Why do women have lower IQs than men?: The case for plebeian intellect in females

[snafupants]

Just logged in to show you some support (as I see lots of people against you). But I dont have enough english writing abilities to help you here.

Looking forward to seeing your race/african IQ thread or post. Expecting to see some good ol Rushton there too. And maybe a similar analysis of the bell curve extremes you have done so far with the Male/Female, but with Asians and Caucasians now. ( I know; you could be banned for doing this. Its easier to speak about genders.)

From what I've seen in this forum so far, people here only use Darwins Evolution to make fun of religion. But they are not ready to accept all its implications.

Ps: My support for you is only in this thread/topic. I remember you having some lesbians as an avatar; I may disagree with you in other topics.

I welcome any ban that comes in the unapologetic search and dissemination of truth. On the other hand, receiving the boot would be groundless because I largely deal in facts and any opinions expressed herein are tempered with caution. I am fully willing to admit when I'm misinformed on a topic, and I usually refrain from spitting curses at folks who grate me.

Yes, there is a decided lean towards Darwinism in the abstract but when particular nuances of human character/personality/aptitude are invoked there's almost complete, preternatural silence in the room. These issues have been made somehow sacrosanct and untouchable. Darwin and Galton, Darwin's cousin, were quite keen on mental differences, unfortunately their work got distorted into negative eugenics' practices. Moreover, their techniques for gauging intelligence were rather crude.

Political correctness in subsequent generations perhaps stems from the sterilizations and eugenics practiced in the United States in the early part of the twentieth century, under the auspices/justification of IQ tests and their output. The United States reluctantly would have to admit to influencing Hitler and Nazism with these techniques, ideas and procedures. In fact, Nazism followed in the footsteps of the United States' sterilizations and only slightly differed in its scope, ideology and barbarousness.

 

[Mello]

You could be banned because you're actually wrong, too. <3

Spoiler

Lesbians are usually hot, though.

David Page

Even the liberal didn't want to listen.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/411139/march-26-2012/david-page

http://streaming.wi.mit.edu/?sub=faculty_bio/220k&vid=Page_220k01aex02aex.mov

Spoiler

Why do I even care?

 

[snafupants]

You could be banned because you're actually wrong, too. <3

Spoiler

Lesbians are usually hot, though.

David Page

Even the liberal didn't want to listen.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/411139/march-26-2012/david-page

http://streaming.wi.mit.edu/?sub=faculty_bio/220k&vid=Page_220k01aex02aex.mov

Spoiler

Why do I even care?

If the forum banned folks who were intellectually beguiled we'd all get our walking papers, including the moderators. What, though, am I wrong about in particular? Right now you're all bark and little bite. I mean, you tend to play matters pretty safe by spewing one liners and yukking it up to yourself.

 

[Mello]

If the forum banned folks who were intellectually beguiled we'd all get our walking papers, including the moderators. What, though, am I wrong about in particular? Right now you're all bark and little bite. I mean, you tend to play matters pretty safe by spewing one liners and yukking it up to yourself.

Women don't have lower IQs than men.

Again, why does it matter?

All bark and little bite? Who cares?

Play matters safe? You want to kill me?

Again, why do you care?

Spoiler

Do you want my address?

What would be proved if women have lower IQ than men?

What about EQ?

I would say men have lower EQ than women.

You say I have all bark and little bite, how about you say, "Fuck you," to my face then.

I bet that would make you feel better, little girl. <3

Spoiler

I might laugh, though.

Skype: PolarCakeBear

Spoiler

You seem to take yourself very seriously. At least I'm funny.

 

[Mello]

And I post one-liners because I genuinely don't enjoy debating or listening to people rant.

Spoiler

That was a one-liner.

Spoiler

Holy shit, I am so funny.

Spoiler

I'm wondering, though.

Spoiler

How old are you, mate?

Spoiler

If you're over 21, I'm going to laugh.

 

[Kuu]

And I post one-liners because I genuinely don't enjoy debating or listening to people rant.

Spoiler

That was a one-liner.

Spoiler

Holy shit, I am so funny.

Spoiler

I'm wondering, though.

Spoiler

How old are you, mate?

Spoiler

If you're over 21, I'm going to laugh.

Then perhaps you can find a place where one-liners are acceptable and encouraged answers? You've brought nothing but facetious remarks to this thread. It was even split in an effort to separate the trash from the actual discussion, clearly to no avail.

I hear INTPCentral is wonderful, @Mello.

 

[Mello]

Then perhaps you can find a place where one-liners are acceptable and encouraged answers? You've brought nothing but facetious remarks to this thread. It was even split in an effort to separate the trash from the actual discussion, clearly to no avail.

I hear INTPCentral is wonderful, @Mello.

@Kuu FacetiousPersona was my past lover. ;]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsD3xA3Ydj4

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Reiterating BigApplePi's point about males being more competitive.

There may be no intelligence difference, but if males are more likely to be highly competitive, or on the other hand to be more likely to slack off during an IQ test, higher variability would follow.

So then you would have an equal number of females capable of scoring 150 on an IQ test, but males happen to be more motivated to reach for such a score.

 

[Yet]

@snafu
I could not be bothered to read all of previous posts, cause seen this sort of threads so many times. So I am sorry if I am out of line.

What I do know for a fact is that the number of males with IQ <-2dev. just as >+2dev. is slightly higher than females. Puzzled me as well. (meaning that there are relatively slightly more male thicko's than female ones and there are slightly more male very smarties than female ones)

Haven't got the faintest idea how that can be. If I had to make a wild guess it would be that extreme smartness and extreme thickness are somehow related neurologically and that in that males are the weakest sex (no offence). Their constitution might be easier harmed in a neuro - 'growing stage'.

Another comment is that I am not a very big fan of IQ tests. I know them close by (I test kids at the moment) and I find the tests quite stupid in some aspects. They pretend to measure stuff that they do not actually measure. There's no solid theoretical base. (In all they are quite predictive though.)
So the basis of this discussion for me is rattling a bit ... what the fuck is IQ but what a tests pretends it to be. You probably know what I mean if you are familiar with test construction and construct-validity?

And a somewhat wild idea:
It could be that if IQ tests would be slightly differently constructed relatively more women would end up in the highest regions. At the moment they are mostly a male product (Don't know any female test constructors.) so they might be slightly biased to what males think are important cognitive functions. [Some of the subtests women score higher though if I am not mistaken.]

PS what do you mean by plebeian intellect in females? never heard of that expression.

 

[BigApplePi]

And a somewhat wild idea:
It could be that if IQ tests would be slightly differently constructed relatively more women would end up in the highest regions. At the moment they are mostly a male product (Don't know any female test constructors.) so they might be slightly biased to what males think are important cognitive functions. [Some of the subtests women score higher though if I am not mistaken.]

No so wild, but may be right on.

I find that an extremely promising hypothesis Yet. Intelligence is a capacity in a particular environment. To make it for a general environment would require defining that environment. If the creators of the test bias the environment, say to favor a certain ethnicity, language (that's for sure), or sex, what would you expect for the results?

Intelligence tests exist in a context. That context can be thought of as a mulitiplicity of possible environments. It makes a big difference what that environment is. This is a clue, but not a complete explanation: HIERARCHY - UMS

 

[snafupants]

@snafu
I could not be bothered to read all of previous posts, cause seen this sort of threads so many times. So I am sorry if I am out of line.

What I do know for a fact is that the number of males with IQ <-2dev. just as >+2dev. is slightly higher than females. Puzzled me as well. (meaning that there are relatively slightly more male thicko's than female ones and there are slightly more male very smarties than female ones)

Haven't got the faintest idea how that can be. If I had to make a wild guess it would be that extreme smartness and extreme thickness are somehow related neurologically and that in that males are the weakest sex (no offence). Their constitution might be easier harmed in a neuro - 'growing stage'.

Another comment is that I am not a very big fan of IQ tests. I know them close by (I test kids at the moment) and I find the tests quite stupid in some aspects. They pretend to measure stuff that they do not actually measure. There's no solid theoretical base. (In all they are quite predictive though.)
So the basis of this discussion for me is rattling a bit ... what the fuck is IQ but what a tests pretends it to be. You probably know what I mean if you are familiar with test construction and construct-validity?

And a somewhat wild idea:
It could be that if IQ tests would be slightly differently constructed relatively more women would end up in the highest regions. At the moment they are mostly a male product (Don't know any female test constructors.) so they might be slightly biased to what males think are important cognitive functions. [Some of the subtests women score higher though if I am not mistaken.]

PS what do you mean by plebeian intellect in females? never heard of that expression.

How would that work? Earlier in your post you corroborated the finding that males populate the lower/upper poles in a higher percentage than women, and then you postulate that men are the weaker sex. Dissonance? They seem more like the less average gender. The disparagement seemed unsupported in either case. The claim may be so, but you failed to provide ample evidence.

By what mechanism would women, say, be able to parrot back fewer numbers to the test administrator than men? Why would women be less able to define words orally than men? These allegations have little weight when one considers the implications and removes the conjecture from abstraction. Again, that sounds plausible but there's a severe dearth of evidence on display.

Your last point is correct, but then there are subtests which men consistently score higher on. These differences are usually quite small, as in less than one standard deviation. The subtest gender differences tend to cancel themselves out when the administrator goes to tally composite scores. If the tendency goes both ways, though, how are the tests inherently biased?

 

[shortbuss]

To say women are less intelligent than men is not accurate, and implies an exaggerated superiority of intellect that is simply not a fair depiction of the differences between men and women in regards to intelligence.

On the bell-curve men are most likely to score in the extremes, often being very intelligent or very unintelligent. Women's scores do not vary as drastically and hold a stronger mean, so while there are less female geniuses, there are also more men than women that score very low.

To say that men overall are smarter than women because they have more outliers in the genius category is a sweeping overstatement. These men are far from representing the entirety of the male gender so to just state simply that men are smarter than women is a gross simplification of the data.

What I will give you is that male genius is certainly more often greater than female genius, due to the polarized nature of male IQ scores, but geniuses are the exception- not the rule, or rather, not the average.

Also, an interesting fact, neuroscience indicates that men with lower levels of testosterone are more often smarter than men with higher levels of testosterone.

I think you should reassess your conclusion.

 

[BigApplePi]

By what mechanism would women, say, be able to parrot back fewer numbers to the test administrator than men? Why would women be less able to define words orally than men? These allegations have little weight when one considers the implications and removes the conjecture from abstraction. Again, that sounds plausible but there's a severe dearth of evidence on display

Small differences in I.Q. could be accounted for by small differences in test questions. It might take just one question favoring males in a hundred questions to create enough bias.

.

Your last point is correct, but then there are subtests which men consistently score higher on. These differences are usually quite small, as in less than one standard deviation. The subtest gender differences tend to cancel themselves out when the administrator goes to tally composite scores. If the tendency goes both ways, though, how are the tests inherently biased?

But do they cancel each other out? All cultures are notorious in encouraging achievement by boys over girls at the high end of the scale. There is no way to remove encouraging achievement markers even in so called "culture free" test questions.

At the low end males have more genetic defects so they will score lower.

 

[Yet]

Snafu

Earlier in your post you corroborated the finding that males populate the lower/upper poles in a higher percentage than women, and then you postulate that men are the weaker sex. Dissonance? They seem more like the less average gender.

hiya Snafu,
You don't seem to understand so I try to explain it in another way: they are not a less average gender whatsoever (that would be a bit silly to postulate, it does not exist statistically what you are trying to say here; you mean maybe that their curve is flatter) ... no, with 'weaker' sex I mean they must be somehow more vulnerable in development: There are more mentally disabled males. With which by the way I am not trying to say that man have lower IQ's. I do not reason the same way as you try to in your topic ... the Bell curve is hardly something you can build a theory out of.

By what mechanism would women, say, be able to parrot back fewer numbers to the test administrator than men? Why would women be less able to define words orally than men? These allegations have little weight when one considers the implications and removes the conjecture from abstraction. Again, that sounds plausible but there's a severe dearth of evidence on display.

Your talking WAIS now. The subtests are constructed in a certain way. The answers are defined in a certain way. Think and imagine: if they would be constructed differently. Could it be that positions of people would be shuffled around in a curve? Could it be that sex-differences in scores would turn around? Just because you ask for display of different skills?
I have done short memory tests and on the WAIS one I scored shit (well avarage that is), on other ones my score is enviable. Strange isn't it? What if that asked for a brain function mine is good at but for some other person this would be exactly the other way around? What if that would be the case for males?

I am not interested in making this a battle of the sexes by the way. That is boring and pointless because every thinking being knows there is no significant difference in overall cognitive performance.
I just try to get accross what tests do and what they do not say and how they can be biased. Which is extremely interesting on its own.

PS I still do not know what you mean by 'the case for plebeian intellect in females'?

 

[BigApplePi]

Are the tests sex biased?

Here is a question. Can a test be constructed on a test itself which will reveal a bias in testing male versus females? I can't wrap my brain around this as I'm ruminating and procrastinating about having to do taxes I don't want to do.

Here are some ideas which may or my not solve the problem. Just my intuition only. Let's say you have a pool of test male and females where the average and mean shows equal IQ's. As usual the males show up at the extremes so you don't know yet if the test is biased. Then you construct two more tests. One is deliberately female biased and the other just to have another test is male biased. You give them the tests and measure the amount of bias which you know for sure will occur because you constructed the test that way. Next you construct a new test with another carefully constructed selection of questions from each test (say you have another pool of people to test) and measure the results. This may not work ... you need a theorem which will say whether or not using test results will reveal a bias. You can have questions selected blindly by supposed test experts. The idea is to see if they can select unbiased questions ... the idea is to test if a question is biased or not. I should think that could be done, but as I say I can't wrap my brain around this.

 

[Yet]

@ BigApplePie

Whatever it is we wish to understand can be analyzed, meaning broken into parts. The task is to decide how to make the breakdown. Is it formal, haphazard, natural, or merely narrative? Should components be evaluated equally? What technique is to be used to decide the analysis?

this, what you wrote somewhere else and linked at, is exactly what I mean.
What are we trying to measure/test? & How do we operationalize it? (is that how you say that in English?) In research these are vital components that have to be defined.

So what we (who?) choose to be important aspects of cognitive functioning and capture in testitems and then say --> people who score high are intelligent. We only measured what we (who again?) defined as intelligent.

 

[snafupants]

Snafu
hiya Snafu,
You don't seem to understand so I try to explain it in another way: they are not a less average gender whatsoever (that would be a bit silly to postulate, it does not exist statistically what you are trying to say here; you mean maybe that their curve is flatter) ... no, with 'weaker' sex I mean they must be somehow more vulnerable in development: There are more mentally disabled males. With which by the way I am not trying to say that man have lower IQ's. I do not reason the same way as you try to in your topic ... the Bell curve is hardly something you can build a theory out of.

Your talking WAIS now. The subtests are constructed in a certain way. The answers are defined in a certain way. Think and imagine: if they would be constructed differently. Could it be that positions of people would be shuffled around in a curve? Could it be that sex-differences in scores would turn around? Just because you ask for display of different skills?
I have done short memory tests and on the WAIS one I scored shit (well avarage that is), on other ones my score is enviable. Strange isn't it? What if that asked for a brain function mine is good at but for some other person this would be exactly the other way around? What if that would be the case for males?

I am not interested in making this a battle of the sexes by the way. That is boring and pointless because every thinking being knows there is no significant difference in overall cognitive performance.
I just try to get accross what tests do and what they do not say and how they can be biased. Which is extremely interesting on its own.

PS I still do not know what you mean by 'the case for plebeian intellect in females'?

I hear you repeating the same mantra. The statistics indicate that females are less likely to boast scores at either of the poles. Yes, there are more mentally disabled males but there are also more gifted males. The KABC-II is almost a replica of the WAIS-III digit span subtest, so that seems more par for the course than an aberration. Finally, I would conclude, as a thinking being, that there are gender differences in composite scores. You basically admitted to subtest differences in your previous post. Is it inconceivable that the subtest results would, indeed, encumber composite scores?

 

[Yet]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

Here is a question. Can a test be constructed on a test itself which will reveal a bias in testing male versus females? I can't wrap my brain around this as I'm ruminating and procrastinating about having to do taxes I don't want to do.

Here are some ideas which may or my not solve the problem. Just my intuition only. Let's say you have a pool of test male and females where the average and mean shows equal IQ's. As usual the males show up at the extremes so you don't know yet if the test is biased. Then you construct two more tests. One is deliberately female biased and the other just to have another test is male biased. You give them the tests and measure the amount of bias which you know for sure will occur because you constructed the test that way. Next you construct a new test with another carefully constructed selection of questions from each test (say you have another pool of people to test) and measure the results. This may not work ... you need a theorem which will say whether or not using test results will reveal a bias. You can have questions selected blindly by supposed test experts. The idea is to see if they can select unbiased questions ... the idea is to test if a question is biased or not. I should think that could be done, but as I say I can't wrap my brain around this.

I have to think about this one apple PI. Looks like you are looking for some sort of statistical correction. Fun, elegant and creative. Hard to 'standardize' though I think without a fixed set.

Both sexes seem to have certain 'talents' and I think we should leave that in tact but make sure that these (captured in subtests) have equal attributions.

 

[Mello]

I hear you repeating the same mantra. The statistics indicate that females are less likely to boast scores at either of the poles. Yes, there are more mentally disabled males but there are also more gifted males. The KABC-II is almost a replica of the WAIS-III digit span subtest, so that seems more par for the course than an aberration. Finally, I would conclude, as a thinking being, that there are gender differences in composite scores. You basically admitted to subtest differences in your previous post. Is it inconceivable that the subtest results would, indeed, encumber composite scores?

I hear you repeating the same mantra.

You still haven't said why you care, yet.

 

[snafupants]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

I have to think about this one apple PI. Looks like you are looking for some sort of statistical correction. Fun, elegant and creative. Hard to 'standardize' though I think without a fixed set.

Both sexes seem to have certain 'talents' and I think we should leave that in tact but make sure that these (captured in subtests) have equal attributions.

That should never be the innate goal of test construction. We should objectively gauge intellective functions irrespective of the results. If blacks score one standard deviation less than asians, so be it.

 

[snafupants]

I hear you repeating the same mantra.

You still haven't said why you care, yet.

Of course I'm repeating the same mantra, because that mantra happens to be true.

Why do I care? Why don't you? This is cool, and the implications are sprawling.

 

[Yet]

Snafu

hear you repeating the same mantra

sorry, not really interested in a dialogue if you can only think up your own alley. I do not know what you are trying to defend. I could say the same: you keep repeating yourself as well.

PS the weakness has got something to do with testosteron levels. Upper and lower end scoorders are different in that. Testosteron levels can do good or harm apparently in development.

PS 2 yep I am familiar with the scoring and how it generates a TIQ, that had hardly anything to do with what I am saying.

ah, never mind.

 

[Yet]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

That should never be the innate goal of test construction. We should objectively gauge intellective functions irrespective of the results. If blacks score one standard deviation less than asians, so be it.

now here you are quite wrong. They tried to make a culture free test exactly for this reason: to try to eliminate unnecessary bias.
Raven's progressive matrices is an attempt.
To make something unbiased has proven to be extremely hard (or impossible) though. Environmental, cultural influences are always present.

How would you objectively gauge for intellectual functions?

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

That should never be the innate goal of test construction. We should objectively gauge intellective functions irrespective of the results. If blacks score one standard deviation less than asians, so be it.

Excellent point. The problem is, is the test objective? Are we testing a group in their native environment or placing them in someone else's environment? So these things:

1. Who is the group?
2. What is their environment?
3. We are testing them where?

I'm going to assume no test is perfect. Therefore it would be of interest to measure a test's bias.

To the blacks: United States tests are notorious for testing in the context of typical U.S. (white anglo-saxon) culture. That is not (or hasn't been) typical black culture. I think I mentioned once I have a black buddy who tested 82 -87 IQ or thereabouts. No way is this accurate. He is a Ph.D. with a couple masters and is far more articulate in many ways than I am. No way does he have an IQ of 8x by white standards. Aside from retesting him today, how could we have tested him back in high school in the first place where he got 8x?

 

[BigApplePi]

@ BigApplePie

this, what you wrote somewhere else and linked at, is exactly what I mean.
What are we trying to measure/test? & How do we operationalize it? (is that how you say that in English?) In research these are vital components that have to be defined.

So what we (who?) choose to be important aspects of cognitive functioning and capture in testitems and then say --> people who score high are intelligent. We only measured what we (who again?) defined as intelligent.

That quote was from "Understanding Made Simple"/ Hierarchy, lol. I think snafu has raised a very legitimate and interesting question: how do we account for males being at the tales of the bell curve? If we are going to find out, what tools should we use? Would interviewing the male and female outliers give us a clue? If we did that, we might be able to formulate their environments, and then having that revise the test. But this gives rise to this thought of mine (I am guilty of making wild stabs): What if we gave a group of geniuses an IQ test where they all were under the influence of some naughty chemical. We would get lower scores, right? So how would we evaluate them to adjust for the chemical? Answer: we can't unless we have made some predetermined tests which tell us how to upgrade.

 

[typus]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

To make something unbiased

But to make a test unbiased you'd have to know what the "correct" score is, and if you do know that, you've already made an unbiased test. So how would you?

 

[snafupants]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

now here you are quite wrong. They tried to make a culture free test exactly for this reason: to try to eliminate unnecessary bias.
Raven's progressive matrices is an attempt.
To make something unbiased has proven to be extremely hard (or impossible) though. Environmental, cultural influences are always present.

How would you objectively gauge for intellectual functions?

How does that refute my point? Is there really a right and wrong way to construct a test? I find your criticism heavy handed and somewhat dogmatic. To the larger point, do you believe that aptitude tests should do something other than attempt to objectively gauge intelligence?

 

[Minuend]

Moved to VM

 

[snafupants]

That quote was from "Understanding Made Simple"/ Hierarchy, lol. I think snafu has raised a very legitimate and interesting question: how do we account for males being at the tales of the bell curve? If we are going to find out, what tools should we use? Would interviewing the male and female outliers give us a clue? If we did that, we might be able to formulate their environments, and then having that revise the test. But this gives rise to this thought of mine (I am horrible in making wild stabs): What if we gave a group of geniuses an IQ test where they all were under the influence of some naughty chemical. We would get lower scores, right? So how would we evaluate them to adjust for the chemical? Answer: we can't unless we have made some predetermined tests which tell us how to upgrade.

I wonder if releasing information obtained from interviews, test observations and personal test taking testimonials with the gifted would present an undue advantage to lesser scorers who were privy to this knowledge over those lesser scorers who remained ignorant. That said, I agree, the information could prove quite valuable. I just wonder about the repercussions of releasing that data. I feel I could give an average scorer strategies to boost her score on basically any matrix reasoning subtest; I could even give her tips to tap her full potential on expressive vocabulary tasks: this would involve advice aimed at providing the answers in concert with standardization responses and administrator expectations. Could we, subsequently, say that her intelligence increased by the yielded amount? Probably not. So, I feel these learned, almost practice, effects could conflate an already biased test. Interestingly, Lewis Terman attempted to dissect genius in an unprecedented early twentieth century study. The results are mixed and subject to individual appraisal, although he did, in fact, disabuse then current stupidity and stereotypes. Just goes to show how much ignorance is out there. This is seriously getting off of the tracks, but maybe providing geniuses with high range tests and noticing which problems they struggle with and which they excel at could help rectify current biases in regular full length intelligence batteries. We already know that gifted kids score worse on processing speed subtests than, say, crystallized intelligence subtests, on average; having said that, there's a slippery slope between making a test equable and artificially lowering scores deductively based on test results.

 

[Yet]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

But to make a test unbiased you'd have to know what the "correct" score is, and if you do know that, you've already made an unbiased test. So how would you?

let me just quote my whole sentence instead of a bite like you did

what I wrote:

To make something unbiased has proven to be extremely hard (or impossible) though. Environmental, cultural influences are always present.

 

[Yet]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

How does that refute my point? Is there really a right and wrong way to construct a test? I find your criticism heavy handed and somewhat dogmatic. To the larger point, do you believe that aptitude tests should do something other than attempt to objectively gauge intelligence?

of course there is a right and wrong way to construct a test... I thought you were or have been a psychology student? Have you learned about test construction?

To find my criticism heavy handed or somewhat dogmatic is only an ad hominem (a form of fallacy). I can't answer to that.

I think an aptitude test should measure ability. That is a complex composition of executive functions.
Intelligence is an undefined concept. There is no theoretical bottom.

 

[snafupants]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

of course there is a right and wrong way to construct a test... I thought you were or have been a psychology student? Have you learned about test construction?

To find my criticism heavy handed or somewhat dogmatic is only an ad hominem (a form of fallacy). I can't answer to that.

I think an aptitude test should measure ability. That is a complex composition of executive functions.
Intelligence is an undefined concept. There is no theoretical bottom.

You view my statements in the wrong light. Can an ad hominem attack ever touch on an issue objectively? I believe the answer is yes, and I also believe there was little ad hominem attacking in the post you alluded to. Of course an aptitude test should measure mental ability, is anyone disputing this? That's a straw man argument mister. The statement has been hideously twisted out of context for the benefit of your own position.

 

[Mello]

Of course I'm repeating the same mantra, because that mantra happens to be true.

Why do I care? Why don't you? This is cool, and the implications are sprawling.

I see that it's pointless to even try and debate with you.

Enjoy being put on ignore.

 

[Yet]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

You view my statements in the wrong light. Can an ad hominem attack ever touch on an issue objectively? I believe the answer is yes, and I also believe there was little ad hominem attacking in the post you alluded to. Of course an aptitude test should measure mental ability, is anyone disputing this? That's a straw man argument mister. The statement has been hideously twisted out of context for the benefit of your own position.

I did not feel attacked at all. I just pointed out that your comment was an ad hominem argument and that is a fallacy. I cannot answer to that.

You asked me about what I thought an aptitude test should measure so I answered... and then you call my answer a straw man argument.

And the statement being hideously twisted out of context for the benefit of my own position (whatever that may be) is a bit of a strange comment.

You make a case for something: for plebeian intellect in women (whatever that may be?). You base this on IQ test results. When I ask critical questions about construct validity of IQ tests because I think the answer might be somewhere in there you keep to being defensive about I don't know what, IQ tests? why?

Based on cultural en sexual differences I do have serious questions about the construct validity. The differences are not logical. It is not logical that inhabitants of one country would be cognitively higher talented than the other. The Dutch have a higher average IQ score than in the US b.e. But there are not that big genetical differences, growing up differences or feeding differences that would indicate that, make that logical. Yet there are differences in m score of IQ tests. There must be a statistical explanation, or constructional explanation. Maybe it has something to do with educational influences? Who knows ... but I do not conclude that the Dutch are cognitively more talented. Cause that would be silly.
This goes the same for sex differences. There are talent differences between the sexes within the whole scale that cognitive functioning is built up out. But you cannot deduct from that that the one is more gifted than the other. Perhaps (I think quite probably) IQ tests mis out on some aspects of cognitive functioning. You missed the point then that I was trying to make.

Autistic people score higher on Raven Matrices. Does that make them higher cognitive functioning people?
Should we conclude that it is not men who are smarter than women but that people with autism are smarter than the rest? That is an interesting question (not): why are autistic people smarter? the case for plebeian intellect in everybody but the autistic ones.

If you have any need going on about men being so called 'smarter' than women be my guest. I find it odd and fascinating at the same time why some feel that need and do this with such little self criticism.

 

[Reluctantly]

Nature vs Nurture; IQ ASSUMES to measure only nature, by ignoring the evidence of how NURTURE affects it. Nurture is somewhat INDEPENDENT of innate intelligence, yet it augments and molds it. One is not without the other, so Sanfu's claim of IQ being an objective measure is hogwash that he refuses to accept.

What's being argued here is just basic philosophy, which has already been done to death.

If you want to measure the differences between men and women, look for what each one is innately better at, not for how to measure, justify, and value one type of intelligence over another.

CHRIST

INTP FORUM - not so sure now.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

@Yet One can only assume this is what he means

 

[Yet]

thx Adaire

I knew what plebeian means, so I figured it is probably not meant in a flattering way. Plebeian as an adjective to intellect is new to me. It sounds more like a contradiction in terminis. The combination with 'females' makes me lift my eyebrows.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Yes, makes his assertions of neutrality dubious at best.

Best to ignore.

 

[Bunny]

I'm sorry if I sound a little misogynistic saying this, because I don't mean to, but I think the OP is somewhat correct. I don't think women *are* less intelligent than men, but it's seen as endearing when women are ditzy, and kind of.. dumb. So instead of trying to become more knowledgeable, I think a lot of women are content being seen as "cute" and less intelligent. Especially when they're pretty on top of it, and can easily get things handed to them due to the fact.

 

[snafupants]

Nature vs Nurture; IQ ASSUMES to measure only nature, by ignoring the evidence of how NURTURE affects it. Nurture is somewhat INDEPENDENT of innate intelligence, yet it augments and molds it. One is not without the other, so Sanfu's claim of IQ being an objective measure is hogwash that he refuses to accept.

What's being argued here is just basic philosophy, which has already been done to death.

If you want to measure the differences between men and women, look for what each one is innately better at, not for how to measure, justify, and value one type of intelligence over another.

CHRIST

INTP FORUM - not so sure now.

Impertinent much? Of course intellectual striving and an early stimulating environment would benefit one's scores on subtests that test cultural knowledge. In the psychological community there is in fact an acceptance of nature and nurture affecting the expression of intelligence. That, as you point out, is undisputed. Thanks for your comment.

 

[snafupants]

I'm sorry if I sound a little misogynistic saying this, because I don't mean to, but I think the OP is somewhat correct. I don't think women *are* less intelligent than men, but it's seen as endearing when women are ditzy, and kind of.. dumb. So instead of trying to become more knowledgeable, I think a lot of women are content being seen as "cute" and less intelligent. Especially when they're pretty on top of it, and can easily get things handed to them due to the fact.

There probably is a cultural disincentive for women to cultivate and display intelligence.

 

[snafupants]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

I did not feel attacked at all. I just pointed out that your comment was an ad hominem argument and that is a fallacy. I cannot answer to that.

You asked me about what I thought an aptitude test should measure so I answered... and then you call my answer a straw man argument.

And the statement being hideously twisted out of context for the benefit of my own position (whatever that may be) is a bit of a strange comment.

You make a case for something: for plebeian intellect in women (whatever that may be?). You base this on IQ test results. When I ask critical questions about construct validity of IQ tests because I think the answer might be somewhere in there you keep to being defensive about I don't know what, IQ tests? why?

Based on cultural en sexual differences I do have serious questions about the construct validity. The differences are not logical. It is not logical that inhabitants of one country would be cognitively higher talented than the other. The Dutch have a higher average IQ score than in the US b.e. But there are not that big genetical differences, growing up differences or feeding differences that would indicate that, make that logical. Yet there are differences in m score of IQ tests. There must be a statistical explanation, or constructional explanation. Maybe it has something to do with educational influences? Who knows ... but I do not conclude that the Dutch are cognitively more talented. Cause that would be silly.
This goes the same for sex differences. There are talent differences between the sexes within the whole scale that cognitive functioning is built up out. But you cannot deduct from that that the one is more gifted than the other. Perhaps (I think quite probably) IQ tests mis out on some aspects of cognitive functioning. You missed the point then that I was trying to make.

Autistic people score higher on Raven Matrices. Does that make them higher cognitive functioning people?
Should we conclude that it is not men who are smarter than women but that people with autism are smarter than the rest? That is an interesting question (not): why are autistic people smarter? the case for plebeian intellect in everybody but the autistic ones.

If you have any need going on about men being so called 'smarter' than women be my guest. I find it odd and fascinating at the same time why some feel that need and do this with such little self criticism.

Perhaps a refresher is called for here. Women have a smaller standard deviation than men and are, thus, less likely to populate the outlying positions on the bell curve. That said, I would not deny the existence of a bevy of women showing high or low scores; I would simply note the statistical improbability of such an occurrence. There's a greater likelihood of a man possessing an IQ of either 45 or one of 155 because of this phenomena. This does not mean that men are smarter than women. The data merely suggests that women are statistically more likely to score near the mean. This may be an issue of test construction, or one of cultural acceptability, and because of the way I have structured my arguments, I believe I have facilitated these discussions.

 

[snafupants]

My overall impression of the forum's reaction, especially from its female contingent, is one of surprise. Perhaps the aggravation betrays the unveiling of truth. Imagine I had postulated that a certain race was composed entirely of geniuses. Would that discussion be nearly as polemically headstrong as what is evinced in this thread? Probably not, because the claim of a race being composed exclusively of geniuses is patently inane. I really believe that the ardent reaction from the ladies underscores a fundamental insecurity, ill-founded or otherwise.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Are the tests sex biased?

Autistic people score higher on Raven Matrices. Does that make them higher cognitive functioning people?

I had to look up Raven Matrices not having heard of them. I'm suspicious about autistic scores if only because the pool from where they come is suspect. Isn't it possible that lower IQ parents do not bother to get the autistic diagnosis? That leaves a pool of higher IQ parents to get their children Ravened. No wonder, lol.

 

[shortbuss]

I find your use of the word plebeian condescending and pretentious, and your science highly dubious. I already made my case, but you didn't respond to it, so I feel no need to make my case again.

My overall impression of the forum's reaction, especially from its female contingent, is one of surprise. Perhaps the aggravation betrays the unveiling of truth. Imagine I had postulated that a certain race was composed entirely of geniuses. Would that discussion be nearly as polemically headstrong as what is evinced in this thread? Probably not, because the claim of a race being composed exclusively of geniuses is patently inane. I really believe that the ardent reaction from the ladies underscores a fundamental insecurity, ill-founded or otherwise.

Gee, I wonder why women act adversely to your perspective. Isn't it curious that all your findings seem to imply white men are the most intellectually capable humans? Don't you find that odd at all? Of course not, because that would be questioning yourself, which I see little evidence of in your posts. You are self-assured in your biases. Maybe if I called you an intellectual plebeian you wouldn't react so kindly either. I don't have a fundamental insecurity as you suggest- I'm just sick of reading from men about what they think is wrong and lesser in the female sect of their species. I think your sense of superiority is a practice in mental masturbation and self-congratulation.

 

[Grove]

My overall impression of the forum's reaction, especially from its female contingent, is one of surprise. Perhaps the aggravation betrays the unveiling of truth. Imagine I had postulated that a certain race was composed entirely of geniuses. Would that discussion be nearly as polemically headstrong as what is evinced in this thread? Probably not, because the claim of a race being composed exclusively of geniuses is patently inane. I really believe that the ardent reaction from the ladies underscores a fundamental insecurity, ill-founded or otherwise.

Wow! I don't doubt that a "fundamental insecurity" is what is going on here.

Please correct me if I'm incorrect.

You ask a question about why men have higher IQ scores than women & relate an IQ score as an objective indicator of intelligence...correct?

A number of individuals (male and female alike) counter with the argument that standard IQ tests are not objective...correct?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I find your use of the word plebeian condescending and pretentious, and your science highly dubious. I already made my case, but you didn't respond to it, so I feel no need to make my case again.

He'd been outright ignoring many points and going tediously and determinedly on about others. All the painfully obvious points have been explained to him repeatedly.

Being long winded and refusing to concede legitimate points doesn't make you look smart snafu. I wouldn't lump yourself in with all those 'extraordinary' male outliers.

We all know you're doing it.

My overall impression of the forum's reaction, especially from its female contingent, is one of surprise. Perhaps the aggravation betrays the unveiling of truth. Imagine I had postulated that a certain race was composed entirely of geniuses. Would that discussion be nearly as polemically headstrong as what is evinced in this thread? Probably not, because the claim of a race being composed exclusively of geniuses is patently inane. I really believe that the ardent reaction from the ladies underscores a fundamental insecurity, ill-founded or otherwise.

Typical.

 

[DylanHead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA

 

[snafupants]

Wow! I don't doubt that a "fundamental insecurity" is what is going on here.

Please correct me if I'm incorrect.

You ask a question about why men have higher IQ scores than women & relate an IQ score as an objective indicator of intelligence...correct?

A number of individuals (male and female alike) counter with the argument that standard IQ tests are not objective...correct?

And lower scores, but folks seem to want to focus on the higher scores, for whatever reason. There's a lot of semantic gymnastics concerning people disparaging IQ tests, and some of it is justified. I have, in fact, noted drawbacks of IQ tests in this thread already. Within the verbal, crystallized sections, for instance, there's this assumption that if one comprehends one word or oral scenario, then s/he understands words or scenarios of equal difficulty not included in the test. Moreover, there's an assumption that these things have real world implications, which are paramount for being successful in life. I find these assumptions pretty dubious. As evidenced by the GRE Verbal section, sometimes people just get lucky and score well in spite of imperfect knowledge. This is definitely an area of concern which (hopefully) a full psychological profile would reveal. Psychology has been and is an imperfect blend of subjective/qualitative and objective/quantitive analysis; this must be so because the field seeks to assess murky ecological data. Another issue is the test's provenance themselves; this maybe touches on construct validity. When the tests first came out they were said to be authentic barometers of innate ability because they corresponded with other such tests and, more absurdly, because they correlated well with teacher's perceptions of average, dull and smart students. I admit that the foundations of tests are rickety. In closing, there are myriad ways to evaluate and even disparage these tests but at the moment they are the most reliable way to assess intelligence, which is not synonymous with innate ability. Nonetheless, criterion validity for these tests tends to be quite good, which perhaps suggests that their doing some things right.

 

[snafupants]

He'd been outright ignoring many points and going tediously and determinedly on about others. All the painfully obvious points have been explained to him repeatedly.

Being long winded and refusing to concede legitimate points doesn't make you look smart snafu. I wouldn't lump yourself in with all those 'extraordinary' male outliers.

We all know you're doing it.



Typical.

Maybe I do not find these points, and their evidence, legitimate.

Thanks for your unsolicited opinion, by the way. I already feel taken down a few pegs.