syndrome types that like to frequent Slashdot (you all know who you are
Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps men tend to "go formalistic" and women tend to "just make-believe" but if so (and I don't believe it myself) then isn't that just a perfect example of "conveniently" removing a question rather than actually thinking about it?
"because they (the women) are used to being easily able to pick up these subtle hints themselves at a subconscious level"
Sorry but I find this to be 100% total bullshit (just like the "news"), nobody understands nobody else instinctively - they just think they do. It's just a matter of having enough similar assumptions in the lower level inner workings of the indivduals thought: people who have similar interpreations of similar experiences tend to "instinctively" understand each other although they of course do nothing of the sort; they simply jump to the same conclusions in the same manners (and usually when they find they were wrong in those assumptions and "instinct" they fool themselves into believing otherwise).
This is exactly what happens in "male bonding" or any situation where you get to know a person close enough for long enough. Experience enough with said person and you will have enough "data" (common experiences) to "know" things (or at least think you do). Even with a very big amount of data (like living with someone for years and years) there will be the possibility of new "surprises" both because people change and because the generalisations one has based the interpretations on are just that: generalisations rather than constant reflection and dessication of though.
It is also the reason why people have a hard time understanding those with contrary opinions and tend to behave like sheep. To avoid this not only does one have to identify every presumption and assumption one makes and convey this clearly to explain ones own reasoning, but in addition the majority of opposing opinions involved have to do the same and everybody has to be willing to do it this way. Language (speech, written, body, or otherwise implied) and other "cues" is a seriously imprecise method of communication when these things are simply glossed over (for examples read any media reporting on anything from any perspective or see the ususal Slashdot flamefests on anything (or at least anything remotely political)).
The above does not neccessarily apply when people actually spend some time to actually think and reflect, but that is uncommon enough during public discourse in society as a whole to be valid in statistical generalisations (and such generalisations are usually worthless anyway - que the "news").
One of the primary reasons why this "real communication" is so rare should be obvious: it's very timeconsuming and most people aren't that interested in "whatever" even if it concerns a husband, wife, family, or friends - they just want to feel "ok" and in an environment where they don't have to bother too much while still feeling "appreciated" and "understood".
Anyway, when people don't "get" each other and are bewildered and confused they usually either get uncomfortable and shy away or blame it on whatever scapegoat is socially acceptable within their frame of reference i.e. "men are insensitive", "women are bitches", "Bush is Hitler", "commie liberals" or any other such mindless crap we all use intermittently.
All the above applies to me as well of course - I'm not that different.
Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, this is all anecdotal, but it has been my experience. I would expect that it's the simple fact that most men and women expect the opposite sex to think the same way they do... which they kindof sortof do, but with generally different low-level priorities and therefore different results.
How often do you hear women talking about how their man won't share his feelings? I bet every one of his guy friends understands how he feels without him having to explain it in detail.
Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:5, Funny)
The answer is...horny! And I don't even have to know the dude.
Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:5, Interesting)
On a more serious note, it's worth pointing out that it's been known for some time that men have a wider range of IQ at both ends of the scale. Although men may, on average, be slighly brighter than women, at the top end of the scale men outnumber women 5-1, but that's also true at the bottom end of the scale. More of the really stupid people are male too.
Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:4, Funny)
Of the married people I know, about 95% of the women are 'in charge.' Maybe the guys walk around and think they are running the show, but when it comes down to it, it is typically the woman.
It's probably a good thing too...I would do far more stupid stuff if my wife wasn't there to tell me what a stupid idea it was.
On the other hand, I would have a lot more fun...
It's like your mom telling you to wear a sweater. It's not fun, but you'll be a lot more comfortable if you listen.
Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:5, Funny)
Q: Why do men die before their wives?
A: Because they want to.
When you get married, you will realize that this is in fact sad, but true.
Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh oh! (Score:5, Funny)
Richard Lynn, the emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, will never get laid again.
Re:Uh oh! (Score:5, Interesting)
In a competitive social environment, there is a tactical advantage to being a little smarter than people think you are. Apparently women are a bit more in touch with this strategy. Run the study again, but tell them there's a $100 payoff for scores over 125, and watch the scores jump.
I might be wrong, but it's testable.
Re:Uh oh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, men are groomed from childhood to be smart, be athletic, make money, get a hot girlfriend or wife and work for a living their entire life.
Women are groomed to be cute, pretty and attract a rich, athletic, successful, smart man.
Women have as much potential as men. It's just a matter of where we, as a society, influence them to go. Girls are never praised for being so smart, but you're praised for being so cute and adorable the day you're born, then hot and sexy the rest of your life after some teen-ish age.
Re:Uh oh! (Score:4, Insightful)
(Will this post survive the political-correctness police? Lets watch...)
Oh boy... (Score:5, Funny)
Double Standards.
Re:Oh boy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lynn and others have published on this before. I haven't read this paper, but "men are smarter" is probably still a gross oversimplification of the data.
Re:Oh boy... (Score:5, Informative)
It has to be something about instability of that Y chromosome. The X seems to be much more stable.
Re:Oh boy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, J.K. Rowling is holed up in her thousand acre castle trying to decide whether to buy and sell the queen.
Re:Oh boy... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's easy to see why evolution would favor this outcome. Evolution favors any benefit that increases the probability of gene survival, which correlates with amount of reproduction. A woman who survives has a probability of attempting to reproduce (obtaining intercourse) of approximately 1. That is, nearly every woman who's capable of surviving is capable of getting a guy to have sex with her. Men, on the other hand, face a much more precarious situation. One highly successful male might copulate with many different women, while an unsuccessful male may never get the chance to reproduce at all.
Game theory tells us that, (ceteris paribus) lower chances of obtaining a goal, as well as exponential gains in the case of success, are both formulas that favor using a higher risk strategy. Thus, a higher standard deviation. Evolution is set up to favor greater genetic risk taking in males than in females.
Battle? (Score:5, Insightful)
uh oh (Score:3, Funny)
The good professor (Score:5, Informative)
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.
My first thought (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, paradoxically, this means something very strange. When a woman gets involved in a nerdy subject (like open source software) she often gets preferential treatment on the email lists. Why? because the nerds are all in awe that a woman is interested in this stuff. Unfortunately, I am not the only one to notice this.....
I will admit that I used to be much more sexist in this way than I am now. Now, because my free time is much more variable, I don't take as much time to care about whether the email was written by a man or a woman.....
Re:The good professor (Score:4, Insightful)
Reports? (Score:5, Funny)
But, by god, we aren't going to let that stop us, are we?!
Some Researchers Aren't Getting Any Tonight... (Score:3, Funny)
IQ does predict stuff in the real world (Score:5, Interesting)
I have not read the article yet, but the last study I read that dealt with IQ (the controversial study on Ashkenazi genetic diseases and intelligence) cited some sources saying that IQ testing is the best known predictor for salary, family stability, and a whole bunch of other things.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prevent Misinformation: Mod Parent UP (Score:3, Insightful)
All it says is people with high IQs do better by some chosen metric(s), in general, than people with low IQs - by design. The test itself may have value in that somehow it is measuring existing thought process. I cannot see how it measures potential (unless it
How can this be controversial? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate how people get all pissed off and offended by "controversial" studies like this. If the study was done correctly, then there's really nothing you can do except shutup and live with it or do your own study that proves it wrong.
If the study was done correctly, then getting offended by the results is like getting offended when somebody says "The sky is blue." You just look like an idiot, no matter what gender you are.
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever, the point is you judge the paper based on it's own merits. You do not read the brief conclusion in the abstract and start decrying it just because you don't like what it says. The truth is not always what you want ot hear and what you agree with, so just because you disagree doesn't make it wrong.
You yourself are guilty of this, you immediatly launched an ad homenim attack. You claim this guy is a proponent of Eugenics, and infer that therefore his paper is worthless. Further you use a straw man in saying that he favours shutting down ideas he disagrees with. Both of these presented with no proof.
Now frankly, I don't know if these are true, and I'm not going to take the time to research it, because I just don't care. The point is simple: IS the paper good research? I won't know until I've read it, so I'm certianly not going to start villifying it. Who cares who the author is? Science is not a popularity contest, it's not a democracy. It's a way of knowing about the universe. Thus you judge scientific research based on it's own merits, is the research sound or not.
I am a MAN. (Score:4, Funny)
That's what kind of man I am.
You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us.
It's science.
(Obligatory Ron Burgundy)
Even If True (Score:3, Insightful)
PC Nazi's in 3...2...1... (Score:3)
Even if a study proved beyond a shadow of a doubt something which is not "PC", you'd have people disagreeing with it simply out of emotion.
It's doubtful that this study proves anything, but it won't stop people from making knee-jerk reactions to it.
Role of women in society. (Score:5, Insightful)
Society tells women to be stupid and popular and then asks itself why women, on average, seem less inteligent than men.
Tell your niece to turn off her fucking TV. (Score:5, Funny)
THANK YOU! (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny? Insightful! I wish your message would catch on universally - and for boys, too.
I just sent my little girl to kindergarten for the first time last week. I sat her down and had a heart-to-heart talk about what school would be like. I told her about how fun it's going to be to get better at reading, and learning math, and seeing the world of science, and I could see her eyes light up at the idea of the wonders in front of her.
I also told her that some people would tell her that girls can't learn or do as much as boys. I told her that those people are stupid and scared, and most importantly, wrong. She's lucky in that she has an automatic counterproof: my wife's a doctor, and graduated from Army Airborne school while in ROTC. My daughters and son know what women can do because their mommy showed them.
I also want the other little girls (and boys) to know that while there are differences between all of us, each individual can rise to the level they want. People who would tell them otherwise are murderers, as far as I'm concerned.
Re:Role of women in society. (Score:5, Interesting)
The telling detail is that all the shows you listed as examples are comedies. Their purpose is to get the audience to laugh, and one way they do this is by presenting a situation that is the opposite of what the audience would expect: in this case, instead of the male being the competent leader, it's the female who is smart and makes him look bad, to humorous effect.
Try naming some "realistic drama" type shows where the female characters are the smarter/in-charge/competent characters. That would be more convincing.
Penises. (Score:3, Funny)
If you're going to pursue this silliness (Score:3, Interesting)
A brief setup for the debate reads:"...on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes."
With nothing to go on (Score:5, Insightful)
I would be willing to bet that if a woman were to come up with an IQ test that women would do better at it than men.
Being smart doesn't make you better at anything other than being smart. If you can add two 8 digit numbers in your head then great. If you can lift a car over your head, good for you. If you can stomach the sight of blood enough to become a doctor, guess what... good for you.
Women, men, children, black, white, grey, whatever.... who you are is not defined by what you can do better than others. Nobody is the best at everything. Some people throw great parties or know how to make others laugh and feel better about themselves. If that is their greatest skill then so be it. Everyone should be happy with themselves or at least be given sufficient opportunity to be happy with themselves.
If your only way to be happy about yourself is to be better at something than others, find a new hobby.
Old Psych Joke (Score:4, Informative)
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
Go to any 'online dating' site... (Score:3)
Do I need say any more?
Ok you insisted, in two words:
'dick pics'
At least a guy has two heads to think with. Trouble is its usually the smaller of the two that prevails.
Intresting replies (Score:3, Insightful)
One women was openly offended. Almost all of then seemed to be offended. Not a single women accepted the study.
Some men belived the study and were delited about its results. Most of the men didn't belive the study.
Some replies didn't belive the study because of their "personal experience". Few women belive in
somekind of conspiracy. One male doesn't seem to belive it science. Also few men point out the fact that men tend to have higher variance in IQ tests. They seem to suspect that the results were in fact measuring this.
Not a single person considered to read the study before commenting on it. Not even Maria from Sheffield who was "suprised that a academic journal is even considering this publication".
I think that this Maria is not alone and we hear lots of similar comments. And they are listened. Welcome to an age where academic journals screen articles based on the results not the methodology.
Familial experience is proof (Score:5, Funny)
Then I ask my dad if he wants more elaboration, but he just shakes his head and turns away, because he OBVIOUSLY gets it.
QED!
- shadowmatter
No good for proper English :-( (Score:3, Insightful)
God do I hate that misuse.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question [wikipedia.org]:
"Begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occuring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises"
Why is measuring intelligence taboo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps that's because correlating these measurements with any kind of social categorization, whether it be race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, eye color, etc ignites a socially unacceptable controversy. If these correlations are taken seriously, it often leads to attempts at eugenics and strengthens discrimination against the group that is deemed "less intelligent". These correlations are not false in that they violate generally accepted statistical practices, it's just that we feel that we're better off not knowing and entertaining the illusion that all are roughly equal.
If our modern atheist society has a religion which facilitates social cohesion than this is probably part of it: That we're all of equal ability and if we just work at it anyone has the same chance of acheiving a goal as anyone else. Intelligence correlations contradict this idea directly and are therefore considered heresy and hence are taboo.
Two Heads Are Better Than One (Score:5, Funny)
"OK, from now on, I'll make all the hard decisions, and you'll just make all the easy decisions."
Since then, we haven't had a single hard decision to make yet.
Yes and no (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, 'intelligence' is extremely tricky to define, composed of dozens of different dimensions. It's possible that women do better at certain areas than men, and vice versa.
This also is an average. It doesn't mean that every woman is inferior to every man, as some people will assume this means.
Yeah, whatever... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
How do you know this? (Score:4, Informative)
Apples and Oranges (Score:4, Interesting)
I simply do not regard this gentleman's research to have any bearing on me or the makeup of my mind. I am not insipid or stupid. I am sure I am ignorant of subjects that hold little interest for me just like many others, male or female.
If some men want to be brash and make a cockup of things in the world, let them dine on cheese and wine. I have more fruitful endeavors to pursue such as my own education, my contributions to society as a worker, educator, and a mother to my future children.
Though some men would like to dimiss us, women have played significant roles in the development of men. That is no small feat. Raising children is a critical process of life and a daunting one.
Women have a great capacity to contribute to the world just like men. We have in fact contributed many things in various fields.
Society plays a huge role in grooming people. Of course, there is a certain amount of free will, but conditioning is a powerful thing. As a woman, when I look at magazines, television, etc, women are not treated the same as men. Women are provided with superficial imagery and the conditioning it imposes, which is to be beautiful, be thin, be popular, date (i.e. date good looking or someone with money) guys, get married and have children.
Things are not not as rigid like they were in the past. However, the importance of looks and stereotypical female roles of the past are still blindly emphasized and are jejune.
Stereotypes are one of the biggest issues facing everyone and women. However, there is also the ingracious facet of human behavior of survival of by any means necessary, and if this means, subverting a group within the human race to make sure another is on top, it will happen. It seems one of the faults of our design.
It could have always worked the other way around with women on top and men on bottom. Unfortunately, women, as a collective majority, not speaking individually, have begrudgely faced this assimiliation into a stereotypical, conditioned servitude for some time now.
When we do speak up, we are often dismissed, belittled, or made fun of. I really wish that the men out there who feel inclined to inflict pain upon us, put us down, etc could really understand how much they are undermining society due to a selfish, egotistic, ingrating need to be top dog.
NOTE: I say some men not all.
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
- taking the research to be directed at each woman individually
- suggesting the research and researchers are biased
- behaving as though the difference was much greater than it actually is
- assuming that women are only the victims and never the perpetrators
This scientific study shows there is a difference between the average man and average woman. It says nothing of any two given individuals.A difference of 5 points is small. It is so small that I have no doubts that one's messured IQ would vary by more than that from day to day. Which leads me to ask why there is no margin of error included in the numbers. I would be most interested to see how they arrived at their numbers.
But, I would not say that the researcher or research is biased. With the current state of science, I would not be surprised to find that the methodology was suspect or that the outcome incorrect due solely to poor work.
You state:
Interestingly, you totally ignore the following- In the media, men are portrayed as:
- Incompetent, sloppy, conivings, lazy oafs, especially in "comedies" where they are paired with smart, capable, attractive women.
- Ugly, mean, vicious criminals.
- Poor, abusive, uncaring failures.
- Rich, handsome, successfuly business men
- Rich, powerful, ugly men with trophy wives
- A good portion of the greeting card industry thrives on portaying men in the worst terms. Try a little experiment: Go to a card shop and pick out some of the "humorous" ones involving men and women and reverse the sexes and ask yourself "Would this card be sold like that?"
- In many instances, if a man is accused of a crime, especially a sex crime, the man is automatically considered, and treated, as guilty. In a He said/She said situation, what She said is considered truth. Also, as we have seen recently in my home state of Florida, if a woman has sex with a young teen she is considered "sick" and in need of help, not inprisonment. If a man were to do the same, there would be calls for life sentences, castration, and execution. She is "mentally ill and in need of care" and he is a monster deserving of the worst punishments imaginable.
- Many women's groups lie. My favorite is the statement that spouse abuse complaints and emergency room visits jump drastically on Superbowl Sunday in the US. This has been proven false. It was made up on the spot during a press conference.
- Women are just as shallow as men, but do not own up to it. And, often they are even more mercenary.
Perhaps you are just blind to anything that does not directly effect you.why the outrage? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
NOTE: I'm ripping on the car insurance, not advocating paying women less. It's all foolishness.
Erm (Score:3, Insightful)
Depending on my mood, I find it annoying or amusing that people would be up in arms for saying that men are more intelligent, but nobody thinks twice when someone says that women are more intuitive. If these recent studies and conventional wisdom are to be believed, then both statements are equally correct.
Lets make bullet points (Score:4, Funny)
- men orgasm before sex is complete (woman need to do it before the man... or no chance).
- men make women cook... woman just do it
- men encourage woman to shave sensitive areas... we refuse.
Woman
- hold men hostage by their penis
- can be a bitch a few days a month, and blame it on biologicial processes (and blame men somehow)
- scream for equal rights... except when the draft comes around... then "gender roles are essential in society".
- can orgasm in the shower without getting a cramp from stroking (damn waterpik's).
Testosterone (Score:5, Funny)
The real issue is what if the opposite where true? (Score:3, Insightful)
A much better study is underway... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, I might be biased since I was a participant in one of the first cohorts, but it's certainly worth a look if you're interested in this kind of thing.
An unbalanced debate (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah, Slashdot's a fair place to have this argument. Men outnumber women about 100:1 around here.
As if the argument wasn't already skewed enough, it's completely unfair since we're smarter than them.
That's not begging the question. (Score:4, Informative)
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
Author is a huge racist. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just in... (Score:5, Funny)
You haven't made management yet?
KFG
Re:Just in... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
IQ versus Bogosity (Score:4, Insightful)
There is so much confusion about the notions of intelligence, cleverness, wisdom, creativity, etc., etc. that belief in the signficance of IQ testing only proves someone to be an elitist fool--usually because that person "does well" on certain tests.
By the way, I almost always score in the top 1% on every standardized written test, including IQ tests. The only exception I can recall was the LSAT, where I only scored in the top 10%. However, I'm not foolish enough to think those tests indicate anything of significance.
Re:IQ versus Bogosity (Score:3, Insightful)
You said yourself how they're significant:
What the tests actually measure is a kind of similarity metric between the testees and the authors' of the test.
In this regard, tests like the GRE give you very significant information. They answer the question "Do you fit in?"
We can rightly call the study "garbage" that uses a similarity metric like IQ to measure intelligence. Dismissing all standardized testing, as you already (
Re:Mod parent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mod parent (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Mod parent (Score:5, Insightful)
I base this on a couple of things you wrote.
What a clear example of the harm of using non-scholarly sourcing (for the record, I love Wikipedia for getting a general idea of a topic, but I would never use it as an authoritative source on a complicated topic such as this one).
Even worse than these flaws, though, is your conclusion that "there may be some truth to it."
The only reason you might consider this harmful is if you already believe what the source suggests is false. It's unlikely that you would claim that that there was much harm in believing a non-scholarly source if what that source was claiming what you believed already to be true.
I also said that there may be something to it. And there might. There is no evidence that you've given that rules it out. If anything, you're the one implying the much stronger claim that there is no relationship.
How can you make such a strong claim? The only thing that might engender that level of confidence in you without strong evidence is ideological, not scientific, thinking.
If you think you've got evidence that rules out a connection between race and intelligence then let's have it. Until then you can keep your sense of moral superiority to yourself. I'm not interested in what you think should be true or comforting.
Re:Problem is (Score:5, Funny)
Eight types of intelligence (Score:5, Informative)
Why no "basketball" or "breakdancing" intelligence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EQ (emotional intelligence) (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody complains that women and asian people are smaller on average then men and african people, but when it comes to IQ, seems every group on average should get the same average (men, women, caucasian, black, rich, poor, Britney Spears fans, music lovers, and so on). Absurd.
Why should these quotient measurements give equal score to all sides? Why would nature divide intelligence equally between gender and races?
All Political Correct crap to me.
Re:EQ (emotional intelligence) (Score:4, Insightful)
Balancing logic and emotion means to balance the man with the beast.
Re:EQ (emotional intelligence) (Score:5, Informative)
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:EQ (emotional intelligence) (Score:3, Insightful)
EQ "tests" were validated with samples that are NOT available to scientific scrutiny. The samples are property of a company (forgot the name), and are not being released on basis of intellectual property. All of you people, who read that EQ tests are valid and read the validation scores - must take them as they are - you will not be able to check them personally.
Replication studies h
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I was, uh, not white.
Incidentally, I get treated like SHIT compared to women, simply because I am, in a word, unattractive.
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. And you have?
Re:History, people, history (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am so tired of hearing that. It didn't take YOU years to get anything. YOU haven't been treated as ANYTHING for centuries. I am willing to bet you haven't been alive for a third of a century, let alone a full century. Last I checked, you had a bunch of rights, as well as laws and government agencencies to protect those rights.
No, but I have been denied due process, discrimated against at work, been DENIED positions, been objectified as a source of income and security, been judged on my appearance... All because I am an intellegent overweight white male who generally makes good money.
To use a favorite phrase of so many women, GET OVER IT.
Re:why? (Score:4, Interesting)
At least in the european societies, that just isn't true for at least 2000 years.
If a ship sunk, who got to the lifeboats? "women and children first"
During the centuries, women were treated differently as men - that's true - however they weren't ever treated as "a lesser human", quite to the contrary, a women's life was regarded to be worthy a lot more than the life of a man.
Actually if you look at suicide rates, it seems that women were never as unhappy as today.
Einstein (Score:3, Funny)