Verified by 
101COMMENTS
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.
A recent article in The Telegraph includes the following quote from philosopher and IQ researcher James Flynn:
"In the last 100 years the IQ scores of both men and women have risen, but women's have risen faster."
To further elucidate the matter, they consult Helena Jamison, a 33-year-old consultant who studied English literature at Cambridge:
"I think women probably always knew deep down that they were the more intelligent ones — but as the gentler sex we were quiet about it and let men continue to believe they ruled the world."
Can we stop this madness please?
Today I was treated to a talk from James Flynn in Cambridge, England. Flynn is one of my intellectual heroes. I always enjoy his talks, because they are highly provocative and thoughtful. This talk was no exception. I'll give a quick recap for those of you interested in Flynn's actual data and intepretations.
Flynn looked at IQ scores from ages 14-18 and found 5 modern states where he could get standardization samples with at least 500 people of each gender. The states he looked at were Australia, New Zealand, White South Africa, Estonia, and Argentina. It was important that he used standardization samples because that means that the IQ researchers made an effort to get as representative a sample as possible.
Analyzing those 5 datasets and throwing away all of the older studies from the prior generation (prior to 1982), he compared men and women on the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a test of abstract, logical reasoning. Setting the male score at 100, Flynn found that women scored the lowest in Australia (99.5), but in the other 4 nations Raven's scores varied from 100.5 to 101.5.
After presenting this data, he noted:
"So they certainly equaled men, and perhaps were slightly above. This has been distorted in the news of my saying that women are incredibly more intelligent than men. As you can see, this somewhat goes beyond what was claimed."
The audience chuckled. Flynn then goes on make the argument that in every country in which women have been allowed full entry into modernity in terms of educational opportunities, they are now matching men on Raven's. As for the fraction of a point advantage in IQ for women:
"I suspect that is a characterological trait. They are also more focused in the testing room just as they are more focused in the classroom. So my conclusion is the sexes on the Raven's is probably dead equal for cognitive factors and there is a very slight female advantage for characterological traits. This is mere extrapolation from what happens at secondary school. You would expect a little female advantage because of temperamental differences."
Flynn notes that in his class at the University of Otago, "2/3rd of the students are women, and 2/3rd of the late essays are men." He says this is a universal phenomenon. He also notes that "I'm not saying the genders are equal. They're equal in their ability to deal with using logic on the abstract problems of Raven's." He points out that if you try to intentionally create a gender-neutral IQ test by throwing out items that favor one gender over the other, you find that you can't eliminate a female verbal advantage and a male advantage for visual-spatial items.
Then Flynn presents data on the Black-White IQ gap in the United States. He shows that since 1972, Black Americans have gained 5 points over Whites. But strikingly, the IQ gap widens systematically every few years. In other words, the rich still get richer in America, and the poor still get poorer. Here's his data:
Black-White difference in 1972
Age 4 8 12 16 20 24
-10 -12.4 -14.8 -17.2 -19.6 -22.0
Black-White difference in 2002
Age 4 8 12 16 20 24
-5 -7.5 -9.8 -12.2 -14.6 -17
In 1972, at the age of 4, there was a 10 point IQ difference between blacks and whites on average in the United States. In 2002, the gap had narrowed by 5 points, but there was still a 5 point difference at age 4. By the age of 24, the gap widened to a 17 point difference. This is better than the 22 point difference found in 1972 for age 24, but it's still quite alarming.
Flynn doesn't believe that blacks and whites are born with differences in intelligence. As he rightly points out, it wasn't that long ago that some psychologists were arguing that Irish immigrants in the United States were genetically inferior. But when Irish Americans began to invest in education, they completely closed the gap. Instead, Flynn argues that these trends become cumulative, and problems are already evident in preschool. He proposes some environmental explanations, including differences in attitudes toward academic achievement.
He says he is fully aware of the controversial nature of his research and his ideas but thinks these are serious issues that require rigorous investigation. He believes that IQ trends show us interesting social trends. He told the audience that he has suggested half a dozen studies that could shed light on this issue,
"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."
I have immense respect for Flynn, who clearly is interested in societal progress and the reduction of inequalities around the world. After the talk, I asked Flynn if he'd like me to write a blog post setting the record straight about his data. 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. I wish we would stop with all the petty gender wars that have no actual basis in fact and address really significant issues. We still have a long way to go in terms of racial equality in the United States. Hopefully, Flynn's startling data will open up a much-needed discussion. Everything in Flynn's talk is also discussed in his new book, Are We Getting Smarter?: Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. I highly recommend it if you're interested in hearing his views on these important issues rather than relying on the media.
Maturity age
Submitted by Bryan on February 6, 2015 - 7:59am
The age group in this study is 14-18. This age group has been well establish that girls are more advanced than boys.
At age 14ish girls end childhood and become adults. They do not have any further to evolve. They are of an age evolution has deemed them capable of raising babies. Boys on the other hand do not reach maturity until they are 18ish when evolution has deemed them strong eough to survive being a make.
Easy to confuse
Submitted by Objectivity on September 17, 2015 - 3:36pm
What you speak of biological maturity. By 14 a girl, and trust me, I've had two daughters, is nowhere near the maturity level she will be at 25.
So many people confuse these two. At 15, my son realized he had a responsibility to a society around him. At 15, my daughter still believed society had a responsibility only to her. I don't blame her... this is how society trains our children. We have to retrain them to think about becoming mature in society. This is the "maturity" of which will make or break a person, a community and in truth, the entire human population. We need to start getting everyone to the same maturity level where they realize what THEIR role is in it, and to progress toward that goal. We cannot have one group of suppliers and one group of receivers. It stunts maturity for all.
Exceptions
Submitted by Galinacio on May 8, 2017 - 9:21pm
Exceptions aren't rules men in general take more time to develop than women and are in general(when full develop)smarter than women
Not exception
Submitted by L on May 7, 2018 - 4:15pm
This isn't an exception, sexual maturity is not the same as emotional maturity or the like, you can not realistic compare teenage behavior to an adult behavior
He's Not Discussing Behavior, He's Discussing IQ....
Submitted by HughMBehavior on May 27, 2019 - 12:04am
...and in any article where women are found to be > or = to men in average IQ, notice the female test subjects are always 14-16. Every single one. Test 'em at 21+ , the results come out to about a point difference for men. It's mostly a result of there being a lot more SUPER-smart men. Median man vs. median woman, wouldn't be surprised if women had an edge, but never seen a study to that effect.
It may also be a result of the fact that women have easier lives than men. Women are human beings. Men are human doings. This incentivizes learning. No one give s a rat's ass about a man other than his family (maybe) except as he produces, as he *does.*
no
Submitted by ayanana on August 21, 2019 - 2:49am
You saying men work harder than women? Where's your proof? Or are you just pulling that out of your a**. Women make up half of the workforce. Half. We also do more unpaid work. So when men get home after the workday, they don't have to do anything. Women have to come up and clean and cook and take care of the children. So to say women are human beings and men are human doings is BS because do NOT do more than women.
So
Submitted by L on October 25, 2019 - 5:15am
do you wanna say that woman do well than men?
Where’s your proof?
I think your proof was created by yourself in fact, men accomplish so many great things than woman because men are smarter and do well than woman.
But, in normal life, the difference don’t stand out because men hate bothersome things than women.
You proved you're too
Submitted by Autymn D. C. on October 29, 2019 - 9:36pm
You proved you're too retarded to read, use a comparative, and conjugate. How about the graduate and degree ratio? Or maybe your kind likes blue collar jobs better taken up by robots.
Add new comment | Psychology Today Australia
Submitted by Hai on August 28, 2019 - 6:27pm
Danke für diesen tollen Beitrag!
Stupid
Submitted by Brianna on February 23, 2015 - 1:31pm
Considering that this article basically demonstrates quite strongly that the sexes are pretty much equal in average cognitive ability, I'd say your brother is a moron.
And he's right
Submitted by Mike on December 13, 2017 - 6:01pm
Your brother is completely, 100% right.
The evolutionary trade-off of being physically and mentally superior is the greater energy consumption. This is a good trade for the gender that evolved to be risk tolerant and a bad trade for the one that evolved to be risk averse.
The myth of equal average, but greater male deviation comes from studies done on children around the ages of 11 and 13. It is around these ages that the earlier onset of puberty in girls gives them a once in a lifetime physical and mental advantage compared to their male peers. This is the same reason a team of 13 year old girls has beaten a team of 13 year old boys at football (soccer), but teams of 15 year old boys have destroyed national women's teams on multiple occasions. When IQ is measured in adults, men have the greater average and the same standard deviation.
Boys are beating national women's teams.Nearly every sport is gender segregated. The best women tennis players lost to a 203 rank man after he played 18 holes of golf and downed a few beers.Only about the top 4% of women in the military can meet the MINIMUM male physical standard. The best female chess and esports players lag behind their male peers. Nearly every invention and structure ever made was designed and built by men.The effects of gender on capability has been on display for the entirety of world history.
"Nearly every invention and
Submitted by Autymn D. C, on May 9, 2018 - 1:20am
"Nearly every invention and structure ever made was designed and built by men."
Between the fall of Rome and emancipation women [and unbelievers] were excluded from universities, degrees, publishing, and societies. The ratio now has flipped.
alloy.com/entertainment/shocking-advertisements-wont-believe/?fb_comment_id=1474797149282724_1489615264467579
Graeme Simpson · Otago Polytechnic
re #2 a University did a study which found the thing that women found men most useful for was opening jars.
Like · Reply · 25 · 28w
Paul Ericson · Stockport College
And inventing the jar in the first place ... like most comforts and life-supports (like welfare that allows women the illusion of 'independence') they are the creation of men. Feminism is just another marketing ploy, whose financial profits will be most enjoyed by ... men.
Like · Reply · 14 · 20w · Edited
Wendy Christopher · Maidstone, Kent
Paul Ericson Oh yeah, that's right.... men invented everything in the entire world, didn't they, including the day/night cycle, rational thought and space-time itself? How silly of us women to forget that! Why, you're even better cooks than us, (ooh, sorry - CHEFS,) but you just let the women handle it on a day-to-day basis so we've got something else to do besides having babies all the time, don't you? Gotcha. Cheers for the insight.
Like · Reply · 17 · 25w
Autymn Castleton ·
A rubber band can help open a jar, and most containers were invented by women. Men are a species, not a sex; the sex is wapmen. Women won most of the challenges on Hell's Kitchen.
Paul (Does that relate to your brain?), these were women's inventions: spinning, cloth and clothes, pots and bags, nets and snares, wheel (spindle whorl), fragrances, kemeia (chemistry), distillation, drugs, hýdrometer, computer (loom), ergonomics, nuclear chain reaction, DNA imaging, aramids, Mac GUI elements, PalmOS, eBay. Women do most assembly work.
Like · Reply · 5 · 23w
Dave Fornell · Bethel IN
Autymn Castleton dont forget, women are awesome teachers too! amongst other things that they are awesome at!
Like · Reply · 2 · 22w
LaDon Aridge · University of Cincinnati
95% of all statistics are made up. It's true Graeme.
Like · Reply · 4 · 22w
Robyn Michelle Katz · Choreographer/Coach at Playboy
Paul Ericson them pesky high heels were invented by a man too, it's okay though.He invented them for men.
Like · Reply · 1 · 21w
Autymn Castleton ·
Dave Fornell I'm sure there are good teachers but most teachers like most folk are stupid. That's why they're stuck at a single-digit-grade level. All too often I had to correct teachers and professors or were miscorrected by them. "[ion]'s not a word."
Like · Reply · 1 · 21w
Donald Ward · Crocker, Missouri
Wendy Christopher Wow! You knocked that one right out of the park. You must have a Phd in something useless, Women's Studies maybe. Don't cry, little snowflake.
Like · Reply · 2 · 21w
Rob Romano
Autymn Castleton On what historic facts are your basing that women are the sole inventors of clothes, drugs, nets and nuclear chain reaction? You might as well add oxygen and water for good measure.
Like · Reply · 2 · 20w
Paul Ericson · Stockport College
Wendy Christopher - Not me, I cook for myself (and very adequately may I say, as do many of my mates). My never-unemployed dad always cooked the Sunday Dinner as well. You're welcome to your opinions, but historical research will prove men to be the far more prolific inventors, though I don't discount the dedicated women who laboured long and hard (Madame Curie for instance) or great rulers (Catherine the Great, German Princess-turned-Russian Empress), or politicans (Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher). Curiously these examples rarely figure in women's expressions of their sex's achievements.
Like · Reply · 1 · 20w
Paul Ericson · Stockport College
Robyn Michelle Katz - Perfectly correct, for the dandies of the C16 in Europe, though there are indications of horsemen in Persia contriving a high heel for riding footwear.
Like · Reply · 1 · 20w
Brian Mccarthy · Video Engineer at Nfrastructure
Wendy Christopher Right
Like · Reply · 19w
Brian Mccarthy · Video Engineer at Nfrastructure
Ha haaaa. Just kidding. Hope my wife don't see that or I am a dead man.
Like · Reply · 19w
Brian Mccarthy · Video Engineer at Nfrastructure
Autymn Castleton Women are wonderful wonderful creatures.
Like · Reply · 19w
Jeremy Findley
Wendy Christopher Man!! A woman who finally gets it. Now go tell yoiur fellow women what you have learned here.
Like · Reply · 19w
Elizabeth Vernon · Wichita Falls, Texas
Paul Ericson Advertising was probably invented by men in order to sell stuff that most people don't actually need. It can be used to con men, women, and children into thinking that the thing that is being sold is going to make them happier, sexier, smarter, etc. I actually thought that this whole thread was about ADVERTISING and how ADVERTISING manipulates humans (whatever their sex, race, religion, creed, etc).
Like · Reply · 1 · 19w
Dave Fornell · Bethel IN
Autymn Castleton I too have corrected teachers for making statements that seemed absurd to me. I have been coutered on thoughts and had to drop the discussion until i deepened my knowledge on a subject. I have also had professors back down on stances. I'm not sure if at these different times if I or they were stupid, or just under informed and being as smart as possible with the information at hand. how do you discern between under informed, mis informed and stupid? im not asking that to be argumentative, just interested in how others think.
Like · Reply · 1 · 18w
Autymn Castleton ·
Sorry I didn't get any notifications.. and couldn't find this thread until I googled some keywords so I almost lost it.
Rob Romano most on prehistoric facts, universal division of labor, grave goods; the historic facts on Tapputi and bain Marie, Hýpatia, Meitner.
Paul Ericson you forgot the two Empresses Elizabeth and Victoria who built the British Empire to take up 1/5 of the world.
Dave Fornell most of the world is retarded, below +1 sigma IQ or 84% of the world. As for the proportion who are stupid I'll go at least below +2 sigma or 95%. The average college student can outwit the cleverest cop: google.com/search?q=police+IQ; google.com/search?q=occupation+IQ. The intelligent may entertain wrong ideas during basic education but should at least diverge by teenhood when they notice how the facts are more complicated than or inconsistent with what they had learned as kids. (Of course some words end in q and some q words don't take a u. IQ test: see who says Qantas as Quantas, ATM machine, between you and I. This separates sheeple/parrots from independent thinkers.)
Like · Reply · 9w · Edited
Colin Crous
+ Graeme Yes, They held the jars between their boobies....
Like · Reply · 15w
Colin Crous
Paul Ericson Yes, It's called "eliminating the competition"...However We were not created "Madam and Eve" nor "Adam and Steve". Each have their role in society. When it comes to the importance of the roles, I think Women have the most important role. Any man who does not think so, should be blessed with the role of pregnancy.
Like · Reply · 15w
Autymn Castleton ·
Colin Crous there are seven [human] sexes, not two: X, XX, XY, XX', XY', XXY, X/Y. Four of these can breed, one in theory with oneself. The XXs can already breed by nuclear transfer.
A child can be born of one, two, or three parents of any sex. Most life reproduces by cloning and some species don't need a male; a few species change sex. Hopefully the unisexes become obsolete so that ancient cretins like yourself can shut up and die.
Stop breeding like the insects do. Instead put research on insenility and immortality like some species enjoy: HeLa, quaking aspen, immortal jellyfish, some turtle I forgot the name of. Pando the quaking aspen is over 100,000 years eld.
The goal of sex is pleasure, not reproduction. If it were the latter every time a couple has sex the woman should be pregnant and elders and barrens ouht not mate.
Like · Reply · 14w
Autymn Castleton ·
Add to the list of inventions: proof-of-work and Sci-Hub.
Like · Reply · 11w
Autymn Castleton ·
8D lattice packing and brain organoids
Like · Reply · 1m
Hi scott. You said"Today I
Submitted by Anonymous on July 24, 2012 - 4:26am
Hi scott.
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.
More Information Please!
Submitted by reshad on July 25, 2012 - 11:09pm
Dear Scott,
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?
Thanks
As I Suspected!
Submitted by Anonymous on July 27, 2012 - 5:49am
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
Submitted by Scott Barry Kaufman on July 27, 2012 - 5:55am
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
Submitted by Jessica Atkins on July 27, 2012 - 8:41am
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, you elegantly demolish a silly straw man, but....
Submitted by roger s on August 11, 2012 - 9:38pm
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.
The lovely and talented normal distribution...
Submitted by Anonymous on February 15, 2013 - 1:25am
@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.
roger s wrote: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.
A logical and evidentiary juggernaut
Submitted by roger s on February 15, 2013 - 6:08pm
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"
Submitted by Paul E on March 17, 2013 - 6:13am
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
Submitted by Lucas Prassas on August 27, 2013 - 4:40pm
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
Submitted by Anonymous on June 18, 2013 - 8:40am
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".
Add new comment | Psychology Today Canada
Submitted by Rowena on November 2, 2019 - 9:14am
Danke für diesen tollen Beitrag!
IQ tests and sex
Submitted by Michael Pace on May 18, 2016 - 7:35pm
Sorry, Anonymous, but you are clearly a person who never lets facts obscure your misconceptions.
The facts about IQ cited by roger s can easily be verified by simply looking up the scores of any respected IQ test and by checking the most basic mathematics that shows that even a slightly higher standard deviation leads to heavier tails of the distribution and huge ratios between the (higher/lower) standard-deviation distributions. In fact, the further out you go, the larger the ratio gets, approaching infinity in the limit.
This ratio is equal to the ratio of human beings in the two distributions.
The question of finding an IQ test that is not biased toward one sex or the other is a separate question.
Why is he wrong?
Submitted by Eric snyder on March 21, 2017 - 8:08am
I don't care either way! However, it is a fact that male genius continues to far outpace that of female genius in our world. So, again, why is he wrong in assuming this will continue. Sometimes the most simplistic analysis is the correct one.
You nailed it. The key issue
Submitted by Sabretruthtiger on June 9, 2013 - 2:12am
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
Submitted by Lucas Prassas on August 27, 2013 - 4:45pm
pretty obvious mrm troll right here might wanna be more subtle if u want to win
What's "MRM" about citing the
Submitted by Jason on August 29, 2013 - 7:50pm
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."
Why Women Finally Have Higher IQs than Men
Submitted by Vierotchka on August 29, 2013 - 8:36pm
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):
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/16/why-women-finally-have-higher-iqs-than-men/
The wage gap is non-existent
Submitted by Jason on August 30, 2013 - 1:22am
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.
Go check the data yourself.
Submitted by Jason on August 31, 2013 - 2:52pm
Go check the data yourself.
http://content.time.com/time/
Submitted by Jason on August 31, 2013 - 2:54pm
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
"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.
That study...
Submitted by Vierotchka on September 1, 2013 - 1:30pm
...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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/the-gender-wage-gap-around-the-world/?_r=0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20223264
Et cætera.
I can argue against you, just
Submitted by Jason on September 3, 2013 - 12:35pm
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.
What about...
Submitted by Vierotchka on September 3, 2013 - 2:13pm
...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 superior being born from the female template
Submitted by Orthodox Indian on January 28, 2014 - 2:37am
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
Submitted by Anonymous on August 14, 2014 - 11:36am
Actually making the field "equal" would allow those who are superior to rise to the top by merit. That is true equality.
And yet
Submitted by traxxion on October 16, 2015 - 8:31pm
Women are nowhere to be found when it comes to building homes/roads, farming the land, designing, building and fixing the machines/software that make everything work or advancing the sciences. Nope, they just want to jump right in there to the jobs they are actually capable of and be handed exactly the same amount of money as all the men who built the houses they live in and the cars they drive AFTER all the hard work has been done.
On top of that the median average hobby for the single working woman right through to the house wife is spending money in shopping malls, rather than for example, computers or building kit cars, or even mowing the lawn.
Fabricate all the studies you want and believe whatever you want - the evidence of reality is staring right back at you
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/
Submitted by Jason on August 30, 2013 - 1:31am
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidgreen/9666597/The_gender_pay_gap_does_not_exist/
"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
Submitted by Lucas Prassas on September 4, 2013 - 5:53pm
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.
Reply to comment | Psychology Today
Submitted by seo service on March 4, 2014 - 8:09am
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
I think people are
Submitted by Almost an expert on January 14, 2017 - 8:12pm
I think people are overestimating this difference. It may well lead to a prevalence of male nobels but won't have much effect beyond that.
Furthermore while there are more male math geniuses than female ones women occupy the higher reaches of verbal abilities.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302069
Further the difference in standard deviation is not found consistently so might be subject to change. A recent large scale (N = 15.000) study in Romania didn't find a difference in variance = standard deviation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616301003
You also overestimate the level it likely takes to be a nobel prize winner or scientific genius. Ann Roe's study of eminent (meaning top level) scientists in the 50s put their IQ at 160 and probably vastly overestimated it. Others found the IQ for top scientists to be centered around 130-140 rather.
And finally this is the Raven's matrices IQ test. As any test focused solely on g it doesn't show higher male variance as that is strongest in spatial abilities.
Media hypocrites
Submitted by Michael Dick on April 5, 2013 - 2:09pm
"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?
Quote:"Imagine if a study
Submitted by Jessica Atkins on April 6, 2013 - 11:49pm
wrote:"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?"
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-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html
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!
@ Jessica Atkins
Submitted by roger s on April 7, 2013 - 9:41am
@Jessica Atkins
Unlike most commenters, you seem to have actually studied the subject,and done some intelligent analysis, so I'd be particularly interested in your assessment of the argument/evidence I offered in my comments above, “Scott, you elegantly demolish a silly straw man, but....”, and my follow-up comment, “A Logical and Evidentiary Juggernaut” where, in essence, I point out the irrelevance of any difference in mean IQ between genders, but the enormous impact of the apparent disparity in standard deviation, causing a superabundance of males at both tails.
Roger, what you say could be
Submitted by Jessica Atkins on April 7, 2013 - 5:39pm
Roger, what you say could be possible. Indeed there are many samples that show significant male variance not only on IQ, but on a multitude of cognitive abilities. However, this is not always found. Personally, I think we need further investigation before we can say for sure, but some evidence does support your assertions.
I would check out work by Jonathan Wai, Doug Detterman, Wendy Williams, and Steven Ceci who are experts on this.
The argument about the X-chromosome inactivation seems plausible, but I'm not qualified to comment on its validity. However I would be very hesitant to use genetic factors as an explanation unless there's good data.
The answer
Submitted by Sabretruthtiger on June 9, 2013 - 2:16am
Here is a rather obvious explanation on the standard deviation differences along with an explanation of the political machinations that seem to be promoting a misandrist angle.
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.
- Previous
- Page 1 (current)
- Next
Post Comment
advertisement
