What James Flynn's data actually reveals about gender differences in intelligence. Read More
My extremely square, straight-laced and conservative brother once told me that "Women will never be the equals of men, they will always be their superior!" - I was blown over, I never expected such a statement from him. He was totally sincere, he wasn't joking.
You said"Today I was treated to a talk from Richard Flynn in Cambridge, England"
Who is Richard? I think you were thinking of Dr. Richard Lynn who is Flynn's opponent in this issue.I hope we will hear from Lynn, Rushton, Nyborg,... about Flynn's claims.
James Flynn has mentioned on dailymail article that he has "collated IQ examination results from countries in western Europe and from the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina and Estonia". However, he only mentioned three countries and ignores the rest of the collected data which might contradict his conclusion.He also said:"I suspect that the same trends are happening in Britain, too, although the data is too sparse to be sure."!!!
What kind of research is that?!
Could you ask one of your colleages like Dr. Kanazawa, Dr. Lynn or other researchers in this field to give their opinion about Flynn's recent claims?
I've been looking at IQ data for a long time and men and women have always scored about the same on g-loaded tests. Even the bad studies conducted that have found somewhat significant mean differences only find small ones. I had a gut feeling the media completely distorted this story because it didn't make any sense at all when checked with decades of research on this issue. Good to see I was right. Flynn's data shows men and women have reached parity on Raven's, not that one gender has surpassed the other in IQ. This is what one would expect if the two sexes are equally intelligent to begin with.
Vierotchka, strangely, my fairly liberal, atheistic niece believes that men are superior, "because of evolution." Go figure!! Everyone has their opinion I suppose.
Also, Scott, I'm pretty sure Flynn gathered data from Estonia, not Astonia.
Thanks for your comment, and pointing out my geographical mistake! By the way, you posted as Anonymous, but who are you? Clearly you are in the field.
Scott, no problem. I realized that I forgot to enter my name! I'm not a psychologist or psychometrician, I'm a political scientist that looks at demographic data, so I know a thing or two about basic statistics and how to correctly interpret them.
Scott, your article effectively, but unnecessarily, destroys a notion that few well-informed people still believed. But it leaves another, even more crucial notion untouched.
Rather long ago it was quite firmly established that the MEAN IQs of men and women were roughly equivalent. Any male chauvinist still insisting otherwise is willfully ignorant. But, the very same studies establishing those similar means also indicated that the STANDARD DEVIATION was considerably greater for males than for females.
Even a novice at statistics knows what this means--among approximately equal populations of males and females, there would be more, in fact many more, VERY high and VERY low scores among the males. It takes a relatively small difference in standard deviation to produce enormous differences in absolute numbers at the extremes (both high and low) in large populations like those of the US and Europe.
Why is this important? Because, obviously, it is at the extreme high end that revolution-producing genius is found.
The number of people capable of doing genuinely breakthrough work in mathematics, theoretical physics, etc. is tiny--perhaps a half dozen, maybe a dozen in the world at any given time in each field. Even a small difference in standard deviation would insure that virtually all of these would be men. And a quick glance at the list of breath-taking accomplishments in these fields SINCE WOMEN HAVE ACHIEVED EDUCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL EQUALITY shows no reduction in the historical male dominance.
Why must this fact be pointed out? Because the present, and undoubtedly future, male dominance (to the point of virtual exclusivity) in the pantheon of true luminaries in these fields IS NOT and WILL NOT BE indicative of continuing discrimination at the societal or familial level but just a genetic fact of life.
@Roger S: You write like a whiny narcissist who is suffering from andropause. You also sound very intimidated by women.
Also, for the record, all of these psychologists are just that--psychologists. Their understanding of math is very basic. Using a normal distribution to analyze intelligence is an embarrassment to mathematics/statistics. Slapping a normal distribution on human phenomena looks cute and gives nice, pat little answers, but it is fundamentally logically degenerate. I should know, I am a mathematical statistician who has done original research on these distributions.
To anonymous—I don't blame you for wanting to remain anonymous when, without evidence or logic, you make assorted childish allegations about me.
But assuming you're capable of rational discussion, I'd be interested in hearing the basis for your dismissal of “normal distributions” in the arena of human behavior, or as you colorfully put it, “Slapping a normal distribution on human phenomena looks cute and gives nice, pat little answers, but it is fundamentally logically degenerate”. Why is it logically degenerate?
As for human intelligence and gender, just as it's true that males predominate at the high end, it's also true that they predominate at the low end. And there's a very good reason for these related facts. A number of genes playing important roles in intelligence are located on the X chromosome. Although females have two X chromosomes, one of the two in every cell of the female body is deactivated in the womb, while males' single X is fully operational in all cells. This has powerful ramifications. If a mutation affecting intelligence, positively or negatively, occurs in an egg cell, and that egg is eventually fertilized and goes on to become a male human being, that mutation's full effects will be experienced by the male. However if that same mutated X becomes a female, the presence of a second, non-mutated X and the deactivation process described above means that the mutation will only be exerting effects in half the cells of her body, including only half of the brain cells. Thus its impact will be greatly diluted, for good (in the case of maladaptive mutations) or ill (in the case of mutations that produce genius).
I hope, Anonymous, that you respond more maturely to this argument than you did to the last.
Your "very good reasons" aren't supported by facts or scientific evidence. They are just the ramblings of a female superiority obsessed little man.
I pity your kind.
As an unabashedly female superiority obsessed big man, I assure you that I need not be pitied, and nor do the ideologically assenting, at least not inherently, but I vehemently defend your liberty to proffer your sincere or rhetorical pity as you may. Regardless, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to consult any and all corroboratively authoritative sources, irrespective of leanings; as it stands, my understanding of sociology is inimitably limited to publically accessible, online resources, barring the prospect of altruism on the part of fellow internet users. I attribute this primarily to the fact that I possess no extant, academically sanctioned credentials, and that no feasible means of procuring the requisite faculties to subvert this stipulation presently avails itself to me.
k now thats out the way imma just say if any yall r mens rights tards gtfo u know u dont belong here. also ladies dont believe the hype the smarter the sexier any dude sayin otherwise on some rapist shit and i got ways of dln with them types aight? peace yall :D
Another anonymous, this time with a background in biological sciences. Bravo on grasping genetic underpinnings of these differences. Supporting studies date back as far as nineties and are easy to find. Strange that our statistically gifted friend neglected biological reality during her "original research".
You nailed it.
The key issue here is not the average intelligence, it is roughly equal between the sexes, indeed the vast majority of studies have shown men to be 5 points higher on average.
The key issue that is being overlooked is the relative IQ distributions.
Men's IQs are more spread across the spectrum whereas women's are more grouped around the middle.
This makes evolutionary sense.
The bigger the difference between men's abilities the more easy it is for women to select the fittest mates, also the best of a diverse group of men is going to be much more intelligent than the best selected of a group of average men. Thus humanity's intellectual evolution advances more rapidly.
So arguing about the average is irrelevant when men's advantage and predominance in the upper echelons of intellectual endeavour is fairly clear and biological.
There is however a powerful political agenda at work which is tipping the balance in women's favour via the media and political influence.
This overt 'promotion of female power over men' trend is all about the pseudo-empowerment of women and the subjugation of men. The banking Oligarchs that control the western governments and all major companies, the IMF, World bank, BIS etc are implementing a world government and as with all takeovers the biggest threats must be neutralised.
Men are the biggest threat to the new world order.
Men are physically more dangerous, more likely to challenge authority (Men are more inclined to view totalitarian Government as an alpha male threat, women view it as a protector).
there are more stupid men than women but many more genius level men than women, and highly intelligent, critically thinking, physically strong, able to fight males is not what they want.
they also want to destroy any institution that promotes devotion to something other than the state. Such institutions form resistance to tyrannical government. Thus they orchestrated the massive attack on religion via the 'new atheism' and the destruction of the traditional family structure. They did this via the promotion of feminism. Women have been trained to dismiss traditional motherly nurturing feminine values to pursue masculine traits, thus making relationships with men more difficult as men have evolved to fight other men, not compete with women. This also erodes the family structure as male/female parenting roles work when they compliment each other as opposed to constant competitive conflict.
The Govt-controlled media has been engaging in an anti male campaign, portraying men as incompetent, lying, dumb, untrustworthy, sports-obsessed buffoons to subjugate men and give more power to women, to make society more controllable and easier to manipulate. The majority of movies now routinely portray women as kung fu expert kick-ass type traditionally masculine roles (nothing wrong with a bit of that but the prevalence and obvious overarching trend is unmistakeable) So some people are going to respond negatively to my post from a stance of cognitive dissonance and emotional investment, especially women but I'm right, to be honest it's fairly obvious to anyone that's done any research into globalism and their social engineering methods.
pretty obvious mrm troll right here might wanna be more subtle if u want to win
What's "MRM" about citing the data? I notice the naysayers never refer to data anywhere in their rebuttals, but jump straight to ad hominem attacks.
Every well-established IQ test shows male and female having the same average (as in mean) IQ, yet there is much more variance in the male scores than the female scores, so given a sample of an equal number of men and women, women outnumber men in the mid range, but as you move away from the center, the balance shifts towards men, with men scoring an excessive proportion of scores at the low and high extremes.
From that distribution you would expect (1) more women at undergraduate level than male undergraduates, (2) more male highschool drop-outs and criminals than women, but (3) more males in the top ranks of education as well.
This isn't an ideological position, this is just the results collected from of the very same tests that say men and women have equal mean IQ. I'm assuming you accept the findings of those tests of equal means, but reject the same tests findings of higher variance, which is cherry-picking the data at its finest.
The higher-variance in males IQ scores does exist. To pretend it doesn't, for purely ideological reasons ("being PC") falls into the trap Dr Flynn described:
"But you cannot say these things. They are forbidden. Which means of course we go on in ignorance of what actually causes group differences. Which means we can't provide any solutions. When you turn your back on reality you lose the ability to manipulate reality. One would think that is self-evident...I didn't go into this to not try to find the truth."
Given that women have long outnumbered men on college campuses and hold more advanced degrees than their male counterparts, it makes sense that they would also score higher on IQ tests. But for the last 100 years, they’ve lagged behind men by as much as five points—although their scores have been rising.
Finally, according to IQ expert James Flynn, women have closed the IQ gap and are in fact scoring higher than men, reports the Telegraph.
IQ — or intelligence quotient — the most widely used measure of intelligence and is determined based on one’s deviation from the average IQ score of a certain age group. It’s thought to be a product of both environmental and hereditary factors, and is a statistically reliable predictor of future educational achievement, job performance and income. But the reasons for demographic differences in IQ — for example, between races or genders — have long been widely debated.
There are many possible reasons that women finally surpassed men in IQ after a century of falling behind, according to Flynn, who is writing a book about IQ and gender.
One theory is that women have always been capable of scoring higher but, because of discriminatory gender socializing, never realized their own potential. Gender-based differences in education, upbringing and social roles have historically set the bar lower for women.
“This improvement is more marked for women than for men because they were disadvantaged in the past,” Flint told the Telegraph.
Now if only women could close in on that pesky wage gap.
Source (click on that link also to access in-text links):
The wage gap is non-existent for single women vs single men, and for single dads vs. single moms.
It's entirely due to the choice to have kids.
That is absolutely NOT true.
Go check the data yourself.
"according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%)."
And this is from Time magazine, not some Men's Rights lobby group.
...is limited to a handful of cities in the USA. Globally, women are paid significantly less than men for the same jobs. But even in the USA, that gender gap is still there:
I can argue against you, just by quoting your own links. e.g:
"It has been suggested that women choose less-paying occupations because they provide flexibility to better manage work and family.
A 2009 study of high school valedictorians in the U.S. found that female valedictorians were planning to have careers that had a median salary of $74,608, whereas male valedictorians were planning to have careers with a median salary of $97,734. As to why the females were less likely than the males to choose high paying careers such as surgeon and engineer, the New York Times article quoted the researcher as saying, "The typical reason is that they are worried about combining family and career one day in the future."
^ That is directly quoted from your own first link. It's about personal choice, not discrimination, if women are CHOOSING careers where they can better balance work and having a family, but don't pay as high.
...the other links I posted? Do you have nothing to say there? They prove you wrong, that's why you haven't mentioned them. Your own IQ has not enabled you to realize that I have been playing with you under your various handles all along - you're so easy! LOL!
men are more intelligent generally however, they tend to be lazy and unmotivated most of the time. cranial capacity is higher than women.western women, who wants equality must read why men are suffering because of female demand for equality. in EVERY society, women are subordinates not equals. but, America and europe wants to break the natural order by empowering women even though they are inferior intellectually and cognically.
Actually making the field "equal" would allow those who are superior to rise to the top by merit. That is true equality.
"According to ASHE, in 2007 a gender pay gap does not open up until women reach about 30 years of age. From ages 18-29 there is hardly any difference and, according to the Labour Force Survey (LFS), women aged 22-29 are paid on average slightly more per hour than men. As the ONS concludes, having children is the decisive factor, not being a woman. Historical data confirm this conclusion. Based on the New Earnings Survey panel data, in 1975 there was a pay gap from the age of 18 onwards, but in 2006 no such gap existed until age 34. Why? In 1975 women tended to have children in their 20s and by 2006 it was more common to have them in their 30s. As the average age of child-rearing increased so too did the age at which the pay gap kicked in."
You seem to have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, but, even without any academic basis whatsoever for expostulation, I can point out at least one ostensibly spurious semantic element of your argument (there are more rhetorical ones that led to the conclusion that you may have been trolling, but those are irrelevant to the topical premise of my counterargument). The fact that you seem to equate the statistical salience of very low intellect's preponderance by either gender with that of very high intellect would instantly discredit any ideological conclusion that could potentially be derived from it, even as a completely autonomous refutation. The fact that higher variances are so much more anomalous than any other interval on the intellectual spectrum not only diminishes its own relation to non-individualistic ramifications of human intellectual disparities, but renders the corollary perceptibility of the demographic proportion of such ramifications among those with genius intellect susceptible to Weber's law, bringing conclusions predicated on the statistical validity of this arbitrary genius prevalence into further question.
eh argument not great that time, so nevermind, but don't play dumb, man; this ain't your university, so don't like i don't know why you posted what you did. even if you're nowhere near dumb enough to qualify as one of the ~1.5e+10 actual mratards blighting the internet, i have no reason to believe anything you post is for the edification of anything other than your own sense of security. not that i care, in general, but at least gtfo the serious sites with that bs.
I have had so much problems researching posts about uk webmaster seo forum, lucky I came across this...incredibly helpful
Also visit my web site; seo service
"He said he'd really appreciate that, because when he was interviewed, the interviewer kept asking him leading questions about women and multitasking, clearly wanting to get a particular answer out of him. This really bugs me."
As it should. Imagine if a study came out showing the IQ difference favoring men instead of women, with male journalists swarming around asking leading questions about men's larger brains and what not. Would that not be instantly be condemned as sexist and misogynistic?
So why is the media's misandry with regard to this issue not recognized for what it is? Have we reached a place, in 2013, where sexism towards women is rightly frowned upon but male- bashing is celebrated?
It is interesting that you say this, because a few studies have actually claimed that. Check out this article by Richard Lynn: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-s...
Lynn has conducted many meta-studies showing modest, but significant male advantage, and argues that males' larger brains makes them more intelligent. He is no fringe or crackpot, but well respected and admired in the individual differences field. Yes, he has been condemned as a sexist and misogynist. Others who have argued for the higher intelligence of males (off the top of my head) include Paul Irwing, Phil Rushton, Alan Jackson, and Helmuth Nyborg. All of them leading academics in intelligence research.
However, from what I have reviewed, IQ differences between groups are complicated and the findings in the literature are an absolute mess. The best studies with large, representative samples show negligible or no differences between the sexes, in contrast to findings of Lynn and Rushton. This seems to me a more robust and consistent finding.
With respect to those BS media reports, you are right. It should be clearly understood what Flynn is actually saying in this study. Flynn just happened to find a not-so-significant difference favoring females in those specific samples at those ages (an average of 0.7 point difference) - he clearly understands the many issues affecting the findings, as plenty of other studies find male advantages, and places his own findings in the proper context. Clearly, he believes the sexes to be equal in intelligence and never even mentioned multitasking. What a mess the media has made of this!
More information about formatting options
Scott Barry Kaufman, Ph.D. is a cognitive psychologist at NYU interested in intelligence and creativity development. He is the author of forthcoming Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined.
Who says marriage is where desire goes to die?