Growing scientific consensus: men are more intelligent than women?

[Monte314]

Articles have been appearing in the published literature for the last couple of years (e.g., The American Journal of Psychology) suggesting that as a group, men have "slightly but significantly" higher IQ's than women as a group.

Here is a blog excerpt from the popular ( = non-scholarly) Psychology Today by an evolutionary psychologist who cites some 2009 journal publications to this effect:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(You read the entire article here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the suggested difference is probably too small to have any significant practical effect; but what would be the cultural impact if this notion proves to be correct?

[freeeekyyy]

Women have other advantages to society so I don't see how its a problem. Also, it doesn't really change anything for the individual. A particular woman could be very smart or a particular man very stupid, which makes this a good example of worthless information.

[firebee]

If this idea catches on, the Internet will be abuzz with talk of how, on the basis of this difference, it can be reasonably assumed that women are generally not analytically inclined but that this difference is counterbalanced by other extremely useful qualities such as a fundamental natural talent for cleaning up poo -- oh, and also some sort of emotional whatzis that involves crying a lot and being conveniently incapable of independent functioning.

In other words, the world will completely change.

[darynthe]

Eh, the article ends up saying that the difference is due to the fact that men are in average taller than women. And if this is taken into account inch by inch women are more intelligent than men. Woahahahaha

*explodes*

Sometimes these studies are highly amusing.

[UMDRevan]

IQ tests are bullshit. Sure, maybe we INTJs, for example, are really "intelligent" as measured by an IQ test, but when it comes to people, we're as dumb as lobotomized cows.

And as far as societal impact, probably none. Women tend to get the short end of the stick in general already; other than providing crazy people with a statistic to justify their poor treatment of women, what does this study do?

[Grimstad]

Even if men are more intelligent, saying so is a very stupid thing to do.

Really? 3 to 5 IQ points? That may say more about the test than anything else.

[Storm]

Most people who are 5'10" are significantly more intelligent than people who are 5'5"? So, are white people significantly more intelligent than Asians or Hispanics? Oh, that's right, the study didn't bother to study people from countries that aren't pre-dominantly European. This smells like bullshit.

How big is "large" sample? 100? 1,000?

[Polymath]

IQ tests are bullshit. Sure, maybe we INTJs, for example, are really "intelligent" as measured by an IQ test, but when it comes to people, we're as dumb as lobotomized cows.

That's because PEOPLE are as dumb as lobotomized cows. :rolleyes:

[AnnoyingPony]

I'm only 5'1'' and I have the highest IQ score among my living relatives (130), even though they are all *much* taller than me, and many are male.

Conclusion? The study is BS.

[Scatterbrane]

IQ tests are bullshit.

Depends what you use them for. Do you wish to have a guess at convergent reasoning ability, or do you equate them with concepts such as g, meaning general intelligence?

other than providing crazy people with a statistic to justify their poor treatment of women, what does this study do?

Points out gender differences.

Admittedly, numbers based comparisons yield well to fueling prejudice and superiority complexes, especially when the comparison in question is based on something as poorly understood as the applicability of IQ testing. The general public will have no use for this information.

The difference in question is also so small as to be irrelevant, it'll be hidden in statistical deviation for most small sample sizes. E.g., the small group of people working for/with you, your immediate family, etc. So it's useless for most individualist purposes.

I don't blame this study, I blame poor science reporting. I've yet to see it actually since PT tends to be a good source for this kind of thing, but this will inevitably show up in mass media and internet portals, where it'll be subject to the scrutiny of people with no practical knowledge of what to do, or more importantly what not to do, with information of this sort.

[Polymath]

I'm only 5'1'' and I have the highest IQ score among my living relatives (130), even though they are all *much* taller than me, and many are male.

Conclusion? The study is BS.

I don't care about this study or which sex is smarter, but finding one or a few exceptions, even if noteworthy, to a much larger pattern and concluding the pattern to be false is my biggest logical pet-peeve...

Studies with large representative national samples from Spain, Denmark, and the United States, as well as meta-analyses of a large number of published studies throughout the world, all conclude that men on average are slightly but significantly more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points.

[ArtistTyrant]

men are on average smarter than women...doesn't mean every man is smart, or every woman is stupid...most people are stupid from my perspective regardless of sex differences

any free-thinking, intelligent individual, with history and science to look at, will come to this conclusion

and Storm, not every study needs to include more homogeneous gene pools, as are found in non-European countries, my hypothesis is that the differences in non-European countries, when adjusted for education, would show the same pattern, perhaps with a smaller difference between the sexes

[DanteFalling]

Eh, the article ends up saying that the difference is due to the fact that men are in average taller than women. And if this is taken into account inch by inch women are more intelligent than men. Woahahahaha

*explodes*

Sometimes these studies are highly amusing.

This makes me sad. So, they posit that my smattering of brains has to do with the fact that I'm taller than most of the men I meet?

Well, height has been correlated with intelligence.

The only way to "fix" the gender disparity then, is to stop selecting for short women. This is also a great idea when it comes to head circumference! Bigger motherships and smaller urchins. Maybe less pain. Now wouldn't that be great! Although, if the current trend of more intelligent females equals fewer offspring increases, then simply making taller women might actually cut down on the population.

Intuitively, it makes sense why men select for shorter women. They're the ones who want babies.

My N needs to stop right there.

Disclaimer: I'd be a dumbass to suggest that all short people are stupid and all tall people are not.

[cannotseethe]

I strongly suspect that if Western culture had been female dominated we'd be asking whether and why men, as a group, had lower IQs than women.

[ArtistTyrant]

cannotseethe, that's a hypothetical that doesn't bear out...i've seen some recent research that shows that male genes are evolving at a much faster rate than female genes =) i am, by the way, an advocate of evolutionary psychology, not mainstream though

[Scatterbrane]

I strongly suspect that if Western culture had been female dominated we'd be asking whether and why men, as a group, had lower IQs than women.

The difference is small enough to be created or negated by differences such as self image, so yeah...

[thod]

Taller people are not taller simply because they have tallness genes. People with identical genes will attain different heights depending on environmental factors. This begins with the uterine environment and continues through factors such as nutrition. The brain is just another organ and factors that negatively effect the development of the rest of the body will also impact the brain.

The basis of the argument is flawed. You cannot compare a 5'8'' woman, who has presumably reached her maximal genetic height with a 5'8'' man, who has not. You would be comparing a perfect specimen with an flawed specimen (perhaps that should be speci-persons :) ).

[Zsych]

It doesn't matter, you can make IQ tests that men in general - based on male mental strengths - would do badly at, and use that as a basis for declaring men in general idiots.

IQ tests are supposed to be designed in a way that on average men and women will score around the same.

And yes, women are usually worse at abstract problem solving, pattern recognition and stuff (and there is the sad lack of more women with an NT orientation :(), and better at linguistic stuff.

... I was reading a study lately that men as managers often have lower approval ratings than female managers, because of the difference in management style... you may as well consider male managers on average inferior :p

... its really a matter of what criteria you're using to determine if someone is better than someone else. Its not really easy to come up with absolute criteria... and even if there are averages... that doesn't have any relation to the capabilities of an individual.

[cannotseethe]

cannotseethe, that's a hypothetical that doesn't bear out...i've seen some recent research that shows that male genes are evolving at a much faster rate than female genes

The large difference in the average height and life expectancy of humans between the 1500s and today is almost entirely explained by nutrition and hygiene. In that period of time, no genetic mutation could have occurred and spread through the human population. If male genes were "evolving at a much faster rate" than those of females (whatever that means), it hardly matters to us in historical context, as there's not been nearly enough time for that to make noticeable differences. For all practical purposes, humans 400,000 years ago were just as smart as we are today physically speaking; the primary changes that have occurred since then have come from civilization.

In other words, what does matter is that socioeconomic, cultural, and nutritional factors can all play a large role in the relative IQs of men vs. women as groups just as these same factors play a large role in the relative IQs of different racial groups. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suppose that if women had held dominant positions in Western society for the last 500 years, and so had structured society to better suit females (perhaps at the expense of men), then the favorable socioeconomic and cultural positions they found themselves in nowadays would translate into higher test scores on average.

It's also worth remembering a few fun facts. The first scientist to receive two Nobel Prizes was female. One of the most important mathematical advances of last century was made by a woman (Emmy Noether). Dot dot dot.

[Ben1220]

From what I have read I'm fairly certain that most studies have come to the conclusion that there is no significant difference in the mean IQs but there is more variation in the distribution for men than for women, meaning there are more very smart and very stupid men, and more women clumped around the middle.

That doesn't mean there aren't any very stupid or very smart women, just that there are less of them then there are very smart men or very stupid men...

[cannotseethe]

From what I have read I'm fairly certain that most studies have come to the conclusion that there is no significant difference in the mean IQs but there is more variation in the distribution for men than for women, meaning there are more very smart and very stupid men, and more women clumped around the middle.

That doesn't mean there aren't any very stupid or very smart women, just that there are less of them then there are very smart men or very stupid men...

You do realize that these three statements are not contradictory:


Two distributions have the same mean
Distribution A has a higher variance than distribution B
The particular samples from distributions A and B that we have right now are such that there are more outliers from B than A.


I.e., even if it were true that there were more variance in the IQ distribution of men vs. women, there still might be more high-IQ women than there are high-IQ men. You cannot conclude there are more high-IQ men than women based solely on presented information about the distributions in these IQ scores. You need, you know, data.

In any case, the real question here is what explains such things. Some people want to attribute it to genetics, as if written directly into the genetic code is the solution to every puzzling observation we make about human propensities. In fact, it seems much more plausible and proximate to explain whatever differences in IQ exist between men and women in terms of differential access to, you know, the stuff that enables people to develop high IQs.

[zibber]

"Men" and "women" are invented categories.

I could invent "glorps" and "flurks", categorize every human in one of them (except those that didn't fit into one, who I would cast out of society) and compare the two, and this would be as meaningful as the study at hand.

[Nightsun]

It seems to me that the article writers and many people here (not everybody) have some problem with statistic.

Starting from the authors:
- The association between IQ and height is statistically significant for me but this doesn't mean that height cause higher IQ!
Possible and better explanations:
- High guys usually are higher for 2 factors: genetic and wealth.
- Genetically higher have also genetically higher mother and higher mother lead to greater heads possibility during child-born that lead to greater space for a greater brain.
- Wealth mean that better food lead to both higher people and more intelligent people (i.e. they have a common cause, the first doesn't cause the latter).

As for IQ test and posters:
- IQ test measures only a particular subset of what we call intelligence in general (actually a full scale IQ test activate only 6% of the brain surface). Is there a correlation between IQ and intelligence? Depend on your definition of intelligence, for common use and purpose yes.
- IQ test are not perfect, but nothing is perfect, you know?
- IQ test are normalized to have a natural mean of 100, to give the same mean to men and women and to follow the bell curve. Does intelligence have the same normalization? NO.
From the previous article you can only draw the conclusion that IQ test makers failed to normalize their tests, otherwise IQ-men = IQ-women.
- Psicometric more natural measure like reading speed, raw score, attention span, etc.. all present a far from gaussian distribution. Actually we have no reason to assume that intelligence follow a gaussian distribution, and I don't understand why they did it in the first instance.

Does it mean that they have the same intelligence? I don't believe so.

Difference:
- Men distribution have a larger sigma (more stupid, more geniuses), badly highy accademic success are usually achieved by highly intelligent people (Nobel Prize Laureates have an average IQ of around 140-150).
- Men and women brain are different, men tend to be more rational (see the higher percent of NTs), more logical, more able with spatial task. Women tend to be better with empathy, comunication, multitasking. Why? 4 millions year of evolution... If anything we should be surprised that the difference between men and women in human specie are so small!
- There are also psychological factors that make women less IQ-addicted and could result in lower score.
- As for sociological factors.. meh... I think that if you make an IQ-test, you test it on the same sociological-educational background sub-sample or you are an idiot. Usually intelligence test score raise till 16 y-old, and untill 16 there are no sociological difference between men and women at least in western and contemporary world, after that you can justify achievement with social factor (women want to have a family, etc..) but we are talking about intelligence not achievement.

What does it mean for society? Nothing. You will always find a more rational or more intelligent women, you will always find a better men. Humans give too much weight to statistic. Do you go mad because American-Jewish have an average IQ of 111? No really, what's the problem? I don't get it. When people see statistics they always see them as they should be "on the average". If you tell me: "Red hair are usually more aggressive than average", should I worry? No. I just think that I'm not an average red-haired :P

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 03:33 PM ----------

cannotseethe, that's a hypothetical that doesn't bear out...i've seen some recent research that shows that male genes are evolving at a much faster rate than female genes =) i am, by the way, an advocate of evolutionary psychology, not mainstream though

They are not evolving, they are changing. This mean only a more spreaded distribution of intelligence.

[thod]

Men" and "women" are invented categories.Now that's just silly. They are very much real categories in the same way that people with blue eyes really do exist and they can be categorized on that basis. I guess there has been no differences shown between blue eyed and brown eyed people though or people with long legs v people with short legs.

men tend to be more rational

Gets out the popcorn.

[Nightsun]

I could invent "glorps" and "flurks", categorize every human in one of them (except those that didn't fit into one, who I would cast out of society) and compare the two, and this would be as meaningful as the study at hand.

AND that would be a meaningful categorization if you find a strong correlation within the 2 subsets.

[ArtistTyrant]

evolve=change, zibber, there are average sexual differences (have you ever been with a woman?), and cannotseethe, you might want to think about what you said...humans aren't that old, for one, and they weren't as intelligent as we are now...please think about the logic behind what you said, it makes no sense

[Nightsun]

I.e., even if it were true that there were more variance in the IQ distribution of men vs. women, there still might be more high-IQ women than there are high-IQ men. You cannot conclude there are more high-IQ men than women based solely on presented information about the distributions in these IQ scores. You need, you know, data.
.

No. If distribution A has a greater sigma than distribution B, they have the same number of people (male/female ratio) and the same average. You will find more male in the tail of the distribution aka more gifted male (and more dumb male). Distribution is drawn on real data.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 03:43 PM ----------

evolve=change

But change=/=evolve.

A guy affected by down syndrome is change but not evolution.

[ArtistTyrant]

lol that's not my point, evolution means change to better suit an environment, we tend to think of evolution as change to make the organism more complex, and thus more flexible, because the environment (other life) is constantly becoming more complex/flexible =)

[Nightsun]

Studies consistently show greater variance in the performance of men compared to that of women (i.e., men are more represented at the extremes of performance), and that men and women have statistically significant differences in average scores on tests of particular abilities.[citation needed] Most modern IQ tests are weighted to even out overall sex differences in average score.[15] Different weightings or tests other than IQ, for instance general intelligence factor, may however be used in defining intelligence. A study by Colom et al. in 2002 showed that the difference observed is in "ability in general", not in "general ability", and that the average sex-difference favoring males must be attributed to specific group factors and test specificity.[16]
A 2005 study by Ian Deary, Paul Irwing, Geoff Der, and Timothy Bates,[17] focusing on the ASVAB scores of 1,292 pairs of opposite sex siblings, showed twice as many males as females in the top and bottom 2% of scores, demonstrating a significantly higher variance in male scores. The study also found a very small (d' ≈ 0.07, or about 7% of a standard deviation) average male advantage in G (factor).


---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 03:48 PM ----------

lol that's not my point, evolution means change to better suit an environment, we tend to think of evolution as change to make the organism more complex, and thus more flexible, because the environment (other life) is constantly becoming more complex/flexible =)

I was refering to your article stating that Y-gene evolve more quickly, I was saying that indeed it change more quickly, it doesn't evolve more quickly. They have only measured an higher change rate, if it lead to an higher evolution rate it's still under discussion.

[ArtistTyrant]

k, i agree with that

[Nightsun]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

From: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (very interesting discussion, must read)

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 03:54 PM ----------


LG: It appears that there is only a small difference separating men and women.

P: That depends on your perspective.

LG: Wouldn't you call a difference of less than 2.5 IQ points small?

P: Again, that depends on your perspective. For example, suppose we ask what the chances are that a randomly selected woman is smarter than a randomly selected man. Based on their g distributions, I calculate that a random woman has better than a 45 percent chance of being smarter than a random man.

LG: I'd call that difference small, in fact, barely noticeable.

P: I agree. Based on this criterion, male-female cognitive differences would almost certainly go unnoticed

LG: What other criteria are there?

P: Checkout the marketplace. In Why g Matters (Intelligence, 24(1), 79–132), Linda Gottfredson estimates that a minimum IQ of 120 is needed to be competitive in "high-level" jobs. She cites research analyst and advertising manager as examples. The problem is that only 37% of the workforce meeting this test will be female. If, Gottfredson is correct, and a 120 IQ is a necessary condition for these jobs, g distributions will impose a soft ceiling on women in industry, not glass but statistical. According to EEOC, in 2003, 35.2% of"officials and managers" in the private sector were female -- a number suspiciously close to 37%. Among federal employees, women held 66% of "management" jobs. But that is a story for another interview.

[ArtistTyrant]

ah, i disagree with him if he's trying to disagree with Rushton, i <3 Rushton :)

[cannotseethe]

No. If distribution A has a greater sigma than distribution B, they have the same number of people (male/female ratio) and the same average. You will find more male in the tail of the distribution aka more gifted male (and more dumb male). Distribution is drawn on real data.

No, you will not. Sigma, as square root of variance, measures the expected deviation from the mean. A particular sample of people need not actually exhibit that deviation.


If X is a random variable, its variance is E(X^2 - E(X)^2), where E(X) is the mean value of X. That is, the expected difference between the square of the variable and the square of its mean. Sigma is the square root of this.

Typically what's done in cases like this is that data are taken, and a best-fit Gaussian is found using some algorithm like expectation maximization. That means, for instance, that data may not exhibit any of the outliers of the ultimate Gaussian model of it; it's just that the data that do exist point to that particular Gaussian as being a best explanation of the data available under the constraints of expectation maximization.

It's very much the same as saying that a fair coin is expected to turn up heads 50% of the time, but that a particular sequence of coin flips may, possibly, turn up heads 100% of the time. Or, that a population of people might have a mean weight of 150 lbs when in fact there is no single person who weighs 150 lbs. The expected value of a variable is not the same as what is actually observed about that variable in a sample.

[Nightsun]

@Cannotseethe:

I don't get your point, or, said in other words. You say the true if you take a 50 people sample, not if you take a 6 billion sample: Large Number Law (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Unless you are stating that there are more men at 1 sigma than women, there are more men at 2 sigma than women, there are more men at 3 sigma than women but.. it's possible that there are more women than men after 4 sigma... it's seems just unrational to me.


IQ tests show that the average female IQ is equal to the average male IQ. However, at the extremes of the spectrum, there is a widening gap between the sexes. In other words, there are more men who score at the top and the bottom end of the intelligence scale.
For example, there are twice as many men with IQ scores of 125 and five times as many men with IQ scores of 155, which is associated with “genius”. Interestingly, however, evidence also shows that at the same IQ level, women are able to achieve more than men, possibly because they are able to multi-task and adapt to periods of sustained hard work. Recent studies also show that in modern society, women are rapidly overtaking men both in terms of educational attainment and occupational achievement.)
...
Depends what you mean by smarter. It is undeniable that men have more brain tissue than women and that more males score higher IQ scores than females. But this may have little implication in the real world of education or work – in fact, female students tend to get better grades than their male counterparts in schools and for most people in the vast majority of jobs, a difference in IQ scores doesn’t translate to very much on the actual job.


About brain difference:

The study, published online January 16, 2005 in the journal NeuroImage, involved 48 men and women between 18 and 84 years old who took a standard battery of IQ tests and had MRI brain scans to gauge the volume of white and gray matter in different brain areas related to intelligence.

Overall, the researchers found, men and women performed equally on the IQ tests. However, the brain structures involved in intelligence appeared distinct.

Compared with women, men had more than six times the amount of intelligence-related gray matter, while women had about nine times more white matter involved in intelligence than men did.

In addition, women had a large proportion of their IQ-related brain matter—both white and gray—concentrated in the brain’s frontal lobes, a region at the front of the brain involved in movement, emotions and higher functions such as speech, reasoning and judgment.

Men, on the other hand, had 90 percent of their IQ-related gray matter distributed equally between the frontal lobes and the parietal lobes—a region right behind the frontal lobes involved in sensory perception, such as taste and touch, and skills, such as reading and math.

In addition, the large majority of the men’s IQ-related white matter—82 percent—was found to dwell in a third brain region, the temporal lobes. These lobes govern functions such as perceiving sound and processing memories.

[zibber]

Now that's just silly. They are very much real categories in the same way that people with blue eyes really do exist and they can be categorized on that basis. I guess there has been no differences shown between blue eyed and brown eyed people though or people with long legs v people with short legs.

What shade of blue?

[SelfMadeBum]

Further attempt to legitimise chauvinism.

Colour me shocked.

Like so - :shocked:

[cannotseethe]

humans aren't that old, for one, and they weren't as intelligent as we are now...please think about the logic behind what you said, it makes no sense

It's true, I misspoke. 200,000, not 400,000. There have been glacial and interglacial variations since that time that likely drove genetic change.

Nevertheless, for a long span of human history we have remained virtually unchanged genetically. Ancient humans did not have the cultural and intellectual inheritance that we enjoy now, but intelligence is not a function of inheritance. If one could transport a human infant from, say, 100,000 years ago to the present and raise them with good hygiene, nutrition and schooling, they'd likely grow into an adult indistinguishable from the rest of us.


lol that's not my point, evolution means change to better suit an environment, we tend to think of evolution as change to make the organism more complex

No, we don't. There is little correlation between an organism's complexity and its suitability to the environment. The most successful organisms from a purely adaptive standpoint are single celled.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 10:46 AM ----------

I don't get your point, or, said in other words. You say the true if you take a 50 people sample, not if you take a 6 billion sample.

We have not measured the IQ of 6 billion people.

To be clear, I'm not talking about actual observations of people. I'm talking about making correct inferences from the presentation of statistics. One cannot correctly conclude that there will be more high-IQ men than women in a population of people given only information about the mean and standard deviation of the IQ score Gaussian. This is incorrect reasoning.

Datawise, that observation has been made: there have been more high-IQ men observed than women. However, the further contention is how do you explain that obsevation? Some want to attribute it to genetics. That's an oddly distant set of explanatory variables, though, when we know that more proximate factors like hygiene and nutrition in early life strongly influence an adult's intellectual capacity. Couldn't it be that differential access to food, encouragement, and educational opportunities, besides differential cultural expectations, largely account for the relatively small difference in IQ distribution between men and women?

[ArtistTyrant]

but from a scale-flexibility-change around them, humans come out on top, followed by the other large mammals -.- it's not adaptation to situation A, B, and C that i meant, i meant, most impact on that which is outside the self, and of course humans do that consciously...and i disagree, i think the average person from 100,000 years ago, if put in today's environment/system, would be similar an average Amerind in terms of intelligence, that is to say, IQ of 85-90 or so

[cannotseethe]

but from a scale-flexibility-change around them, humans come out on top, followed by the other large mammals

There are fungal spores that can survive in space. Humans die if their body temperature goes outside of a +/- 8 degree F range or so. How is that flexibility?

In terms of current percentage of biomass, historical longevity, adaptability to harsh environments, effect on the constitution of the atmosphere...small organisms like bacteria and algae win hands down. We have brains so we use them to think we're the center of the universe, and if not the universe than the Earth, but it ain't so quantitatively.


i think the average person from 100,000 years ago, if put in today's environment/system, would be similar an average Amerind in terms of intelligence, that is to say, IQ of 85-90 or so

Why?

[Nightsun]

We have not measured the IQ of 6 billion people.

To be clear, I'm not talking about actual observations of people. I'm talking about making correct inferences from the presentation of statistics. One cannot correctly conclude that there will be more high-IQ men than women in a population of people given only information about the mean and standard deviation of the IQ score Gaussian. This is incorrect reasoning.

Datawise, that observation has been made: there have been more high-IQ men observed than women. However, the further contention is how do you explain that obsevation? Some want to attribute it to genetics. That's an oddly distant set of explanatory variables, though, when we know that more proximate factors like hygiene and nutrition in early life strongly influence an adult's intellectual capacity. Couldn't it be that differential access to food, encouragement, and educational opportunities, besides differential cultural expectations, largely account for the relatively small difference in IQ distribution between men and women?


Ok we haven't measured the IQ of 6 billions people, but of around 200 millions yes we did.
And yes given the standard deviation, the mean and the population number you can say how much people are after a given cutoff and you can also say the error (and the relative error approach 0 when the population goes to infinity). You can't not accept that IQ should be normalized to be gaussian (I agree) or that for high value of IQ (tail distribution) what seems gaussian in standard test became not gaussian (I agree) but the difference is big enough already after 1.5 sigma that an inversion in trend is unlikely. And that just if we consider the "normalization" problem, because if we ASSUME an "a priori" gaussian distribution, you don't need any sample you can see 1 guy in the street and tell the chance to be for instance higher than 120 IQ if male and the chance if female. You are misintrepretating probability laws. Your idea is right while BUILDING the distribution but after you HAVE the distribution law the sample population is unnecessary.

[cannotseethe]

after you HAVE the distribution law the sample population is unnecessary.

Only if you assume that the Gaussian model you built from your prior observations is somehow inherent and unchanging. This is the point of contention.

Is it true that coded somewhere in our collective DNA is the mean and standard deviation of an IQ distribution, which is such that among women that mean might be about the same as it is among men but the variance is lower? Maybe, but I contend this has not been convincingly demonstrated. Furthermore, as a matter of methodology, evolutionary history, which represents a distant set of explanatory variables in this case, is the last place one ought to look to explain such a weak cross-gender differential in a variable like IQ that is so clearly influenced by the early life history and culture of a person.

[ArtistTyrant]

There are fungal spores that can survive in space. Humans die if their body temperature goes outside of a +/- 8 degree F range or so. How is that flexibility?

In terms of current percentage of biomass, historical longevity, adaptability to harsh environments, effect on the constitution of the atmosphere...small organisms like bacteria and algae win hands down. We have brains so we use them to think we're the center of the universe, and if not the universe than the Earth, but it ain't so quantitatively.




Why?

why? because i have an evolutionary psychology point of view concerning intelligence, and race...the view i believe is that ethnic Europeans became superior intellectually because their environment (cold,northern Europe) necessitated the development of specific mental abilities/traits, such as critical thinking about the environment (holy shit, what the fuck is that saber tooth tiger? how do i kill that thing?), planning ahead for the future (winter is coming, we need to make tools now and hunt more before the opportunity is gone), and creativity (huh, i have...a stick here, and a rock that i've sharpened over here...if i put them together, i could throw them at things i'm hunting!)...as well as the environment promoting the development of introversion, deeper self awareness, in my opinion...so, if you picked an average person 100,000 years ago, there wouldn't have been enough humans (ancestors of ethnic Europeans) in the environment that caused such specific traits to develop ^_^ thus, the average person from that far back would be duller

[Nightsun]

Only if you assume that the Gaussian model you built from your prior observations is somehow inherent and unchanging. This is the point of contention.


But it wasn't mine! I agree with you that Gaussian-model-IQ is something without great scientific meaning. I've said several time that intelligence is NOT gaussian. I think that you were referring to the theorem not to the hypothesis.

[combustor]

Science has always run into this kind of attack of blind rage when people simply don't like the results or implications. Simply wishing things were a certain way doesn't make it so. Centuries ago the resistant force was religion or mysticism, which has been replaced in the contemporary by political correctness. Also the devisive tactic of encouraging people to identify with their "group" whether it be women, blacks, christians, et al. has exacerbated the outcry. No matter how much you may wish everyone or every "group" to be exactly the same, with equal ability, it probably isn't true. I'm sure no amount of reasoning will convince some of you that studies like this are anything but another "white man conspiracy" to keep everyone else down, even though as a "group" asians and jews have higher IQ than the "white man". Just concentrate on yourself and quit worrying about your group.

[emma4enriquexx]

I always thought that male and female brains were better and doing different kinds of problems. Females are better at memory and writing while men were better at maths, problem solving and practical work. There are tests on the internet which show if you have a more male or female brain and sometimes females have male brains and men can have female brains. I suppose based on that men would be better at IQ tests and females with other kinds of intelligence, although of course there will be exceptions.

[Monte314]

My personal experience is consistent with much of what emma4enriquexx has said here.

For example, I am constantly amazed by the multi-tasking skills of most women... I can't keep two things straight at once, let alone 10*. I suspect most men have had similar experiences. Further, there are certain types of cognition where this capability to simultaneously maintain multiple threads of reasoning is an advantage; I would expect women to outperform men in such areas.

It strikes me, in fact, that the questions on standard IQ tests are all of the "single-threaded" variety... sort of "down-and-in-serial-logic". They might require tangential thinking, but that is not the same as requiring "parallel" thinking. Perhaps this fact favors men on these exams. What is the stereotypical "absent-minded professor" but an oddball whose mental highway is very fast, but only one lane wide?

Hmmm... maybe I should consider a paper in this area. Visualize a scenario in which cognitive multi-tasking capacity was the measure of intelligence.... Anyone interested?


*This morning I was going through the McDonald's drive-through with my wife and younger daughter; they know I can't get anything but a trivial order right, because I just can't keep the details straight. As a result, they've "adjusted" their breakfast choices. This morning it was "Two sausage burritos and a sausage McMuffin"; I'll bet they had to remind me 5 times as we waited in line, 'cause I just couldn't hold it. Duh. Testosterone. Duh.

[Scatterbrane]

the view i believe is that ethnic Europeans became superior intellectually because their environment

Perhaps, but the data has yet to be gathered that would adequately support this hypothesis. It is very very hard to control for all the differentiators that are not directly biological.

Besides, we humans are surprisingly genetically homogeneous bunch despite the perceived differences.

[ArtistTyrant]

giggle, okay Scatterbrane, i guess history hasn't shown my hypothesis to be true? *pats* :) Ethnic Europeans have several genes that other groups don't have, with the first marker of that being the variety of eye colours evident in Germanic individuals...individuals with no Aryan genes pretty much always have brown/black eyes, for example =)

[Scatterbrane]

I am constantly amazed by the multi-tasking skills of most women

Hmm. Besides gender, I've related this trait to having an extroverted thinking style. Also to better inter brain communication, i.e. women tend to be more whole-brained in their thinking style, e.g. they typically have a better connected corpus callosum.

What is the stereotypical "absent-minded professor" but an oddball whose mental highway is very fast, but only one lane wide?

Schweet analogy. I am regularly annoyed that particular thought styles are defined as "intelligent", when they may fail catastrophically compared to others depending on what kind of attention mechanism the task at hand requires. This is why I avoid that term when all the information I'm given indicates only proficiency at a very particular kind of task, requiring a particular mode of attention. This applies to IQ tests.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 08:19 PM ----------

Ethnic Europeans have several genes that other groups don't have

Not to imply I may not have missed some important correlation that implies your conclusion, but this one indicates variety, not specific superiority.

with the first marker of that being the variety of eye colours evident in Germanic individuals...individuals with no Aryan genes pretty much always have brown/black eyes

Yeah, I judge people's intelligence by their eye color all the time.

Your conclusion may work from a practical perspective of there being heavy correlations between genetic and developmental factors for reasons of environment and social workings, but statistics still do not bear out the conclusion that these differences are based more on genetics as such. Relating cognition to genetics is an experimental, highly cross-disciplinary field of study.

[TigerL]

1. I've read other things by Kanazawa - he has weird ideas, the validity of which I often question.

2. There is a difference between statistically significant and clinically significance. As Monte stated earlier, 3-5 points doesn't strike me as clinically signficant - i.e. have a real impact on your life.

3. It all comes back to the individual as another poster stated. I have pretty good visuo-spatial ability/ am not directionally-challenged so I remember places, maps, directions better than many men.

4. One idea I've wonder about: in some sense, short people might need to be smarter (per inch?) than tall people to survive. If they can't get by on brawn, they have to rely on something else to survive evolutionarily?

[Scatterbrane]

4. One idea I've wonder about: in some sense, short people might need to be smarter (per inch?) than tall people to survive. If they can't get by on brawn, they have to rely on something else to survive evolutionarily?

Strikes me as a matter of scaling -- dimishing returns -- rather than need.

[Ian Morrison]

I've always found this kind of data offensive, since it runs counter to my ideals and intuition. However, we all know that isn't a valid reason to discount it. Therefore, for the sake of argument, I'll accept the results of these kinds of studies as valid.

So what?

Statistics of large groups are useful for analyzing behaviour and results... of large groups. The problem is that people, even highly intelligent, highly educated ones, are remarkably stupid when it comes to statistics. There is therefore a danger of people thinking "given a man and a woman, the man will be smarter." If the study is correct, then this will be true ON AVERAGE, but the fact remains that there are smart women and dumb men, and in fact the difference will be in favour of the woman often enough that making that assumption will leave you wrong, OFTEN. This is why it's mind bogglingly stupid to apply for large, variable populations to individuals, yet people do it anyway. That's the main problem with these studies... most people just do not understand statistics.

So my opinion? This study, regardless of correctness, is irrelevant to how I treat people in daily life. People are too variable to prejudge based on a slight statistical difference. The fact that the averages are different doesn't justify prejudice in the slightest... the risk of dismissing a smart woman or over-appraising a dumb man are far too high to make it a defensible practise.

Evaluate, THEN judge. Human beings don't roll off an assembly line. You don't know what kind of person you're dealing with from surface characteristics.

[nacht]

Anyone looking at this article should probably read the original study (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that the claim comes from.

They should also probably read Gelman's 2007 letter (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) raising certain concerns about Kanazawa's statistical methodologies, along with his more thorough paper on the topic (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). There is a claim that his criticisms are refuted or corrected for in the 2009 paper, but it is not obvious how this is the case (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Leaving aside matters of statistical correctness, Kanazawa seems to make a business out of analyzing a single large set of data (a longitudinal study on adolescent health) for what could be thought of as statistically but not necessarily clinically significant differences. A difference of 3-5 IQ points may be statistically significant, but it is very difficult to argue that it is clinically significant.

I am also always suspicious of anything grounded too heavily in post hoc justifications, but that's another matter.

[Still Standing]

So, are white people significantly more intelligent than Asians or Hispanics?

No, white people are smarter than black people and asian people are smarter than white people.
Don't know where the hispanics fit since some of them have very light skin and some have very dark skin also.

Yeah, I know. It's bullshit.

[freeeekyyy]

No, white people are smarter than black people and asian people are smarter than white people.
Don't know where the hispanics fit since some of them have very light skin and some have very dark skin also.

Yeah, I know. It's bullshit.
I think that generally holds true, but its due more to societal than genetic differences. Between men and women, the differences are genetic. Not that men are smarter necessarily, but have a different type of intelligence, which performs better on IQ tests.

[Still Standing]

Between men and women, the differences are genetic. Not that men are smarter necessarily, but have a different type of intelligence, which performs better on IQ tests.

And what could be said about hermaphrodites?

[sofki]

I believe that most women don't get to develop their mentality (replace this word with a more appropriate one as english is not my mother language) as their "good years" are much less than mens'. Mensturation stops on average at the age of 40 -many women enter menopause earlier than that.Before they reach this age,they have to look for and find Mr Right and reproduce.There is pressure.This is called nature but it gets unnatural when they are being so much brainwashed by the medias! Men are only brainwashed about the size of their penis and it only takes a bit of rational thought to realize that this is bullshit.The propaganda and the stereotypes are worse for women and the funds have been put decades of centuries ago.

[Zsych]

Perhaps, but the data has yet to be gathered that would adequately support this hypothesis. It is very very hard to control for all the differentiators that are not directly biological.

Besides, we humans are surprisingly genetically homogeneous bunch despite the perceived differences.

My personal opinion on this, is that we build a huge amount on the basic system we're born with. We build systems of thought on top of systems of thought.

A very minor difference at the beginning would still express itself significantly after years and years of building on top of it. Applications of a slightly higher natural talent, would add up over time.

[freeeekyyy]

And what could be said about hermaphrodites?
Hermaphrodites usually point more towards one gender or the other. Are you asking whether differences exist between men and women?

[Storm]

I think that generally holds true, but its due more to societal than genetic differences. Between men and women, the differences are genetic. Not that men are smarter necessarily, but have a different type of intelligence, which performs better on IQ tests.

Why is it necessarily genetic? As cannotseethe said, there is little reason to believe it is genetic, but more likely due to environmental factors. Such as, women not being as encouraged to develop their intellect as men.

The studies which promote that women just have a "different type of intelligence" have largely been refuted. Men's and women's brains are really not that different.

[freeeekyyy]

Here's an article on the differences in mens and womens brains. It's not sourced, but there are plenty of other articles out there which make the same claims. Most of this stuff is not really in question. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, I take that back. IT is sourced. The statements themselves have links to the sources.

[Still Standing]

Hermaphrodites usually point more towards one gender or the other. Are you asking whether differences exist between men and women?

No. This would mean, then, if the theory is valid, that hermaphrodites who point more towards maleness have a higher IQ than those who point more towards femaleness?

[freeeekyyy]

No. This would mean, then, if the theory is valid, that hermaphrodites who point more towards maleness have a higher IQ than those who point more towards femaleness?
Potentially. Not that they have a higher IQ, but in some cases they may have the mental form that is more commonly associated with that gender. I'm not saying all men are smarter than all women, I'm saying that men's brains work differently from women's, and that can have an effect on IQ. Not necessarily overall intelligence, IQ. The particular categories that are measured by IQ tests.

[Storm]

Here's an article on the differences in mens and womens brains. It's not sourced, but there are plenty of other articles out there which make the same claims. Most of this stuff is not really in question. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, I take that back. IT is sourced. The statements themselves have links to the sources.

These are all trends, which means there are men and women who do not fit in the norm. If you're trying to argue that All men are fundamentally X and All women are fundamentally Y, then trends are not helpful.

Environmental factors could explain the difference - and not something that is inherently genetic.

Also, blogs do not count as "sources."

And, like I said, physical difference in the brain have been refuted* (meaning you might still find the old studies lying around the net) as not measuring any significant difference since they were based on small sample sizes (like 20 brains, turns out human brains are hard to get a hold of).

*Except for absolute size, which doesn't seem to mean much within a species.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[freeeekyyy]

These are all trends, which means there are men and women who do not fit in the norm. If you're trying to argue that All men are fundamentally X and All women are fundamentally Y, then trends are not helpful.

Environmental factors could explain the difference - and not something that is inherently genetic.

And, like I said, physical difference in the brain have been refuted* (meaning you might still find the old studies lying around the net) as not measuring any significant difference since they were based on small sample sizes (like 20 brains, turns out human brains are hard to get a hold of).

*Except for absolute size, which doesn't seem to mean much within a species.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Not really saying that all men are smarter than all women. But all men do have a Y chromosome. All women don't. What effect does that have on the brain, or on any number of other factors?

[Storm]

Not really saying that all men are smarter than all women. But all men do have a Y chromosome. All women don't. What effect does that have on the brain, or on any number of other factors?

It doesn't necessarily have an effect.

[Syntax]

If men actually ARE more intelligent...you won't hear us spouting this stuff anytime soon! We like not sleeping on the couch. Besides, we have more to gain from pretending to be stupid. Without fail, my dad will do a TERRIBLE job at washing the dishes, often "accidentally" breaking several in the process. Why? It's a secret that only men know. :P


As has been said, 3-5 IQ points, even if statistically relevant, is not practically relevant. And it's CERTAINLY no justification of any form of the ecological fallacy. I've met FAR too many intelligent women to have the audacity to pre-judge in that arena.

[plotthickens]

Expanding on CST and NS's remarks,

"Spain, Denmark, and the United States".

All societies where men are typically fed more and better quality than women, especially in families where a couple slices of meat and a block of cheese had to spread through the week's lunches.

The feeding discrepancy can account for both brain development and its correspondance with height.

[freeeekyyy]

It doesn't necessarily have an effect.
You're absolutely right. But the data does show a difference in IQ, even if small. My point is, how do we know this isn't due to inherent genetic differences?

[Storm]

You're absolutely right. But the data does show a difference in IQ, even if small. My point is, how do we know this isn't due to inherent genetic differences?

Environmental factors are far more likely for such a small difference. If it was a BIG difference (like, how women have breasts and men very very rarely do, although possible), then it is more likely to be inherent genetics. Why jump to the least likely position first? That's illogical and unlikely to get a correct answer.

[freeeekyyy]

Environmental factors are far more likely for such a small difference. If it was a BIG difference (like, how women have breasts and men very very rarely do, although possible), then it is more likely to be inherent genetics. Why jump to the least likely position first? That's illogical and unlikely to get a correct answer.
I guess, even if it didn't appear this way, I'm not really trying to draw a conclusion saying men are smarter because of genetics. I'm really just trying to say, it's a possibility. We don't know. I'm sure you're right that environment is a big factor, maybe more important than genetics, but we can't conclude that genetics doesn't impact it either. We just don't know.

[Storm]

Well, interestingly, it use to be thought that women were inherently much dumber than men. As women have had greater access to the same educational benefits are treated more and more as equals, more and more women choose to enter professions that have been traditionally seen as men's domain. Which, leads more credence to the notion that it is not inherent ability but societal and environmental factors.

Of course, there are still a lot of societal pressure on both men and women to follow gender roles - which could easily explain why men and women are not yet seen in equal numbers in all fields. Women who choose to enter computer science, for instance, will find themselves entrenched in a culture which view women as not as capable, excluded from the group, or even not challenged as hard by teachers who think they "can't handle it."

It works the other way too, few men, unfortunately, choose to enter fields traditionally dominated by women (stay-at-home parent, nurse, elementary teacher, etc.). This explanation seems much much more likely than inherent genetics. And I choose to go with the more likely explanation.

[Zsych]

There is a definite difference in the areas of problem solving that women and men do well at. IQ tests just include both of them, creating the impression that men and women are equivalently intelligent overall, with intelligence seeming to be one thing as opposed to a complicated sum of many parts.

Some men are better at skills that women naturally excel at than most women. Some women are better at skills that men naturally excel at than most men. On average of course, men and women would fall on their own sides, because that is what the average is based on.

Do you think superior communication between the hemispheres of the brain for example, gives women no advantage at all? The only way it could have no effect would be if whatever applications that difference allows are never allowed to develop in women.

I think on average, guys are less suited to being taught in a school atmosphere than women are. I can barely imagine something more unsatisfying than school was to me, and my parents never did manage to make me care about school or grades, so I did well in what I cared to, and not in what I didn't care to... and I almost never did assignments for anything.
Seriously - I was never conformist enough to be able to appreciate the value of a number or grade on a sheet of paper that gave me nothing that I wanted, as a kid, just because other people thought I should - with me seeing no evidence to support such a belief :P

[Monte314]

.... Women who choose to enter computer science, for instance, will find themselves entrenched in a culture which view women as not as capable, excluded from the group, or even not challenged as hard by teachers who think they "can't handle it."

I'm teaching two CS courses right now (undergraduate). Of my two most talented students, one is male and the other female. This is noteworthy, since men outnumber women 5-to-1.

I've made a point of mentioning the lady's talent during lectures several times (it's natural, since she frequently speaks up in class to answer questions). I want to nurture her talent, and encourage her as a computer scientist.

[Zsych]

Are you less interested in nurturing the guy's talent Monte, or is he just less likable?

[Antares]

It's ok. If that's what they conclude, then I can readily accept the fact that men on average score a couple of points higher on IQ tests than women (note; Score higher on IQ tests, not more intelligent). No offense taken. Firstly, IQ; what does it measure anyway? I don't have faith in tests that correlate better with each other than lifelong success, as SAT and GRE correlate with each other more than actual college success (David G. Myers, Psychology 9th Edition). Secondly, even if these things have merit, what does it show anyway? I dare any of the researchers to make some broad misogynistic claims, or that men should (insert favorable position here). To make this situation even funnier, statistically, it is unlikely that they outscore me on standardized aptitude tests (or at least by a large margin), just sayin' :rolleyes: And if they think that means I'm smarter than they are, I should have to really LOL

[ya lyublyu tebya]

They fail to take into account that both men and taller people are expected to succeed more than women or shorter people, and whether consciously or subconsciously on the part of the educators, receive more personalized attention and just better quality teaching. I've experienced the biases first-hand, and were I the type to just accept that, I probably would have shown that pattern of being less intelligent than men.

[Storm]

I'm teaching two CS courses right now (undergraduate). Of my two most talented students, one is male and the other female. This is noteworthy, since men outnumber women 5-to-1.

I've made a point of mentioning the lady's talent during lectures several times (it's natural, since she frequently speaks up in class to answer questions). I want to nurture her talent, and encourage her as a computer scientist.

Why are you treating her special because of her sex? It's sort of like saying "Wow, you're really smart, I can't believe you're a girl!"

Do you think superior communication between the hemispheres of the brain for example, gives women no advantage at all? The only way it could have no effect would be if whatever applications that difference allows are never allowed to develop in women.

Seeing as how this supposed greater connection between the hemispheres is based upon a sample size of 20 (9 women, 11 men), I don't draw any conclusions from it.

[Blse]

"Men" and "women" are invented categories.

I could invent "glorps" and "flurks", categorize every human in one of them (except those that didn't fit into one, who I would cast out of society) and compare the two, and this would be as meaningful as the study at hand.

Yes, and penises and vaginas are products of the imagination. While I'd agree that gender, as it is commonly understood, is a partly a social construct, it clearly has a distinct biological bases. Humanity is split into two groups by its very nature. Nature has not split humanity into glorps and flurks so the comparison doesn't work.

As for the study itself, the high-intelligence correlation sounds interesting, but we do of course need to remember that these are big generalizations.

[Monte314]

Are you less interested in nurturing the guy's talent Monte, or is he just less likable?

Why are you treating her special because of her sex? It's sort of like saying "Wow, you're really smart, I can't believe you're a girl!"


He doesn't need the nurture. He will be successful whether it is offered or not. But I see hesitation and self-doubt in this young woman; she needs to be encouraged. If their needs were reversed, my response would be reversed.

[freeeekyyy]

Here is a list of the major physical differences between male and female humans:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[The Drifter]

There is a definite difference in the areas of problem solving that women and men do well at. IQ tests just include both of them, creating the impression that men and women are equivalently intelligent overall, with intelligence seeming to be one thing as opposed to a complicated sum of many parts.

Some men are better at skills that women naturally excel at than most women. Some women are better at skills that men naturally excel at than most men. On average of course, men and women would fall on their own sides, because that is what the average is based on.

Do you think superior communication between the hemispheres of the brain for example, gives women no advantage at all? The only way it could have no effect would be if whatever applications that difference allows are never allowed to develop in women.

I think on average, guys are less suited to being taught in a school atmosphere than women are. I can barely imagine something more unsatisfying than school was to me, and my parents never did manage to make me care about school or grades, so I did well in what I cared to, and not in what I didn't care to... and I almost never did assignments for anything.
Seriously - I was never conformist enough to be able to appreciate the value of a number or grade on a sheet of paper that gave me nothing that I wanted, as a kid, just because other people thought I should - with me seeing no evidence to support such a belief :P

When a certain skill is either extremely right brained or extremely left brained, communication from the other side is merely interference.

[firebee]

You know, I joked earlier about how what would happen is that the Internets would conclude that women and men were vastly different and oh, what's that phrase, "separate but equal"? And that sure, men are just more naturally talented at things like being the CEOs of major corporations but women's gifts for being able to clean pureed food products off of walls were just as important and valuable?

Yeah. I should not joke about such things. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Because evidently it turns out that "Hey, women might be paid less but they sure do have more shoes in their closets, hurr hurr hurr..."

For some reason, my faith in evolutionary psychologists is not exactly high.

[freeeekyyy]

You know, I joked earlier about how what would happen is that the Internets would conclude that women and men were vastly different and oh, what's that phrase, "separate but equal"? And that sure, men are just more naturally talented at things like being the CEOs of major corporations but women's gifts for being able to clean pureed food products off of walls were just as important and valuable?

Yeah. I should not joke about such things. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Because evidently it turns out that "Hey, women might be paid less but they sure do have more shoes in their closets, hurr hurr hurr..."

For some reason, my faith in evolutionary psychologists is not exactly high.
So, are you saying studies should be avoided or their creators ostracized to avoid an unpleasant reaction?

Oh, here's a question for you. Did you actually read the article you posted?

[Storm]

So, are you saying studies should be avoided or their creators ostracized to avoid an unpleasant reaction?

Oh, here's a question for you. Did you actually read the article you posted?

I believe firebee was using a method of humor called "sarcasm." The article in question does indeed compare the want of shoes in men as equivalent to the same atrocity of women holding lower-paying jobs.

[freeeekyyy]

I believe firebee was using a method of humor called "sarcasm." The article in question does indeed compare the want of shoes in men as equivalent to the same atrocity of women holding lower-paying jobs.
yeah, it does say that, it uses it as an example of worthless information, to make its attack on feminism.

[Synamon]

I dunno firebee, the guy might be on to something:
In some ways, in many ways, men are more similar to male chimpanzees or gorillas than to women.
from his anti-feminist rant (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on happiness

[freeeekyyy]

I dunno firebee, the guy might be on to something:

from his anti-feminist rant (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on happiness
As a man, I must say, this is true. Our attitudes are more like gorillas. We act like gorillas. Men and women are different, it's a fact of life. And that difference affects every aspect of who we are.

[Storm]

Have you actually studied the mating habits of gorillas?

I fail to see how frequency of lower-paying jobs is equivalent in "worthlessness" to amount of shoes. Interestingly, shoes is not actually any sort of indication of inherent sexual differences but a culture difference as to gender roles.

[firebee]

So, are you saying studies should be avoided or their creators ostracized to avoid an unpleasant reaction?

Holy leap of logic, Batman!

No, a better paraphrasing would be "Hmm, funny thing: here's an example of exactly the sort of agenda-driven behavior that I commented humorously about, and it's from the very same author who wrote the article linked in the OP."


Oh, here's a question for you. Did you actually read the article you posted?

Indeed.

Perhaps I am driven by my fundamental biological talent for throwing things at walls and seeing what sticks.

[freeeekyyy]

Holy leap of logic, Batman!

No, a better paraphrasing would be "Hmm, funny thing: here's an example of exactly the sort of agenda-driven behavior that I commented humorously about, and it's from the very same author who wrote the article linked in the OP."



Indeed.

Perhaps I am driven by my fundamental biological talent for throwing things at walls and seeing what sticks.
Well, if its from the same author, that doesn't prove your point. If it were a different author, it might.

I think you're assuming anti-feminism is the same as being anti-woman. There's no evidence of this anywhere. The article doesn't attack women, it attacks the notion that men and women are the same. Maybe you aren't a woman who enjoys buying shoes. Maybe most women don't. But its a fact that women on average own more shoes than men. That wasn't really the main point of the article anyway. It was that men and women are different. That's obvious, people shouldn't even be having to say that.

[Storm]

Men are women are different is not the same as

Women should stop worrying their pretty little heads about things like money and independence and thinking. That's for men.

[freeeekyyy]

Men are women are different is not the same as

Women should stop worrying their pretty little heads about things like money and independence and thinking. That's for men.
Who said that? Seriously, why do you love so much to make straw man arguments?

[firebee]

Well, if its from the same author, that doesn't prove your point. If it were a different author, it might.

My point is that this particular author seems to be placed on this Earth to (attract clicks to Psychology Today and) push a consistent theme regarding gender roles. Using an article from a different author to attempt to prove this point would be silly.


It was that men and women are different.

He is advocating, out of complete innocence and concern for humanity, that people should look deep into their souls and celebrate their true selves. The best way for me to do this, apparently, is to "kill all the liberals, hippies, and feminists", drop out of school, and commence to crank out baybees.

Scientific progress goes "boing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)", I guess.

[freeeekyyy]

Men are women are different is not the same as

Women should stop worrying their pretty little heads about things like money and independence and thinking. That's for men.

My point is that this particular author seems to be placed on this Earth to (attract clicks to Psychology Today and) push a consistent theme regarding gender roles. Using an article from a different author to attempt to prove this point would be silly.



He is advocating, out of complete innocence and concern for humanity, that people should look deep into their souls and celebrate their true selves. The best way for me to do this, apparently, is to "kill all the liberals, hippies, and feminists", drop out of school, and commence to crank out baybees.

Scientific progress goes "boing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)", I guess.

You may be right about that. It doesn't really change what was stated in the op though.

[Storm]

Who said that? Seriously, why do you love so much to make straw man arguments?

Then how are men and women different if you don't endorse the author's view? I assume that when you state you agree with an author, you agree with their entire viewpoint expressed. My post, was also another example what is referred to as "sarcasm." I don't think that was your literal viewpoint, but a humorous hyberbole of it.

When your reader fails to understand your point, perhaps you are being unclear, and it is not a failing of intelligence on the part of the reader. Your point is vague, unclear, and fails to make a coherent argument.

So, here's your chance. How exactly are men and women different? I'll grant you outward physical attributes.

[freeeekyyy]

Then how are men and women different if you don't endorse the author's view? I assume that when you state you agree with an author, you agree with their entire viewpoint expressed. My post, was also another example what is referred to as "sarcasm." I don't think that was your literal viewpoint, but a humorous hyberbole of it.

When your reader fails to understand your point, perhaps you are being unclear, and it is not a failing of intelligence on the part of the reader. Your point is vague, unclear, and fails to make a coherent argument.

So, here's your chance. How exactly are men and women different? I'll grant you outward physical attributes.

Men and women are different in the structure of their thought processes and in the physical construction of their brains. Note: I'm not saying men are smarter than women, I'm saying that men work differently from women, and men and women do have different types of intelligence. When men are very young, (during development) their brains receive a bath of testosterone which leads to very different characteristics, one example of which would be greater preference for one brain hemisphere or another, where women tend to be more balanced.(it could be right or left, so this isnt a "men are logical, women are emotional" statement)

[Storm]

That may be true, although I tried looking and found studies going both ways on the differences and using sample sizes of only 20 brains or rats, probably because human brains are hard to come by. But I don't think it says anything useful about ability.

[freeeekyyy]

That may be true, although I tried looking and found studies going both ways on the differences and using sample sizes of only 20 brains or rats, probably because human brains are hard to come by. But I don't think it says anything useful about ability.


Well, from what I've observed, the studies don't really differ on whether men are more distinct in their hemisphere preference. It's usually more about which hemisphere they prefer. That,I think, is harder to answer, because it's more of an individual trait. Even using an individual man as an example, he may use both hemispheres, just as often as each other, but it won't be at the same time, and they don't share information with each other as easily as they would in a female brain.

[Storm]

Well, from what I've observed, the studies don't really differ on whether men are more distinct in their hemisphere preference. It's usually more about which hemisphere they prefer. That,I think, is harder to answer, because it's more of an individual trait. Even using an individual man as an example, he may use both hemispheres, just as often as each other, but it won't be at the same time, and they don't share information with each other as easily as they would in a female brain.

Ok, of course I assume you mean "averages" and not "individuals," but such differences don't say anything about ability.

To draw an analogy, the INTJ will process things differently than an ESFP, but as for whether any two such individuals will do better than the other at any particular task is impossible to say. It might be that one type is overrepresented in a field, but that says more about the field than the type, and it doesn't say that those overrepresented in the field are any better at than those in the field who are underrepresented.

[freeeekyyy]

Ok, of course I assume you mean "averages" and not "individuals," but such differences don't say anything about ability.

To draw an analogy, the INTJ will process things differently than an ESFP, but as for whether any two such individuals will do better than the other at any particular task is impossible to say. It might be that one type is overrepresented in a field, but that says more about the field than the type, and it doesn't say that those overrepresented in the field are any better at than those in the field who are underrepresented.

No, they don't say anything about difference in ability. But the statistics on IQ do, even if insignificant. And knowing that the two brain hemispheres process information differently, its not hard to imagine that that could be part of the reason why men, on average, have that slightly higher IQ. Not saying environment isn't also important, or maybe even more so, but that doesn't negate the possible effect of different processing techniques.

[nacht]

No, they don't say anything about difference in ability. But the statistics on IQ do, even if insignificant.


The statistics are also irrelevant when dealing with individuals. If I draw people from two separate pools (one normally distributed with a mean of 100 and the other normally distributed with a mean of 103, both with a standard deviation of 15) there is a (roughly) 44% probability that the one from the "lower" pool will have a higher value than the one from the "higher" pool.


And knowing that the two brain hemispheres process information differently, its not hard to imagine that that could be part of the reason why men, on average, have that slightly higher IQ. Not saying environment isn't also important, or maybe even more so, but that doesn't negate the possible effect of different processing techniques.

What the study actually indicates, all statistical and methodological problems aside (along with the issue of IQ tests in general), is that a tall woman is more likely to have a higher IQ than a short man. So knowing nothing but height and gender, my 6'2" female coworker is slightly more likely to have a higher IQ than my 5'5" male coworker. The difference, however, is slight and most likely not clinically significant.

[deinotes]

Articles have been appearing in the published literature for the last couple of years (e.g., The American Journal of Psychology) suggesting that as a group, men have "slightly but significantly" higher IQ's than women as a group.

Here is a blog excerpt from the popular ( = non-scholarly) Psychology Today by an evolutionary psychologist who cites some 2009 journal publications to this effect:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(You read the entire article here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the suggested difference is probably too small to have any significant practical effect; but what would be the cultural impact if this notion proves to be correct?
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Tallness is not equal to intelligence.

If anything has to do with it it may be the size of the brain, the human brain is one of the most efficient brains in the animal kingdom ,it's about the perfect size.

[Indubitably]

Seems a little like these guys are grasping at straws here. It is true that the male and female brains are different, and that there are indeed areas where one will do better than the other on average, but 5 points on a test that is hardly anywhere near a comprehensive measure of intelligence is barely enough to warrant notice.

[IslandHead]

IQ just measures cognitive ability. The ability of abstract thought and knowledge. You can train your mind and raise your IQ. I think this has to do more with how society treats men and women in the education system than the actual brains of the sample.

[nacht]

Seems a little like these guys are grasping at straws here. It is true that the male and female brains are different, and that there are indeed areas where one will do better than the other on average, but 5 points on a test that is hardly anywhere near a comprehensive measure of intelligence is barely enough to warrant notice.

Have you actually read the study or the article linked to? It indicates that the difference is in height and that men are, on average, taller.

[Indubitably]

Have you actually read the study or the article linked to? It indicates that the difference is in height and that men are, on average, taller.

Ahh yes, thank you, I hadn't noticed that link at the bottom of the post, so my response was indeed directed at the initial statement.

[nacht]

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.


...and a clever quip proves nothing.

More accurately you might say that statistics do not lie, but liars frequently use statistics. There are plenty of valid critiques of the use of statistics in this manner, but handwaving about "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is not one of them.


Tallness is not equal to intelligence.


Kindly point out where in the study this is claimed.


If anything has to do with it it may be the size of the brain, the human brain is one of the most efficient brains in the animal kingdom ,it's about the perfect size.

You are claiming, therefore, that the human brain has absolutely zero correlation between the size of the brain and the intelligence of the individual with it? Would you care to provide a citation demonstrating not just a lack of a correlation, but precisely zero correlation?

You may also choose to demonstrate that a smaller or larger brain not just isn't, but couldn't be more efficient.

[Tyrant Soup]

Kindly point out where in the study this is claimed.


If I remember correctly, the study simply showed that those receiving good nutrition during childhood will be more likely to reach their maximum genetic potential in both size and intelligence. It does not prove that tall people are smarter.

[TheLastMohican]

Here is a blog excerpt from the popular ( = non-scholarly) Psychology Today by an evolutionary psychologist who cites some 2009 journal publications to this effect:

(You read the entire article here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the suggested difference is probably too small to have any significant practical effect; but what would be the cultural impact if this notion proves to be correct?

Practically nil. If anything, IQ tests would just be tweaked so that the scores balance out. I don't see much sense in trying to determine whether one sex is "smarter" than the other; each one has depended on the other's attributes for survival, and the very fact that they have worked so well as complements renders attempts at superiority posturing moot. Comparing the sexes' intelligence levels is like trying to establish whether apples or oranges taste better. They're just different, and for good reasons.

[Causa Mortis]

3-5 IQ points may be statistically significant but is not practically significant, particularly when you consider that its likely the right tail that's skewing the average for the men (the geniuses). You'd struggle to tell the difference between someone with a 115 IQ and a 118 IQ or a 97 and 100 IQ, and my guess is that in the 10th-90th percentile there's less difference between men and women.

Women also probably have a small advantage in social intelligence.

Edit: socialization and emphasis on women developing skills in areas other than math and science may also play a significant role. IQ is probably f(genetics, effort, nutrition), nurture may impact effort.

[nacht]

If I remember correctly, the study simply showed that those receiving good nutrition during childhood will be more likely to reach their maximum genetic potential in both size and intelligence.

Not even close. It's only mention of nutrition in context of evolutionary psychology and desirability of mates. In fact, the study claims outright that "Health no longer has any significant effect on intelligence."


It does not prove that tall people are smarter.


Nor does it claim, or even attempt to claim, anything close to "tall people are smarter." Saying that "Tallness is not equal to intelligence" is a nicely constructed straw man, since the claim is neither in the paper nor in the article that references the paper. The paper claims that there is a correlation, which means that some percent of the variance can be accounted for by the height of the individual, and may be non-causal.

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 11:03 PM ----------


Edit: socialization and emphasis on women developing skills in areas other than math and science may also play a significant role. IQ is probably f(genetics, effort, nutrition), nurture may impact effort.


...and again, the study was talking about height being the underlying variable, not differences in women and men. You don't even have to read very far in the study, it is in the abstract at the very top: "once we control for height women have slightly higher IQs than men."

[Nightsun]

My personal experience is consistent with much of what emma4enriquexx has said here.

For example, I am constantly amazed by the multi-tasking skills of most women... I can't keep two things straight at once, let alone 10*. I suspect most men have had similar experiences. Further, there are certain types of cognition where this capability to simultaneously maintain multiple threads of reasoning is an advantage; I would expect women to outperform men in such areas.

It strikes me, in fact, that the questions on standard IQ tests are all of the "single-threaded" variety... sort of "down-and-in-serial-logic". They might require tangential thinking, but that is not the same as requiring "parallel" thinking. Perhaps this fact favors men on these exams. What is the stereotypical "absent-minded professor" but an oddball whose mental highway is very fast, but only one lane wide?

Hmmm... maybe I should consider a paper in this area. Visualize a scenario in which cognitive multi-tasking capacity was the measure of intelligence.... Anyone interested?


I am!!!!!!!! Doing a revised and more "varied" IQ test seems an interesting project. By the way, the main problem is in the definition of intelligence. Definition say it all. We have different terms and intelligence is (mathematically speaking) ill-defined. For instance I value intelligence a good margin but not more than many other things. Sometimes I have discussion with my wife because she say things like: "How can X be intelligent and doing Y?" And I say: "he is intelligent but has a poor emotional intelligence" or "he is intelligent but is unable to multitask", etc.. There are many facets of intellect, but we must define WHAT we call intelligence, actually I use intelligence for abstract analytic or synthetic problem-solving. Other aspect of the intellect are divergent thinking, multitasking, will, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, insight, and many others, but calling all of them intelligence seems to me only an act of "politically correctness" so everyone is intelligent because everyone have a strength, but that way intelligence becomes too wide and lost its meaning.
Another aspect is taking into account the spread of male intelligence, while for instance usually female have a better emotional intelligence, due to the greater spread is still possible to find more men on the highest percentile (for instance there are more "better than average" female psychologist but the few best are still usually male, and I'm saying that in general, my psychologist is female by the way)

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:19 AM ----------

Hmm. Besides gender, I've related this trait to having an extroverted thinking style. Also to better inter brain communication, i.e. women tend to be more whole-brained in their thinking style, e.g. they typically have a better connected corpus callosum.
.

They also have more white matter and less gray matter, and doing IQ test under NMR they show a greater area of activation

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:25 AM ----------

That's the main problem with these studies... most people just do not understand statistics.

So my opinion? This study, regardless of correctness, is irrelevant to how I treat people in daily life. People are too variable to prejudge based on a slight statistical difference. The fact that the averages are different doesn't justify prejudice in the slightest... the risk of dismissing a smart woman or over-appraising a dumb man are far too high to make it a defensible practise.

Evaluate, THEN judge. Human beings don't roll off an assembly line. You don't know what kind of person you're dealing with from surface characteristics.

I agree with you but the fact that people draw stupid conclusions from studies doesn't imply that studies are not worth it. Is like nuclear power, you should develop nuclear technology but you shouldn't use it for destruction.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:26 AM ----------

And what could be said about hermaphrodites?

And how that is important?

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:31 AM ----------


And, like I said, physical difference in the brain have been refuted* (meaning you might still find the old studies lying around the net) as not measuring any significant difference since they were based on small sample sizes (like 20 brains, turns out human brains are hard to get a hold of).



We probably read different source.
Try this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Baron-Cohen is one of the lead scientist in autism research and far from being "refused"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:36 AM ----------

He doesn't need the nurture. He will be successful whether it is offered or not. But I see hesitation and self-doubt in this young woman; she needs to be encouraged. If their needs were reversed, my response would be reversed.

Usually girls are more neurotic and insecure especially if putted in a "men environment", you are doing a great job for me.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:39 AM ----------

As a man, I must say, this is true. Our attitudes are more like gorillas. We act like gorillas. Men and women are different, it's a fact of life. And that difference affects every aspect of who we are.

Haha, so true badly, at least until university I was unable to talk with male peers, too much "gorillazed".

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 11:45 AM ----------


To draw an analogy, the INTJ will process things differently than an ESFP...

So for instance you explain the difference in MBTI population between men and women only as "society"? Do you really think that genetic doesn't have anything to do with it? Do you think that:
- Historical role separation has nothing to do with genetic
and
- Millennia of role separation doesn't influence further genetic difference
?
As I always stated, if I should astonished about something is that men and women are so similar.

[admittedheretic]

I firmly back what Nightsun is saying.

I'm very interested in the scientific differences between men and women, but as far as it as a social or political topic is mostly just humoring. Too many people seem to think that if there where ever any solid evidence proving men are 'better' than women that it would somehow significantly change anything. Perhaps men are quantitatively better, but they certainly are not all qualitatively better a crossed the board. Any definition of intelligence is subjective so in principle I don't think it could ever be said men are better than women or vise versa.

Testerone has been significantly positively correlated with visual-spatial ability in males and females. Testosterone has also been negatively correlated with verbal ability. Testosterone doesn't explain the entirety of why men are visual-spatial superior and why women are verbally superior, but it plays an important role. Most IQ scores are said to be full scale with the parts consisting of verbal and non-verbal components. Non-verbal questions are the only way to universally measure without bias, but I don't believe or fail to understand how a measure of visual spatial ability can be extrapolated to be an indicator of full scale IQ. Most people's verbal IQ is roughly the same as their non-verbal, but there are instances when one person might have one significantly higher than the other. If 5 points is a standard deviation than I would think 5 points could easily be due cultural bais in any verbal assement.

[Nightsun]

There is an interesting things to notice. When psychologist make IQ test they have particular subset (like verbal analogy, matrix rotation, etc..) and also they need to take the raw score test and "normalize" them into a gaussian.

If we admit that men have a larger spread of IQ than women this automatically lead to a difference in the average value. Why?
It's simple but insightful.

Dumb male (there are more dumb male than female) will have a "virtual IQ" higher than their real IQ. The problem is simple. While we have a gaussian as reference with the mean at 100 IQ tests (especially tests for adults) have a "lower IQ" ceiling at around 2-2.5 sigma (around 50 IQ) and an higher upper bound (at around 160 for instance). But, there is a but. REAL intelligence is not gaussian you will find far more people on the upper bound than on the lower bound, and far more men than women in those bound, this imply that when you need to "standardize" those curve there is a "regression to average" but the regression will be stronger for lowest values than for highest value, the result will be a shifting of the average value.

[alphawolf]

I don't know, but even if it is true, there is absolutely no benefit from disseminating this information across societies. What is the point? Wasted energy, if you ask me. The money would be better spent developing more sexually attractive colognes and perfumes.

[Zsych]

Ok, of course I assume you mean "averages" and not "individuals," but such differences don't say anything about ability.

To draw an analogy, the INTJ will process things differently than an ESFP, but as for whether any two such individuals will do better than the other at any particular task is impossible to say. It might be that one type is overrepresented in a field, but that says more about the field than the type, and it doesn't say that those overrepresented in the field are any better at than those in the field who are underrepresented.

I disagree with this. An INTJ looks at the world in a way that is different from how an ESFP views it. The INTJ will on average be more efficient in areas that suit his nature, than an ESFP who is in an area they do not prefer.

Just try to even explain things to strong S types in N terms, and even intelligent S types don't understand what you're saying where an N type grasps it very quickly.

A person naturally talented in math will learn with less effort than one not naturally talented. Even if you can teach the untalented one the same thing and even get them to a higher level of ability than the talented person through a considerable amount of effort - that doesn't change the fact that the untalented person was less talented, and with proper effort/motivation, the talented one could have gone farther.


I personally think that moderate differences in talent aren't really visible at lower levels. Even significant differences aren't really visible if people are putting in hard work. Its at the upper end, when people are really applying their talent. When a physics genius is doing cutting-edge research, that you see what real talent that person had. People with desire and effort but not enough talent, fall behind at that level.

[Storm]

So for instance you explain the difference in MBTI population between men and women only as "society"? Do you really think that genetic doesn't have anything to do with it? Do you think that:
- Historical role separation has nothing to do with genetic
and
- Millennia of role separation doesn't influence further genetic difference
?
As I always stated, if I should astonished about something is that men and women are so similar.

Then you misunderstood my point. I was saying that how someone gets to an answer doesn't tell you whether or not they are good at it.

[admittedheretic]

Why is it necessarily genetic? As cannotseethe said, there is little reason to believe it is genetic, but more likely due to environmental factors. Such as, women not being as encouraged to develop their intellect as men.

The studies which promote that women just have a "different type of intelligence" have largely been refuted. Men's and women's brains are really not that different.

No matter how you define intelligence it is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. There are very real differences in male and female brains and whether they are "really not different" is too subjective of a statement. Environment in effect can make or break the development of an intelligent person, but in typical individual genetics seems to have a greater influence than environment.

Let us consider one type of intelligence, visuospatial. Such assessments involve pattern recognition in images and there is no verbal component.

You will say females will be worse at visuospatial tasks than males because they are less encouraged to develop as such. I will agree that in most cultural males are more encouraged to engage in activities that build such skill sets than women, but this influence is small. Differences in visuospatial ability have been significantly correlated with birth order of siblings with the first born having the greatest abilities. Someone born with a genetic condition such as congenital dyslexia or ADHD will be visuospatially impaired. Someone could also be born with the capacity to develop good visuospatial skills, but could acquire dyslexia and other visuospatial impairments. It would also be expected that if a womb had a higher amount of testosterone and other particular hormones that visuospatial abilities would be improved. A pregnant women who is experiencing malnutrition or exposed to substances in the environment will have her hormones altered as such which in turn effects the developing child in the womb.

With the exception of those environmental influences I listed the variances between typical individuals is more influenced by genetics. Notably genes that code for hormone levels.


And, like I said, physical difference in the brain have been refuted* (meaning you might still find the old studies lying around the net) as not measuring any significant difference since they were based on small sample sizes (like 20 brains, turns out human brains are hard to get a hold of).

*Except for absolute size, which doesn't seem to mean much within a species.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are numerous studies utilizing functional MRI scans which show all sorts of differences in the way men and women think. Underneath these different pathways of cognition are physical differences.

I think you are coming to these false conclusions because of a personal bias you hold. Male and female brains are different, period.

[Tyrant Soup]

The paper claims that there is a correlation, which means that some percent of the variance can be accounted for by the height of the individual, and may be non-causal.

If the claim was so trivial, then it has no significant implication worth discussing. Why was it brought up at all?

[nacht]

If the claim was so trivial, then it has no significant implication worth discussing. Why was it brought up at all?

That is not a "trivial" claim. The author's field is Evolutionary Psychology, which attempts to explain things such as mental traits in terms of evolution. Small correlations in this kind of research matter, because while they may not be clinically significant they may be indicative of a broader trend evolutionarily. This certainly is a "implication worth discussing" should it have any meat to it, just within the appropriate context.

There are plenty of realms where something that is not clinically significant, but the statistical significance is sufficiently interesting to warrant discussion. Utts gives a great example (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), where she points out that the "spring height issue" may be important to those studying growth issues. In this case it is important to those studying evolutionary psych, biology, intelligence, statistics, and probably even half a dozen other fields. If the analysis holds, then the lack of strong correlation with respect to sex can also lay to rest a lot of misconceptions, which is itself also important (negative findings are quite important as well).

Like with most scientific research (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), the actual findings tend to be conditional on a variety of things, and the results discussed in context. Attempting to remove it from that context and strip it of its conditionals is a mistake, but that doesn't make the actual discussion of those findings any less meaningful.

[Pavlov]

So men are 3-5 IQ points ahead and how does that help the world? Women are in higher education in larger numbers and are APPLYING the knowledge, now that really helps the world:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Nightsun]

An interesting article about difference in math skill between men and women:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[nacht]

So men are 3-5 IQ points ahead and how does that help the world? Women are in higher education in larger numbers and are APPLYING the knowledge, now that really helps the world:


Scientific observation of nature is not concerned with "what helps society," it is concerned with accurate observations, understanding, and modeling of the world.

[ArtistTyrant]

So men are 3-5 IQ points ahead and how does that help the world? Women are in higher education in larger numbers and are APPLYING the knowledge, now that really helps the world:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

what slightly intelligent people do matters little, it's what the geniuses do that matters, and there are clearly more male geniuses than female geniuses :)

[dontmesswithme]

what slightly intelligent people do matters little, it's what the geniuses do that matters, and there are clearly more male geniuses than female geniuses :)

I think that males are encouraged and 'groomed' to be geniuses more than females are. Females are more encouraged and groomed to procreate. Socialization is a huge factor.
I've heard tall women say they can't get dates because they can't meet men who are their height or taller. So, they focus more on self-improvement and taking courses in various things they find interesting than on baby-making.
Also, petite women are often very curvaceous and this appeals to males. It's a sign of fertility. The males take it upon themselves to get their genes reproduced by these babes. The instinct to reproduce is powerful, otherwise men would be like ducks and never stray. Also, petite women are easier to lift up with one arm. I digress...

[Googamanga]

According to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (bottom graph)

The link didn't cite any sources....

Thinking is more prominent in men....

Function pair| Male % | Women%
ST | 41.7 | 18.5
SF | 30.0 | 56.3
NF | 19.4 | 18.5
NT | 8.9 | 6.7

T | 50.6 | 25.2
F | 49.4 | 74.8

I don't think IQ is completely correlated to MB Thinking type but I'm sure there's a decent connection. 2:1

Men may be "smarter" but women are much better at being feelers 5:7

I remember doing the same thing using some other data, (that i couldn't find). I remember Males were still more prone to T but the difference between M & W was much less than 50 &25

[firebee]

Men may be "smarter" but women are much better at being feelers 5:7


Only if they actually are. A female T is no less a T, just less common.

[Googamanga]

Only if they actually are. A female T is no less a T, just less common.

I half agree with you

First of i meant on average not on an individual basis. If there is a male and a female with exactly the same letters and magnitudes of each letter then i would expect them to be exactly the same... personality wise.... & IQ

Second, a T at 100 vs a T that is on the border next to F are not the same. I am not sure but i think that if all T males and all T females were brought together, males would (on average) have "stronger" Ts

men and women don't look the same, act the same, think the same, they have different evolutionary roles, why should IQ be evenly split?

If we are talking about equality... why aren't men "up and arms" about the societal understanding that they are less emotionally skilled than women?

[ArtistTyrant]

because men are more stable and rational about their strengths and weaknesses on average, whereas women tend to have a defense mechanism sort of thing...the feminist propaganda that men and women are the same doesn't help

[firebee]

First of i meant on average not on an individual basis. If there is a male and a female with exactly the same letters and magnitudes of each letter then i would expect them to be exactly the same... personality wise.... & IQ

Second, a T at 100 vs a T that is on the border next to F are not the same. I am not sure but i think that if all T males and all T females were brought together, males would (on average) have "stronger" Ts

I largely agree with you, but there is some hairsplitting involved; on average, women are more likely F (presuming, of course, that your percentages are reasonably accurate), but this does not necessarily mean that they are "better at being F" in a way that transcends type.


If we are talking about equality... why aren't men "up and arms" about the societal understanding that they are less emotionally skilled than women?

We aren't talking about equality, really, but some of them are -- and regardless of whether they are, they have a legitimate cause for complaint. My mentor is an ENFP and a counselor; as a male person who is an ENFP and as a person who is continually exposed to the fruits of the dysfunctional behavior that men are taught based on the perception you cite, he is quite decidedly "up in arms" about the matter.

As to why such outrage is not more common, I would guess that it has something to do with the damage being less visible, either because it intrinsically is or because the current structure of our society conceals the problem.

[Googamanga]

I largely agree with you, but there is some hairsplitting involved; on average, women are more likely F (presuming, of course, that your percentages are reasonably accurate), but this does not necessarily mean that they are "better at being F" in a way that transcends type.

More hairsplitting!

I would think that there is a strong positive correlation between
women being more likely to be F than Men (given T and F sides are sampled)
and
Women having stronger/ "better at being F" than men (given that only F side is sampled)

I've been using that idea for a long time, and it seems to work well. Of the women I have met that are Ts their average Tness is less than that of T guys i have known.


We aren't talking about equality, really, but some of them are -- and regardless of whether they are, they have a legitimate cause for complaint. My mentor is an ENFP and a counselor; as a male person who is an ENFP and as a person who is continually exposed to the fruits of the dysfunctional behavior that men are taught based on the perception you cite, he is quite decidedly "up in arms" about the matter.

As to why such outrage is not more common, I would guess that it has something to do with the damage being less visible, either because it intrinsically is or because the current structure of our society conceals the problem.

My roommate is a strong ENFP, however he is much less "up in arms" than the person you describe. Perhaps my roommate's P is strong, so he just takes things as they come without much care.

I think it is less visible because males are more T than women. Fs tend to see things as black & white, and when there are two categories (men vs women) with a non even split of a "resource" (IQ) it ... feels wrong... especially to SJs Furthermore since women tend to be more E and S and F and J (from website in last post (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) the meme of "Women are not stupid!!!" is spread quickly

(E) earning to interact with people - ideas are spread quickly
(S) focus on smaller scope - missing the big picture
(F) black & white view of things - puts an irrational spin on the subject
(J) quick judgment - quickly accepted as true

[catzmeow]

Further attempt to legitimise chauvinism.

Colour me shocked.

Like so - :shocked:

For those of us who are of high intelligence, it's pretty much irrelevant. Statistically speaking, men may have a higher IQ in general, but on the individual level, I'm already smarter than 95% of men. Political correctness should not be influencing the discussion of male/female intelligence levels.

I think it is less visible because males are more T than women. Fs tend to see things as black & white, and when there are two categories (men vs women) with a non even split of a "resource" (IQ) it ... feels wrong... especially to SJs

The black/white view of life has nothing to do with F and everything to do with S.

[StarvingArtist]

because men are more stable and rational about their strengths and weaknesses on average, whereas women tend to have a defense mechanism sort of thing...the feminist propaganda that men and women are the same doesn't help

How do you know this? Your life experience is limited (I've read your blog) as is your experience with the vast majority of humanity..... state your source. Otherwise I will assume you just make this shit up..... I guess being the rational male, you will just insist I called you out on this in response to my "defense mechanism".... rather than any failing in your own actions or logic....

[Googamanga]

The black/white view of life has nothing to do with F and everything to do with S.

You're right my bad - High Fs create higher probability of irrational categorization of objects.

Did i mention my T isn't that high? :)

[ArtistTyrant]

because i feel it to be true based on my observations :)

you can learn a lot more by world-class literature about people than you can by people-watching in a park, imo

um, i don't really consider myself to be male, as my blog states, but okies >_>

[Krazy P]

This has been known for awhile, I think. Men are both stupider and smarter than men. More really dumb men and more really smart men.

It really doesn't mean much in terms of dealing with individuals and everyday life.

The real public policy issue is the connection between IQ and income/earnings/wealth.

[nacht]

You're right my bad - High Fs create higher probability of irrational categorization of objects.


Kindly demonstrate that this is the case. I know plenty of Ts who are exceedingly irrational in their categorization, they simply justify that irrationality differently.

Also, there is no such thing under the traditional MBTI of a "high" F.

[ArtistTyrant]

The real public policy issue is the connection between IQ and income/earnings/wealth.

and then you'll have people who think that people are smarter because they're wealthier, instead of being wealthier because they're smarter -.-

*mimes throwing money at the problem*

[nacht]

and then you'll have people who think that people are smarter because they're wealthier, instead of being wealthier because they're smarter -.-

*mimes throwing money at the problem*

Or people confusing IQ with intelligence, as you do here.

[ArtistTyrant]

hey, there's a general correlation, of underlying "g"

i'm pretty sure if i had a team of 1,000 people design something complex, all with IQs of at least 130, my team would easily defeat a team where the members had IQs ranging from 100-120, this is controlling for factors such as age, education, and sex/gender of course

there's a connection, don't doubt it ^_^ (i personally see the truest manifestation of intelligence in creation of something complex and new, as well as those who can lead a group through tough odds, such as Bismarck, who was obviously highly intelligent, and also, i consider the MBTI types beginning with INxx to be a strong predictor of what i would call intelligence :) )

[nacht]

hey, there's a general correlation, of underlying "g"

i'm pretty sure if i had a team of 1,000 people design something complex, all with IQs of at least 130, my team would easily defeat a team where the members had IQs ranging from 100-120, this is controlling for factors such as age, education, and sex/gender of course


Hidden variables and spurious covariation are your enemy here. If I grab a team of engineers and applied mathematicians, they are going to have higher IQs both on average, and because they are essentially trained in how to take IQ tests as part of their education (not deliberately, but as a side effect).

So if I grab a team of people who pre-training had IQs in the 100-120 range and controlling for other factors, then trained them to be engineers, I'd bet on an engineering project we'd beat out a team of people with IQs of 130+ but who lacked that training, even if they had equivalent levels of education in other fields.

There are plenty of other underlying variables that can explain a high degree of correlation without implying a direct causal relationship between intelligence and the amount of money they make. Especially past a certain point, where other factors start to play increasing roles.


i consider the MBTI types beginning with INxx to be a strong predictor of what i would call intelligence :) )

Then your grasp of what the MBTI represents is weak at best. The MBTI has nothing to do with intelligence.

[Googamanga]

You're right my bad - High Fs create higher probability of irrational categorization of objects.


Kindly demonstrate that this is the case. I know plenty of Ts who are exceedingly irrational in their categorization, they simply justify that irrationality differently.

Also, there is no such thing under the traditional MBTI of a "high" F.

Gladly!

Ts create "LOGICAL relationships" for fun, if those relationships are true or not are based on and individual's experiences. Ts take their current logicalmodels and think about how things COULD unfold...

Fs create "MORAL relationships" for fun, if those relationships are true or not are based on the individual's experiences. Fs take their current moral models and think about what how things SHOULD unfold...

When Ts and Fs think about categorizing stuff:
Ts tend to be more "correct" it terms of LOGICAL categorization because they base their categorization on LOGIC. However if that logic is based on bad data bad categorizations will be created.
Fs tend to be less "correct" in terms of LOGICAL categorization because they base their categorization on FEELING. However if that feeling is based on good data, good categorization will be created.

Its all about probabilities




Regarding the missing "high F" in traditional MBTI. I think its unfortunate that it is missed because a difference within Letters is great. The balance between Fs and Ts is gradual & continuous, so a strong F is not the same as weak F

Check this out: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I was talking about Js and Ps but it relates to the other dichotomies as well.

Oh and BTW all of that stuff is just said is my own ideas of how this stuff works, i have nothing to cite, but it's been working well for me :)

[Firebrand]

Then your grasp of what the MBTI represents is weak at best. The MBTI has nothing to do with intelligence.
But it does predict likelihoods of having the base makeup of a person who tends to have high IQ.

[ArtistTyrant]

i already said to control for other factors -.-
meaning same amount of people in respective fields...

i disagree, i think intuition has a direct connection to genius :)
i know it's just a model, but we aren't arguing the model, we're arguing what "intelligence" is

[Gloed]

Then your grasp of what the MBTI represents is weak at best. The MBTI has nothing to do with intelligence.

If anything, I think "N" correllates with intelligence, which is why I'm kind of surprised when people associate it with "T".

(I haven't read anything else in the thread btw)

[Googamanga]

If anything, I think "N" correlates with intelligence, which is why I'm kind of surprised when people associate it with "T".

(I haven't read anything else in the thread btw)

Its probably cus Intuition doesn't sound smart, but Thinking does :)

it caught me... :(

[nacht]

Gladly!

Ts create "LOGICAL relationships" for fun, if those relationships are true or not are based on and individual's experiences. Ts take their current logicalmodels and think about how things COULD unfold...

Fs create "MORAL relationships" for fun, if those relationships are true or not are based on the individual's experiences. Fs take their current moral models and think about what how things SHOULD unfold...


[citation needed]


If you start with poor premise, you end up with a poor conclusion. Therefore that the "logical relationships" that you think Ts have "fun" building (fun in the way using my right hand instead of my left is fun, I suppose, they aren't called preferences for nothing) aren't necessarily building "rational" categorizations any more than an F is more likely to build "irrational" categorizations.

Also, N's tend to think about how things "should" unfold, not F's. You also seem to mix up S's and F's with the "current moral models" bit.


When Ts and Fs think about categorizing stuff:
Ts tend to be more "correct" it terms of LOGICAL categorization because they base their categorization on LOGIC. However if that logic is based on bad data bad categorizations will be created.


T's use systems that seem logical to them not systems that are necessarily logical. One need to look no further than the dearth of posts on this forum which use a variety of interesting logical fallacies to see this. If they truly used logic, then any T we walked up to could break down their statements into symbols representing their argument. They may apply a set of rules, but those rules are not necessarily logical or even consistent.

Also, as you point in, Garbage In, Garbage Out.


Fs tend to be less "correct" in terms of LOGICAL categorization because they base their categorization on FEELING.


It is still a rational decision making function, and feelings are not necessarily irrational.

However if that feeling is based on good data, good categorization will be created.


So you are saying that if the thinker uses bad data they will come to an incorrect categorization, and if a feeler uses good data, they will come to a good categorization. I'm assuming by implication the reverse is also true.

Thus, rationally using first order logic we can state:

For all of x where x is good, both thinkers and feelers will produce good categories.

For all of x where x is bad, both thinkers and feelers will produce bad categories.

Therefore, holding everything else equal, thinkers and feelers are equivalent.

If you are making claims that they are "more likely" to produce good categories with good data, then you haven't managed to establish such so far.


Its all about probabilities


Your use of probabilities needs a citation, badly.


Regarding the missing "high F" in traditional MBTI. I think its unfortunate that it is missed because a difference within Letters is great. The balance between Fs and Ts is gradual & continuous, so a strong F is not the same as weak F


In short, you are redefining the MBTI based on your own observations and then claiming that this model is superior to the already established MBTI, without actually understanding how the MBTI actually handles the same information (e.g., it uses out of preference areas and cognitive functions which may be at different levels of development).


Check this out: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I was talking about Js and Ps but it relates to the other dichotomies as well.


General rule, citing yourself is not a good approach to convincing someone who disagrees with you. Especially when dealing with the widely accepted definitions in a test, see also, Solaris's response in that thread.


Oh and BTW all of that stuff is just said is my own ideas of how this stuff works, i have nothing to cite, but it's been working well for me :)

In short, it is not a rational method for categorization, because "works well for me" is prone to selection bias.

[Googamanga]

@ nacht

i wasn't trying to convince anyone

I was sharing my ideas on the topic

and just because definitions are widely accepted it doesn't mean they can't be wrong

I've posted my try at explaining IQ variance as a function of MB types, I’d like to see yours.

Knowing now I’d have someone check my every sentence i would probably write a different post, knowing that i will check your every sentence please post your model.

[catzmeow]

But it does predict likelihoods of having the base makeup of a person who tends to have high IQ.

Not necessarily. I don't believe that there is any research anywhere that ties high intellect with any of the MBTI letters. Just because someone is a T, for instance, does not mean that they are going to have a higher IQ than a random F. Some T's have high IQs, some don't.

[ArtistTyrant]

ah, i have to agree...i think intuition is directly connected to what i would personally call genius ^_^ without it you're just an automaton (i've used this word at least 8 times in the past 48 hours), reacting to things...with it you can be more than what's around you

[cannotseethe]

i think intuition is directly connected to what i would personally call genius ^_^ without it you're just an automaton (i've used this word at least 8 times in the past 48 hours), reacting to things

This would imply that xSxx types have an IQ at or near 0 (independently of gender, incidentally). Care to provide a source for that one?

[ArtistTyrant]

lol! i meant geniuses <3 not just IQ, but people that i would feel comfortable exploring some of my most interesting thoughts and ideas with...i personally think that Intuitives have something that Sensors don't have, that is sort of magical :)

[freeeekyyy]

This would imply that xSxx types have an IQ at or near 0 (independently of gender, incidentally). Care to provide a source for that one?

Somehow, I think he was referring to intelligence, not IQ. Besides that, S types do use intuition, they just don't prefer it.

[Nightsun]

How do you know this? Your life experience is limited (I've read your blog) as is your experience with the vast majority of humanity..... state your source. Otherwise I will assume you just make this shit up..... I guess being the rational male, you will just insist I called you out on this in response to my "defense mechanism".... rather than any failing in your own actions or logic....


Using Big Five SLOAN: Women tend to be more neurotics (less emotionally stable or limbic if you want) than men.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 09:31 AM ----------


So if I grab a team of people who pre-training had IQs in the 100-120 range and controlling for other factors, then trained them to be engineers

I highly doubt that someone with 100 IQ will be able to became an engineer...

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 09:33 AM ----------


There are plenty of other underlying variables that can explain a high degree of correlation without implying a direct causal relationship between intelligence and the amount of money they make. Especially past a certain point, where other factors start to play increasing roles.


Yes for instance my income is less than a football player and I'm surerly more intelligent, but when you make the average over a lot of people or a complete population that kind of problem average out.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 09:35 AM ----------

If anything, I think "N" correllates with intelligence, which is why I'm kind of surprised when people associate it with "T".

(I haven't read anything else in the thread btw)

Yes it's N that correlate with intelligence, F or T is only a matter of preference

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 09:52 AM ----------

Not necessarily. I don't believe that there is any research anywhere that ties high intellect with any of the MBTI letters. Just because someone is a T, for instance, does not mean that they are going to have a higher IQ than a random F. Some T's have high IQs, some don't.

Here you are: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Giftedness strongly correlate with N and less strongly with I. Correlation with T/F rather inexistant (there is still a low negative correlation with J)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Comparisons between gifted adolescents and general high school students. Gifted adolescents were significantly more introverted than the normative group (n = 5,723; z = 3.85; p<.01). The data analyzed in this investigation revealed that 51.3% of the gifted adolescents were extrave rts and 48.7% we re introve rts (Table 3). Comparatively, 64.85% of the normative group was reported to prefer extraversion and 35.15% was reported to prefer introversion in the Atlas of Type Tables (MacDaid, Kainz, & McCaulley, 1986). Also, the analysis indicated that gifted adolescents were significantly more intuitive than the general high school population (z = 12.71; p < .01). While 71.60% of the gifted adolescents pre f e r red intuition, the normative group showed a preference of 31.90% in this scale. Further, this integration of research results revealed significant differences between the gifted samples and the normative in the thinking dimension (z =1.72; p < .05; one-tailed). While 53.80% of the gifted adolescents preferred thinking, the preference of the normative group was 47.50% in this dimension. Moreover, the gifted adolescents were significantly higher than the general high school population in the perceiving dimension (z = 4.96; p < .01). They preferred perceiving over judging, contrary to the normative group. The percentage of the gifted adolescents preferring perceiving was 60.10%, while the percentage of the normative group in this dimension was 45.40%.

....

Variations in ability. The high verbal group was statistically significantly higher than the high math group in the intuition dimension of the sensing-intuition scale (math n = 460, verbal n = 66; z = 4.98; p < .01). Conversely, the high math
group was significantly higher than the high verbal group (65% vs. 45%) on the thinking dimension of the thinking-feeling scale (z=5.33; p < .01). Although the high math group was higher than the high verbal group in the introversion dimension of the extraversion-introversion scale (z=.095; p=.47) and in the judging dimension of the judging-perceiving scale (z=.080; p=.50), the differences were not statistically significant.

[Pavlov]

Scientific observation of nature is not concerned with "what helps society," it is concerned with accurate observations, understanding, and modeling of the world.

Wrong again. How do you think they came up with models and observation - by applying it. By applying it, you are helping the masses regardless. If you are suppose to be a genius and "doing nothing" that is not intelligence. Intelligence is shown in how you go through life, IQ is a standard number. Stephen Hawking is applying his intelligence to better understanding Physics, so that all can learn. If men are suppose to be smarter then women then why are they not applying it? Many are not even in higher education.

Men tend to be arrogant, and some tend to think they know something to make themselves look smarter, but in actuality they really don't. I will get the link where they researched this phenomenon.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 04:42 AM ----------

Using Big Five SLOAN: Women tend to be more neurotics (less emotionally stable or limbic if you want) than men.



Limbic describes a lot of Goth/Emo/Music/Art dudes. You applying this to women is a laugh. I have seen some really unstable males. I'm not saying women can't be Limbic but you saying "Women tend to be more" is a falsehood. If anything women tend to be more accommodating and social from that SLOAN test those were the biggest numbers.

[Nightsun]

. If men are suppose to be smarter then women then why are they not applying it? Many are not even in higher education.

Men tend to be arrogant, and some tend to think they know something to make themselves look smarter, but in actuality they really don't. I will get the link where they researched this phenomenon.


Yes men tend to be more arrogant, egocentric, aggressive, hyperactive than women, how this relate with intelligence? By the way there are far more men at high education level than women.


Limbic describes a lot of Goth/Emo/Music/Art dudes. You applying this to women is a laugh. I have seen some really unstable males. I'm not saying women can't be Limbic but you saying "Women tend to be more" is a falsehood. If anything women tend to be more accommodating and social from that SLOAN test those were the biggest numbers.

Surerly women tend to be more accomodating and social and neurotics, you can't take the good without taking the bad.

Taking the primary type from To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. :


social: 16.1% of women; 11.5% of men
Emotional Stability: 6.6% of women; 16.3% of men
Organized: 11.4% of women; 8.4% of men
Accomodating: 17.1% of women; 14% of men
Inquisitive: 4.8% of women; 10.4% of men


Also:
Cross-cultural research from 26 nations (N = 23,031 subjects) and again in 55 nations (N = 17,637 subjects) has shown a universal pattern of sex differences on responses to the Big Five Inventory. Women consistently report higher Neuroticism and Agreeableness, and men often report higher Extroversion and Conscientiousness. Sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities that are equal to those of men


Citation:
^ Costa, P.T. Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R.R. (2001). "Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322-331
^ Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168-182.

[catzmeow]

Here you are: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Giftedness strongly correlate with N and less strongly with I. Correlation with T/F rather inexistant (there is still a low negative correlation with J)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So, the most gifted group might be the INTPs? Interesting!

[nacht]

Wrong again. How do you think they came up with models and observation - by applying it.


"They" are "scientists" not "science." The philosophy of science is not the same as the practice of science, and science cannot stand alone because it doesn't have the mechanism to say why you should practice it.


By applying it, you are helping the masses regardless.


You seem to think that science that demonstrates a negative conclusion is not important because it can't be "applied" directly. Rather, such research is vital for furthering the rest f science. Without studies that show small, or no, effect and discussion about their implications then there can be no advancement of science.

If you wish to claim that such isn't what you are saying, then you are trying to have your cake and eat it too: You cannot say that "how does that help the world" on one hand when a small (or even no) result is found, and then claim "but it is helping the masses regardless" on the other.


If you are suppose to be a genius and "doing nothing" that is not intelligence. Intelligence is shown in how you go through life, IQ is a standard number. Stephen Hawking is applying his intelligence to better understanding Physics, so that all can learn. If men are suppose to be smarter then women then why are they not applying it? Many are not even in higher education.


Nice non sequitur. What does this have to do with anything under discussion? At all?

"What men do with it" is not relevant to the question of innate ability as measured by IQ. Period. You can claim this is a weakness in the IQ test, you can claim that the methodology should include it, but really all of that is just about useless for research in evolutionary psychology

Further, you are assuming that they aren't. IQ correlates with socioeconomic status. AT's assertion is that this is the result of people with higher IQ earning higher incomes, which would clearly be the result of them "doing more."



Men tend to be arrogant, and some tend to think they know something to make themselves look smarter, but in actuality they really don't. I will get the link where they researched this phenomenon.


Ah yes, because "making yourself look smarter" works very well when asked to find the next number in a sequence.

[Nightsun]

So, the most gifted group might be the INTPs? Interesting!

Yes, in order seems that the "type" with a greater than average gifted population are: INTP, INTJ, INFP, INFJ, ENTP, ENFP. ENTJ and ENFJ are slightly above average while other types are below.

[ArtistTyrant]

ah, Nightsun, you'd have to find a study for that as well, because how an individual takes in the world would be changed by their other main cognitive functions, in order of preference :) like, an INTP obviously has different cognitive preferences than an INFP, and that difference would impact how well they learn certain material, even if both were equally talented the measurement would be skewed

[Nightsun]

The main problem is that type dynamics doesn't work pretty well, I bet my 2 cents that basically every gifted has a strong "Ni" also if this is not their dominant function. I've read study for instance that compare usual type dynamics with a more direct method that measure function preferences and they found that the majority of INTJ and INTP are both Ni+Ti (that's why many people don't know and always ask: "Am I INTJ or INTP?")

[catzmeow]

The main problem is that type dynamics doesn't work pretty well, I bet my 2 cents that basically every gifted has a strong "Ni" also if this is not their dominant function. I've read study for instance that compare usual type dynamics with a more direct method that measure function preferences and they found that the majority of INTJ and INTP are both Ni+Ti (that's why many people don't know and always ask: "Am I INTJ or INTP?")

I don't think that you're spending enough time addressing J versus P, which based on your study appears to be more statistically significant than either I/E or F/T.

[ArtistTyrant]

i pretty much agree with your statement and i've posted on multiple threads that i believe that intuition is directly connected to genius, and yes, not everyone has the same function preferences as the models...i've recently found out for instance, that intuition and feelings seem to be my top 4 preferences, but that doesn't mean that i haven't developed my thinking a great deal, i just think i'm well rounded ^_^

you could also wonder about whether or not an INTJ in a position of authority will develop their Te more than their Ti, i think they probably would, and it would be more obvious

[mormeguil]

There is also one more thing you have to factor in. The type of people who take both an IQ and an MBTI test are different then the general population. People will seek to do these tests for different reasons based on there type and that will affect the variation

[Nightsun]

I don't think that you're spending enough time addressing J versus P, which based on your study appears to be more statistically significant than either I/E or F/T.

Actually the problem is pretty different. The INxJ and the INxP proportion are very similar, while ENxP and ENxJ proportion are pretty different. Where the difference between J and P arise is not in the more "important" cathegories but in the less one, that's why I discarded it. The preference of P or J "in general" is a good indicator and it seems pretty obvious considering that one of the characteristic of gifted children are the dabrowski's overexcitabilities (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The problem is that tests usually have the "J" biased by "Se". The problem is that there are a lot of "subtype" and the J/P difference is the less striking. You can see it comparing MBTI with Big 5:

Ext Open Agree Consc Neuro
E-I -.74 .03 -.03 .08 .16
S-N .10 .72 .04 -.15 -.06
T-F .19 .02 .44 -.15 .06
J-P .15 .30 -.06 -.49 .11

As you can see E/I and S/N correlate well with extraversion and openess dimension T/F correlate somewhat with agreeableness but the most striking is J/P. J is positive correlated (0.49) with consciountness but is negative (0.30) with about the same magnitudo with Openess. What does it mean? It mean that following the J/P dicotomies you expect people to be SJ or NP, because of their intercorrelation. This mean also that an NJ can be easly miss-typed as NP.

The closer the number is to 1.0 or -1.0, the higher the degree of correlation.


There is also one more thing you have to factor in. The type of people who take both an IQ and an MBTI test are different then the general population. People will seek to do these tests for different reasons based on there type and that will affect the variation

I was refering to a school assesment of both IQ and MBTI, so that's not a problem for that study (while in general is true what you are saying).

[freeeekyyy]

i pretty much agree with your statement and i've posted on multiple threads that i believe that intuition is directly connected to genius, and yes, not everyone has the same function preferences as the models...i've recently found out for instance, that intuition and feelings seem to be my top 4 preferences, but that doesn't mean that i haven't developed my thinking a great deal, i just think i'm well rounded ^_^

you could also wonder about whether or not an INTJ in a position of authority will develop their Te more than their Ti, i think they probably would, and it would be more obvious

INTJs use Te more than Ti anyway. It's INFJs and INTPs that have Ti as their dominant thinking function.

[ArtistTyrant]

i know...i was pointing out that environmental factors could push a person with a dominant Ni who favours thinking to use Te more than Ti even if they're probably better at Ti

[Nightsun]

i know...i was pointing out that environmental factors could push a person with a dominant Ni who favours thinking to use Te more than Ti even if they're probably better at Ti

I agree with you, Ni-Te-Fi-Se is really a strange quadruple in my opinion especially Ni-Te, I'm pretty sure that many INTJ have a stronger Ti than Te but use Te more due to social-environmental factors.

[Irrational84]

I don't buy it. Any differences between male and female abilities are caused by cultural and sociological factors.

[TheLastMohican]

I don't buy it. Any differences between male and female abilities are caused by cultural and sociological factors.
Do you really believe that, or are you overcompensating in your response to a distasteful suggestion? Keep in mind that differences in ability need not tally to net "better" or "worse" labels for the sexes.

[nacht]

I don't buy it. Any differences between male and female abilities are caused by cultural and sociological factors.

...and again, the study showed that the differences were explained by height, not by gender.

[AngryGroceries]

There are certain types of intelligence that are overrated, and abilities like the ability to collaborate is underrated.

IQ tests are overrated.

[Nightsun]

Aren't East Asians stereotyped as incredibly intelligent? I mean sometimes we make it look like Chinese or Japanese people are so intelligent they're psychic.


Eastern Asians are the only population with an asynchronous IQ scoring, their average spatial/visual IQ (above caucasian average) is 1 STD higher that their verbal IQ (slightly below caucasian average). Interestingly it can be one of the reason why they use ideograms.

[mormeguil]

Eastern Asians are the only population with an asynchronous IQ scoring, their average spatial/visual IQ (above caucasian average) is 1 STD higher that their verbal IQ (slightly below caucasian average). Interestingly it can be one of the reason why they use ideograms.

It could also be BECAUSE they use ideograms. It would also be easy enought to test with adopted children under 6 month too.

[Randwulff]

I have a bit of a theory on this. In my experience, women seem to be about equal in intelligence to men, but I somehow had to reconcile my experience with scientific tidbits such as this. So here's what I thought up.

As a universal rule, males are naturally more genetically diverse than females. This applies to every animal species on the planet.

If this applies to intelligence, then we would expect to see more genius males than genius females, and more retarded males than retarded females. I have found this to be true.

What I have also found to be true is that people in the high-IQ range are more likely to take IQ tests than people in the low IQ range.

So let's say that we have ten females. 2 have IQs of 80, 6 have IQs of 100, and 2 have IQs of 120.

Let's say that we also have ten males. 3 have IQs of 80, 4 have IQs of 100, and 3 have IQs of 120.

If the people who have IQs of 120 are more likely to take an IQ test than people with IQs of 80, then the average IQ for the males that are tested is higher than the average IQ for females that are tested, even though in reality they share the same average.

EDIT: Oh! I basically just rephrased that article's introduction. I couldn't get the image to load before xD

[fiver]

1. Many intelligence tests are biased in some way.
2. IQ is evenly distributed by definition. The fact that some groups score higher or lower on the test as a group is evidence of the bias inherent in the test.
3. There is more than one type of intelligence - and not all are measured by standard IQ tests.
4. Correlation does not imply causation.
5. Anecdotal experience doesn't prove anything.
6. While women may be more outwardly emotionally expressive, men experience more internal signs of emotional distress.

[Nightsun]

It could also be BECAUSE they use ideograms. It would also be easy enought to test with adopted children under 6 month too.

I agree, for instance it seems that for american-asian the correlation no longer holds for the highest educational/income quintile.

[Irrational84]

Do you really believe that, or are you overcompensating in your response to a distasteful suggestion? Keep in mind that differences in ability need not tally to net "better" or "worse" labels for the sexes.

I really believe it. I'm not averse to politically incorrect ideas; I simply haven't observed any differences in the intellects of the males and females that I know.

[TheLastMohican]

I really believe it. I'm not averse to politically incorrect ideas; I simply haven't observed any differences in the intellects of the males and females that I know.
That's significantly narrowing the scope. Males and females can have "differences in abilities" without having greater or lesser overall intellect. Considering the well-demonstrated differences in several sensory acuities, I would not be surprised if males and females tended to likewise have different mental strengths and weaknesses. I think we should be open to studying those without trying to draw conclusions of one sex or the other being "smarter."

[admittedheretic]

I really believe it. I'm not averse to politically incorrect ideas; I simply haven't observed any differences in the intellects of the males and females that I know.

Do you believe everything based upon personal observations?

I think it would be much more likely that the unperceived differences are the result of your limited capacity to observe rather than the odds that everyone you know has the same level of intelligence.

I fail to understand how anyone would hold your position unless they just did so to not offend anyone. On what scientitifc basis are men and women cognitively equal? Would you please cite some studies that would preferably refute the studies concluding differences?

[Randwulff]

The problem for me in this case is that I don't believe IQ to be a perfect measure of intelligence. I do believe it to be a strong measure of intelligence, but not perfect. And since men and momen do in fact think differently, a given IQ test naturally can be biased one way or the other. I don't think an average IQ difference of 3-5 points is enough to overcome this. If anyone has any sources to refute or support that I would be more than happy to read them. I am not denying that men are more intelligent than women, or the opposite, but I am skeptical. I don't think an IQ difference of 3-5 points is evidence enough.

[Firebrand]

Not necessarily. I don't believe that there is any research anywhere that ties high intellect with any of the MBTI letters. Just because someone is a T, for instance, does not mean that they are going to have a higher IQ than a random F. Some T's have high IQs, some don't.

Look here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) .

[fiver]

Look here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) .

Just because you can identify an article doesn't mean that it's based on sound research. The MBTI does not have strong test-retest reliability - meaning that a person can take it and get different results at different times. This seems to raise a major issue with the validity of the argument that one type tends to be more intelligent than others.

[blatant]

evo psych is a load of bs. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Josephine1012]

I think this is a very odd thing to concern yourself with. People like to see that kind of research whether it is related to MBTI, gender or color hair as long as it puts them into a favorable category. My goodness 185 such heated posts so quickly! This sure is a hot topic, with so many people thrilled arguing that the study is true, etc. It may be true, or it may be false, it provides no new information to me since I still consider intelligence on case by case basis.

Whether it is true or not, it's very worrisome if it takes off like a wildfire, because many find a lot of comfort in belonging to a group that is designated is better by someone, and will use it as a way to discriminate against another group.

Scientists can do their own thing in hopes of some day stumbling on something useful. I just don't see any reason to get excited over something like this. But then again we all find comfort in different things.

[Irrational84]

Some food for thought:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. iological.php

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To summarize: Female achievement in math appears to be linked to societal perceptions of female ability. This is called "stereotype threat." Mathematical ability is strongly correlated with IQ. IQ scores are also known to be susceptible to this stereotype threat.

The argument I'm trying to make is that it is impossible to determine whether the differences in achievement between men and women are caused by nature or nurture (or both); therefore, anyone who points to an IQ test and claims that it proves anything about one group being smarter than another is being intellectually dishonest.

[shanex97]

I think that males probably developed slightly more intelligence because,in the paleolithic era we needed it more.If you look at early human social structure,females were basically baby factories that occasionally gathered.I think as humans continue to evolve the differences in intelligence (already pretty minute) will vanish.It is also a possibility that living in a male dominated society: i.q test cater more to males than females.

[aoife]

The problem for me in this case is that I don't believe IQ to be a perfect measure of intelligence. I do believe it to be a strong measure of intelligence, but not perfect. And since men and momen do in fact think differently, a given IQ test naturally can be biased one way or the other.

I agree, this it the problem.

You can claim one gender is more intelligent than the other but how do you measure intelligence? How do you even define intelligence?

In Ireland, in the state exams everyone takes at the end of their school years, girls always come out ahead of the boys and by a large margin. This has lead a lot of people to the conclusion that girls are smarter than boys. However if have a closer look at the statistics boys always come out ahead in areas such as maths and physics.
In these exams you take at least 6 subjects, usually 7 or 8, and your best 6 are counted. Two languages are compulsory (Irish and English), if you want to go to university you have to do three languages. Since the girls generally do better than the boys in languages, this is how the girls end up looking smarter.

What I'm trying to illustrate, is that the genders do seem to have an advantage when it comes to intelligence in certain subjects. I think this is the only real conclusion you can come to as far as intelligence and gender go.
In any test of intelligence, the gender that comes out on top will be the one with the subject matter in its favour.

[admittedheretic]

Most IQ tests do evaluate language abilities and conceptual abilities more related to math and physics. The two scores are combined to form what is called a full scale IQ. Most people have verbal/non-verabl IQs in the same vicinity, but some peoples are asymmetrical. Non-verbal IQ can be argued to be a better measurement for intelligence because it has no cultural bias and is usually relatively fixed throughout ones lifetime. Language brings a significant amount of bias into the mix. Someone who is capable of making use of language might not be nurtured to reach their potential. Verbal IQ can be increased through expanding ones vocabulary, but without abstract thinking ability that won't be enough to score high on a verbal component.

So in essence I completely agree who is better is a subjective question depending on how we tilt the scales at least with our current measurement techniques. There may be a way to objectively measure intelligence some day. Until then there is way too much room for bias for anyone to make a sound judgment. Not that any of this actually is applicable to anything useful in the world, but it is curious.

[ArtistTyrant]

Most IQ tests do evaluate language abilities and conceptual abilities more related to math and physics. The two scores are combined to form what is called a full scale IQ. Most people have verbal/non-verabl IQs in the same vicinity, but some peoples are asymmetrical. Non-verbal IQ can be argued to be a better measurement for intelligence because it has no cultural bias and is usually relatively fixed throughout ones lifetime. Language brings a significant amount of bias into the mix. Someone who is capable of making use of language might not be nurtured to reach their potential. Verbal IQ can be increased through expanding ones vocabulary, but without abstract thinking ability that won't be enough to score high on a verbal component.

So in essence I completely agree who is better is a subjective question depending on how we tilt the scales at least with our current measurement techniques. There may be a way to objectively measure intelligence some day. Until then there is way too much room for bias for anyone to make a sound judgment. Not that any of this actually is applicable to anything useful in the world, but it is curious.

but then you can argue that women, who on average have better language skills, have an advantage on IQ tests, and the effect could be more intense the more education the female pool has

[fwiffo]

Condensing a multivariate, abstractly defined characteristic such as "intelligence" into a single, linear test score seems like a blithe simplification of what intelligence means. It's the same way that I want to pull my hair out every time I see some news article about finding the one gene that causes <fill in the blank complex behavior>. Ugh.

People simplify too much. This article, for example, only considers sex in IQ differences. Why didn't the article mention any other variables such as height and body weight? What about societal influences such as gender expectations?

Even worse, IQ is such a loaded idea. The results are generally seized up by the popular media to push some sort of bigoted, self-serving view of biologically predetermined intelligence without honestly acknowledging the limitations of IQ testing. Who decides how the test is written and how each type of intelligence is weighed? And if the writers of the test are males with similar backgrounds, how might their own biases be reflected in the results that the test produces?



I agree with the sentiments that IQ testing is overrated. While they are certainly strongly indicative of logical thinking ability, at the most fundamental level all that an IQ test measures is one's ability to take an IQ test. Don't get too excited, folks.

[Monte314]

Just by way of reminder: the OP is not about whether their is an IQ difference, but about the cultural impact popular accounts of this scientific work might have.

[tooboku]

Oooh... I was watching this BBC documentary the other day, Secrets of the Sexes: Brain Sex.

Apparantly the amount of testosterone you're exposed to at verious times while in the womb effects the size of the frontal lobe.

[admittedheretic]

but then you can argue that women, who on average have better language skills, have an advantage on IQ tests, and the effect could be more intense the more education the female pool has

Actually it would be better argued that men have an advantage on the IQ test.

Verbal scores can be improved in both men and women. If say male and female learned to get a perfect score that wouldn't demonstrate the females superior ability at all.

Non-Verbal scores are relatively fixed. Higher such scores are correlated with testosterone which is generally higher in males. Testosterone by all means does not explain everything, but it is well researched.

[ArtistTyrant]

if you took intelligent males and females, you would be correct

if you took average males and females, females should have an advantage in preparation because they have less work to do to get a high score on the verbal ;)

[sircockburn]

Maybe there is a biological truth to that. Or, and this is what I ponder, society has not really embraced the value of intelligence in females. Whereas for males, it is relatively more encouraged (if not praised) to be the competent can-doers, running a corporation, flying a plane, fixing the roof and saving the damsel in distress.

Then I think it becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Girls are may be more likely to neglect the innate intelligence bestowed upon them, and so it atrophies as they grow. Whereas, boys go in the opposite direction, fueling their skills by tinkering with science kits and tools.

Huge generalization of course, but think about the toys we grow up with. What is more likely to foster emerging intelligence - baby dolls and toy necklaces, or Legos and car model building sets?

Of course, women do have the advantage in verbal intelligence. Again, partly biological perhaps, but they also get more practice (and are encouraged to do so, whereas men are considered best if strong and silent).

[zibber]

Good gosh..

If I take any group of people and divide them in two, I guarantee that the average IQ of both subgroups will not be exactly alike. Group A will have a higher average IQ than group B, or vice versa. I bet my balls on this, both of them. Your "science" means nothing to my balls.

[alowery]

Good gosh..

If I take any group of people and divide them in two, I guarantee that the average IQ of both subgroups will not be exactly alike. Group A will have a higher average IQ than group B, or vice versa. I bet my balls on this, both of them. Your "science" means nothing to my balls.

especially if group A subjugated group B, prevented group B from getting an 'education' that group A defined as 'education' with all of these 'skills' that group A defined as 'the most worthy' , and created a test to judge said skills affirmed by group A, then let group B be judged against the same, and proclaim natural superiority when group A has slightly higher average than group B.

the source of all of it lies in the basic creation of a system by group A-- the very very birth of it all... that's when social/environmental factors begin, it's ALL affected by social/environmental factors.

you know, the western school of thought (logic, scientific method, all of it)--created by white men-- is a system among many-- and yet is confirmed as the only acceptable, right system to think or judge things against because of social/environmental factors that have occurred since its inception--- the precise mechanisms that constitute 'logic' as we know it-- that 'A' is 'A' solely because it is not 'B' ... and how we categorize everything-- is affected by this incredibly engrained system... you know, the U.S. courts have a very hard time instituting law regarding pregnant women (they don't even know how to define a pregnant woman/fetus), because of this entire entrenched system of thinking and how our law follows/operates/was built on it--- (a person is defined so by law (logic) because they are not x, y, z) perhaps if there was another engrained system entirely (like, for example, one that embraced ambiguities) it wouldn't be so problematic to deal with something like identifying the status of a pregnant woman/fetus.

these engrained systems are very apparent in academia- academic/scientific writing in particular-- there is a specific form, there is the 'scientific method' but this all follows from the Western tradition... who says that one methodology is the correct way to position and proceed through data to conclusion? an entire tradition of thought and systemic thinking that produces norms that determine, regulate, and dictate these things!
its all created... no natural superiority... we don't even know if the science is accurate, as it is based/measured around systems we created (and more specifically the system that won out)...
i remember reading about how the formation of Boyle's law of gases was affected/influenced by politics around gender... politics (about gender, class, anything) do enter into science...

[freeeekyyy]

especially if group A subjugated group B, prevented group B from getting an 'education' that group A defined as 'education' with all of these 'skills' that group A defined as 'the most worthy' , and created a test to judge said skills affirmed by group A, then let group B be judged against the same, and proclaim natural superiority when group A has slightly higher average than group B.


Nobody's subjugated women. I know there's a past, but that's irrelevant to the present.

[firebee]

Nobody's subjugated women. I know there's a past, but that's irrelevant to the present.

Thanks for letting us know what our problems are and are not. If we weren't told by someone who is in a much better position than us to determine such matters, we might get confused.

There's no denying that it is a major step forward that women and men are equal under the law, that women can in fact get an education and work in technical professions, that they can have credit in their own name, that they can change tires, et cetera. But you don't even have to leave this forum (or even this thread, probably) to observe that prejudice is not exactly dead. It's rather disingenuous to declare the problem solved on the basis of it being permissible for women to seek intellectual development and challenging careers, when those women are also often enough being told that their talents lie in the special feminine mysteries of whatever positive adjectives are left over once the dudes pick what they like.

And on that note, all this stuff about western science and logic being somehow indicative of anti-female bias is highly spurious and in fact smells suspiciously of the notion that such things are intrinsically foreign to women. Which, as a prejudicial statement that invalidates the experience of women (also nonwhite people, evidently) who are oriented toward those systems one could hardly do better.

[alowery]

no no no i'm not saying it invalidates anything, its just that, within this whole thread there was this trace of regarding science as being impervious to humans, that it is something natural and inalienable, when actually the entire way we perceive the world around us is affected by a system we created to do so... in this way how we interpret and measure the world has bias... that our entire notion of intelligence is dictated by certain categories (why do we measure the capacities we do and deem this 'intelligence')? this is affected by the system and creators of that system... just how historically, and presently, it's assumed that western logic is the 'right' one and others are flawed (unless something is proven with the scientific method it is dismissed, etc), just as indigenous systems of thinking have been called 'barbarous'

---------- Post added 03-17-2010 at 12:44 PM ----------

i mean, maybe you think the world would be ordered and understood exactly how it is today if there was never oppression of sexes and races in the exact, specific ways that there was... if women wrote the literature upon which governments and economies were organized... i am not so sure of this, but i suppose we will never know.

[Tahiti]

no no no i'm not saying it invalidates anything, its just that, within this whole thread there was this trace of regarding science being impervious to humans, that it is something natural and inalienable, when actually the entire way we perceive the world around us is affected by a system we created to do so... in this way how we interpret and measure the world has bias... that our entire notion of intelligence is dictated by certain categories (why do we measure the capacities we do and deem this 'intelligence')? this is affected by the system and creators of that system... just how historically, and presently, it's assumed that western logic is the 'right' one and others are flawed (unless something is proven with the scientific method it is dismissed, etc), just as indigenous systems of thinking as have been called 'barbarous'

I like the deconstruction, I fully agree. It's just that now I'm wondering, do you have something in mind that is a solution? Just curious since you've come this far.

Would you agree that entire concept of right and wrong are too simple and complex for this world? Either way, welcome to the system of infinity.

[alowery]

ha! i am not so sure about solutions, i was merely trying to explore why things are the way they are, not how they should be. What do you think as far as solutions go? thanks for the welcome, it's a pretty daunting (but liberating) way to approach things...

[Tahiti]

ha! i am not so sure about solutions, i was merely trying to explore why things are the way they are, not how they should be. What do you think as far as solutions go? thanks for the welcome, it's a pretty daunting (but liberating) way to approach things...

Well I'd say you certainly explained "what" it is. The why question is even harder to prove since it might include mostly psychological explanations, but also involves biology etc. The fact alone that every region has its own culture, ethical structure, religion and idea of government should be enough proof that from a designer perspective... everything is programmable. The next question I'd ask is, "How do I re-program?" or rather "Why should we re-program?".

Next is the process of looking at a possible solution. In my experience, this is extremely difficult and has almost nothing to do with an extreme IQ. "Raw detachment of one's personal views and everyone else's". It would be pure analytical power taking in enough information as possible and then formulating efficient/effective rearrangement of all the pieces (systems). You could call it raw logic, no emotion, no bias and no right or wrong, but awareness of how emotions, spirituality, behaviour etc.. affect our entire system as a whole. Thus a clean solution can be formulated.

To this date I believe there are three general methods (for the sake of simple understanding) that don't involve technology: Enforcement of the solution, peaceful propositioning or a mixed degree of both. It's probably going to take the latter.

The actual solution itself would most likely involve explaining almost exactly how humans think. Explanations through perspectives should help, but the actual solution will most likely be a model of some sort... a universal system, a system of ground zero basics that can be proven by applying it to all of humanity. It would then answer why we do what we do, why we think the way we do and why we behave the way we do.

A finalized theory/philosophy of mind...

[Firebrand]

If height had any correlation to intelligence, by law of averages, there would be a hell of a lot more intelligent people. By that logic most of society would be able to join Mensa, not just 2%. Failed argument.

[nacht]

If height had any correlation to intelligence, by law of averages, there would be a hell of a lot more intelligent people. By that logic most of society would be able to join Mensa, not just 2%. Failed argument.

On what do you base this spurious reasoning?

[TheLastMohican]

If height had any correlation to intelligence, by law of averages, there would be a hell of a lot more intelligent people. By that logic most of society would be able to join Mensa, not just 2%. Failed argument.
Um... because most people are taller than average, right? :thinking:

[Firebrand]

On what do you base this spurious reasoning?

Nothing spurious about it. Just averages. I seriously doubt there's a line of sad short people at the door to Mensa meetings. More likely, there's equal distributions of various heights there given the distribution of short/tall/average people.


Um... because most people are taller than average, right? :thinking:

:rolleyes: No, you misunderstand. If you start taking a set of statistics that show the percentage of the population that is above average height, ie - tall, I think we'd see that there's not a slant towards the taller people being the main members of high IQ societies. There's probably not a league of giants at Mensa.

[Wild Boar]

Man invented the wheel...woman invented women's history month...i think that proves it

[TheLastMohican]

If you start taking a set of statistics that show the percentage of the population that is above average height, ie - tall, I think we'd see that there's not a slant towards the taller people being the main members of high IQ societies.
And why do you think that? The height-intelligence correlation was nothing huge; a similar one in Mensa could easily escape notice until searched for.

[Firebrand]

And why do you think that? The height-intelligence correlation was nothing huge; a similar one in Mensa could easily escape notice until searched for.

So, what you're saying is an inverse correlation could also be found if searched for? Or, IE - science can always find what it's looking to prove?

[nacht]

So, what you're saying is an inverse correlation could also be found if searched for? Or, IE - science can always find what it's looking to prove?

You really don't understand what is being discussed or what is meant by correlation. Let's use a great example (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): There is a correlation between spring births and differences in height in military recruits. It works out to about 0.6 centimeters.

So let's say that 1 inch averages out to 1 IQ point (it doesn't quite, but that's not really relevant). You will still have some giants who are idiots (especially if there are other correlating factors, which there are), some short people who are geniuses, but if we evaluated a large enough group of randomly selected people we would find that someone who is 1 inch taller has, on average, 1 more IQ point.

[Firebrand]

You really don't understand what is being discussed or what is meant by correlation. Let's use a great example (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): There is a correlation between spring births and differences in height in military recruits. It works out to about 0.6 centimeters.

So let's say that 1 inch averages out to 1 IQ point (it doesn't quite, but that's not really relevant). You will still have some giants who are idiots (especially if there are other correlating factors, which there are), some short people who are geniuses, but if we evaluated a large enough group of randomly selected people we would find that someone who is 1 inch taller has, on average, 1 more IQ point.

No, I understand just fine. I just think it's crap. You basically reiterated what I said. Cute example though.

[nacht]

No, I understand just fine. I just think it's crap. You basically reiterated what I said. Cute example though.

You said, and I quote, "If height had any correlation to intelligence, by law of averages, there would be a hell of a lot more intelligent people."

This is flat out false. There is no justification for this, there isn't even a viable course of logic that would have led you to this point, and the "law of averages" is actually the Gambler's Fallacy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

You said, and I quote, " By that logic most of society would be able to join Mensa, not just 2%."

This is flat out false. It doesn't even parse with the definition of "correlation." Where are you getting "most of society" from this?

You said, and I quote, "I seriously doubt there's a line of sad short people at the door to Mensa meetings." This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the size of the effects being talked about. You aren't saying that the differences aren't clinically significant, you are saying that the effect must be huge or it doesn't exist.

[Fox]

Man invented the wheel...woman invented women's history month...i think that proves it

Good enough for me.

Women have the potential to be as smart as men. If there is any scientific difference I think it has more to do with gender roles and society. Little girls are hardly encourage to dream about being professionals. Their parents give them dolls and tea party sets. We encourage them to be caregivers. Commercials advertise being moms. Boys are encouraged not only seek careers but to be competitive and do things on their own. If we raise them the same than Intelligence will be the same.

[TheLastMohican]

So, what you're saying is an inverse correlation could also be found if searched for? Or, IE - science can always find what it's looking to prove?
No, not by legitimate methods, because no such inverse correlation exists. The positive correlation does.

Your objections are far-flung and nonsensical. Can you or can you not put together any coherent line of reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that there can be no correlation between height and intelligence?

[Firebrand]

No, not by legitimate methods, because no such inverse correlation exists. The positive correlation does.

Your objections are far-flung and nonsensical. Can you or can you not put together any coherent line of reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that there can be no correlation between height and intelligence?

Because the underlying correlation is to proper nutrition and reach the potential height of the individual, not actual height. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Even if the correlation was true to a minor extent, what advantage does this yield pragmatically? To help tall people inflate their egos? The entire theory rests on a bias of the top 20% of height getting the lion's share of the IQ bell curve without weighing the potential (genetic influence) height of the individual vs the actual height. Part of this bias is that tall people earn more due to said higher intelligence which Thomas Stanley has disproven the correlation of, and even shows an inverse correlation. The study basically hints at this while confusing it with a height = smarter correlation.

[nacht]

Because the underlying correlation is to proper nutrition and reach the potential height of the individual, not actual height. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


1) You are confusing correlation with causation.

A correlates with B does not mean that A causes B or that B causes A. A and B can be caused by a single confounding variable, it can be be that the relationship is significantly more complex, it can be spurious covariation.

2) If you bothered to look up the original research (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) it is not the same research as is being addressed in the NYT article, which is talking about research by Case and Paxson, entirely different people. The research also controlled for earnings, education, health, and a variety of other things that would correlate with proper childhood nutrition.


Even if the correlation was true to a minor extent, what advantage does this yield pragmatically? To help tall people inflate their egos?


The question is research for purposes of understanding evolution, or possibly intelligence. The practical impact in society should there be at the effect at anything smaller than the population level is nonexistent, but then the authors don't claim that it is.



The entire theory rests on a bias of the top 20% of height getting the lion's share of the IQ bell curve without weighing the potential (genetic influence) height of the individual vs the actual height.


Just as a note: They did control for health, earnings, and education (essentially socioeconomic status).


Part of this bias is that tall people earn more due to said higher intelligence which Thomas Stanley has disproven the correlation of, and even shows an inverse correlation. The study basically hints at this while confusing it with a height = smarter correlation.

...and again they controlled for earnings, education, and health.

It helps if when you are trying to find research that goes against the results of a study if you actually look at that study and not for articles that talk about other studies that may only peripherally be related, or not be related at all. I have my own methodological issues with the research (you can find some of them in a previous post), but what you are doing doesn't even begin to approach that problem, and instead resorts to making claims about the research that either aren't true or that address the wrong study.

[TheLastMohican]

Even if the correlation was true to a minor extent, what advantage does this yield pragmatically?
Simply put, the advantage of having more information available. There's no shortage of demand for data. I don't know whether the scientists had a specific use in mind for the results of their research, but either way, it's not going to go to waste.

[Firebrand]

Simply put, the advantage of having more information available. There's no shortage of demand for data. I don't know whether the scientists had a specific use in mind for the results of their research, but either way, it's not going to go to waste.
How is it not? What's being done with it besides providing for debate?



It helps if when you are trying to find research that goes against the results of a study if you actually look at that study and not for articles that talk about other studies that may only peripherally be related, or not be related at all. I have my own methodological issues with the research (you can find some of them in a previous post), but what you are doing doesn't even begin to approach that problem, and instead resorts to making claims about the research that either aren't true or that address the wrong study.

Ok, but if you read something and already know of other studies that disprove a given study, you're saying you should just accept the new information without considering the prior information you have? Have you read any of Thomas Stanley's work which disproves the correlation of intelligence and earnings? The study says that men are smarter than woman because men are taller. Correct?


research by Case and Paxson, entirely different people.
They are cited in the references section of the original article.

[TheLastMohican]

How is it not? What's being done with it besides providing for debate?
How should I know? It could be applied in various anthropological studies, but obviously we haven't seen the benefits yet. That's no reason to discourage research.