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

[Reluctantly]

Oh oh, not that I want to try to derail the entertainment, but somebody should talk about how men suck with EQ and stuff. Let's balance this shit out; we'll do it right, together, as one. *holds your hand*

Yeah, so women have better natural EQ, I guess. http://www.coaching-for-new-women-managers.com/emotional-intelligence.html Interesting, how does this change things?

 

[crippli]

Yeah, so women have better natural EQ, I guess. http://www.coaching-for-new-women-managers.com/emotional-intelligence.html Interesting, how does this change things?

Doesn't change things. As IQ is different from EQ, perhaps a new thread? I think the question was about the IQ, as snafupants struggle to figure out the answer for the statistics on this area. And would like to know why the IQ folks end up with these results.

I don't know. But IQ seems then to follow the same pattern distribution one see in different sexually related areas. Like height. The distribution seems to be the same. Women more average height. While men have both giants and dwarfs. in higher numbers. But as mentioned, there are surely hidden numbers here, as fewer women are interested in IQ tests.

I'll speculate that this is determined by the odd Y chromosome, that much variation. Women with a backup X chromosome don't have that much abnormality in the ranks. More protected from deviant development.

 

[Reluctantly]

Doesn't change things. As IQ is different from EQ, perhaps a new thread? I think the question was about the IQ, as snafupants struggle to figure out the answer for the statistics on this area. And would like to know why the IQ folks end up with these results.

I don't see how it wouldn't change things. Both relate to intelligence and explaining the difference in IQ could be related to differences in EQ, at least to some extent. So it could be related, perhaps maybe even what Snafu is partly seeking in explaining things.

 

[snafupants]

Doesn't change things. As IQ is different from EQ, perhaps a new thread? I think the question was about the IQ, as snafupants struggle to figure out the answer for the statistics on this area. And would like to know why the IQ folks end up with these results.

I don't know. But IQ seems then to follow the same pattern distribution one see in different sexually related areas. Like height. The distribution seems to be the same. Women more average height. While men have both giants and dwarfs. in higher numbers. But as mentioned, there are surely hidden numbers here, as fewer women are interested in IQ tests.

I'll speculate that this is determined by the odd Y chromosome, that much variation. Women with a backup X chromosome don't have that much abnormality in the ranks. More protected from deviant development.

But what precisely drives these physiologically-informed numbers in the case of intelligence?

 

[crippli]

I don't see how it wouldn't change things. Both relate to intelligence and explaining the difference in IQ could be related to differences in EQ, at least to some extent. So it could be related, perhaps maybe even what Snafu is partly seeking in explaining things.

Could be. The definitions on what IQ and EQ are, is also not clear. I seem to remember last time I looked it up, that there was 7 or 8 different definitions on intelligence. Intelligence quotient was a bit more clear.

Overall, things should balance out. Personally, if you are not a rocket scientist, Then I suspect EQ is much more advantageous in general. Lack of EQ is what will make them store you away in the basement as a number cruncher.

 

[Reluctantly]

^ This is interesting. http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/men-women-different-brains.htm

It says that females have more connections between neurons, while men have more neurons. Then it goes on to say that women and men were found using different parts of their brains for certain tasks.

It also mentions that the way engineering and science is taught may not take advantage of the way female brains process things, suggesting that this might be a cause in females not pursuing studies that raise IQ; that they may not be ready for it or that they might require another way of being taught that doesn't lead to as much frustration.

She also mentioned that Einstein's brain had a unique structure to it; I suppose in truth, since neurons can form connections between them dynamically, areas of the brain can grow and become more densely populated as certain parts are used more often, and then we all technically have different brains, but some have more similarities over others.

I also read somewhere that neurons can grow and multiply up to a certain age, where they stop growing and multiplying, so it is believed. That result of the end growth might be more of an archetypal pattern of a person's intelligence than looking at IQ.

 

[~~~]

Wouldn't the number of females on this forum evidence that the original argument is not sound?

 

[snafupants]

^ This is interesting. http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/men-women-different-brains.htm

It says that females have more connections between neurons, while men have more neurons. Then it goes on to say that women and men were found using different parts of their brains for certain tasks.

It also mentions that the way engineering and science is taught may not take advantage of the way female brains process things, suggesting that this might be a cause in females not pursuing studies that raise IQ; that they may not be ready for it or that they might require another way of being taught that doesn't lead to as much frustration.

She also mentioned that Einstein's brain had a unique structure to it; I suppose in truth, since neurons can form connections between them dynamically, areas of the brain can grow and become more densely populated as certain parts are used more often, and we all technically have different brains, but some have more similarities over others.

I also read somewhere that neurons can grow and multiply up to a certain age, where they stop growing and multiplying, so it is believed. That result of the end growth might be more of an archetypal pattern of a person's intelligence than looking at IQ.

The notion that neurogenesis ceases at some finite age has been discredited, although the process does slow down as the years inexorably tally. I would posit that, actually, dense dendritic connections matter more than sheer quantity of brain cells up to a point. Consider the utility to size of a cat's brain. Now consider the utility to size of a whale's brain. The myelin sheath must have strong integrity and brain chemistry should be balanced for optimal functioning.

I read years ago in a Scientific American article that we've basically maxed out on our brain capacity. Greater size would mean more distance for the impulse to travel and, thus, reduced time of complete transmission. Then they attacked the matter from the standpoint of the synapse. Some argue that more firing at the synaptic level, presumably spikes in glutamate/acetylcholine, will lead to greater brain power. This is disputed because more firing means more glucose. The brain already uses twenty percent of incoming energy, so that wouldn't work effectively enough. Plus, the increased firing might cause excitotoxicity and damage the brain long-term.

Almost any way you slice it, we're basically at full capacity at this stage in our physiological development unless we transcend the physical and use our brains fundamentally/schematically differently in the future. In a way, this wouldn't be an improvement per se but more like learning to better operate a healthy car. The mental horsepower would remain static.

 

[Jedi]

When a woman tells a man women are smarter, the man laughs.
When a man tells a woman men are smarter, the woman gets offended.
Why is this?
And how has the man found a way to keep the woman down in every society since the dawn of time, if they are of equal intelligence?
Why has man invented everything?
How are men paid more?
And where the fuck is my sandwich?

 

[crippli]

But what precisely drives these physiologically-informed numbers in the case of intelligence?

What precisely is it the IQ tests measure?

I would think they will favor men. Like asking a group to throw a heavy stone. And instead of crowning who threw that stone the longest, one crowns the worlds strongest human.

But they do measure something. As to why I don't know. -but as I mentioned it seems connected to the sex difference of more brute force in the moment that is in favor of men.

 

[Fukyo]

Nope, I saw that and the word "if," but I wanted you to take a firmer stance.

I might send you some attachments which delineate the correlations among achievement tests (e.g., WIAT), school aptitude tests (e.g., ACT), traditional IQ tests (WAIS) and high-range tests (CCAT).

Unfortunately gender disparities at the higher ranges are seldom discussed in the literature. For that matter, high scores are seldom discussed in the literature.

The reason for this probably lies with IDEA and similar federal acts in Education which focus on low abilities and handicaps to the detriment of the gifted and academically talented.

Another reason could be America's unwillingness to admit manifest cognitive differences among people, races, and perhaps genders and general political correctness.

Off the record, you can contact organization like the Prometheus Society and discover their paltry numbers regarding women. They're desperate for any they can scoop up.

The trend circumscribing women becomes more psychometrically pronounced, as described earlier, the further one digresses from the norm.

You can send them if you want. I don't really have a stance. If women on average really don't show genius potential, that's just the sate of things, what's problematic is taking it at face value, generalizing and over applying.

 

[Puffy]

I'm surprised that no one has cited this forum as an example of intellectual cohabitation between sexes.

(If they have, sorry, this thread: tl;dr)

There's no clear sex divide here, both are in good stock and contribute to the same threads; that's enough for me, personally.

I think the main problem with taking your stance Snafu is that even if you are statistically correct adopting that perspective will only lead to negative stereotyping and perhaps make it more difficult for you to relate to the opposite gender, unnecessarily.

 

[pjoa09]

It takes balls to be smart.



As there is a little truth in every joke, even a lame one.
There was one test about the male brain and female brain in that "Online Test" subcategory. Female brain were better with words and noticing minor changes in details. Where as male brain tests were exactly geared towards spacial intelligence.

As far as I have experienced, almost all IQ tests were about figuring out the pattern. Which required a lot of spacial intelligence.

And again, the most intelligent woman, and I don't remember her name, had around 170 IQ (give or take some bullshit) and she is/was batshit crazy about writing articles and not building a time machine.

Sooo yehhh..

But whatever it is it doesn't make sense. I mean, you'd be buff,horny, and smart all at the same time if it were true. Maybe, a little hairy too.

Never seen those.

 

[BigApplePi]

Looking for generalizations and correlations:

1. Which sex is physically stronger?
2. How will each sex adapt to that?
3. If you are stronger will you be more active or passive?
4. Does intelligence involve being more active?

Originally Posted by Jennywocky
Plus, as you said next, there's a history of women being disappointed, put down, taken advantage of, and/or enslaved by men in various cultures.

If men are physically stronger, how much does this set up a childhood pattern not easily reversed? To find out, why not make a study where the older child is female and the next child is male five years younger? This should happen one chance in about six.

Originally Posted by Jennywocky
Why don't men in general seem to understand shit about relationships,

Power implies maintaining power. Relationship means "make nice." Power means dominate against someone's will. Or rather we can break power into active power: dominate; passive power: make nice.

Note how power compounds. Males to keep power will fashion a club, knife, gun, bomb. This makes males intimidating. Will females challenge this at a disadvantage or will they try to make nice with a side with power?

There is power in numbers. If a woman can bond with another woman, she can overpower one male. Emotion. Shame, for example is a good weapon. The male will stay and be shamed. If males bond together and get nasty, females will not fight. They will leave.

Originally Posted by Jennywocky
and why are many of the guys here bitching about being scorned/dateless? So much for intelligence.

Can't make a date without being active. A neutral man is forced to be active (possibly against his nature). A neutral woman is not forced into anything except looking/being desirable (passive).

 

[Jennywocky]

You were looking for a good smackdown, because you were obviously disrespectful and trolling, and failing to actually make an argument. If you actually had one, and weren't just trying for some good ol' sexist condescension by exaggerating your own worth as a man.

My issue was that I was confused by his posts, because I couldn't believe them to be a rational argument of any sort and yet there wasn't any blatant joking occurring to cue my response

How to parse, how to parse... hmmm....

Are you mad at me?[to fukyo]

trolling for makeup sex now? *mua ha*

 

[snafupants]

What precisely is it the IQ tests measure?

I would think they will favor men. Like asking a group to throw a heavy stone. And instead of crowning who threw that stone the longest, one crowns the worlds strongest human.

But they do measure something. As to why I don't know. -but as I mentioned it seems connected to the sex difference of more brute force in the moment that is in favor of men.

From a neuroscience perspective, I could explain what regions are tapped with each subtest, but that would be tedious. From a more traditional perspective, I could explain what psychologists mean when they discuss intelligence and its manifestations, and that would be less tedious.

What your discussing in the second vignette is the difference between an achievement test, taken most broadly life, and an intelligence test, which attempts to gauge mental aptitude.

I'm actually against listing one composite score and calling that one's intelligence quotient, which is sort of a misnomer anyway since mental ages are obsolete.

I would urge clinicians and psychologists to use ninety five percent confidence intervals and ranges because, like most social sciences which are heavily engaged with measuring some ecological construct, the science is a de facto art. Hence liberal arts.

 

[snafupants]

You can send them if you want. I don't really have a stance. If women on average really don't show genius potential, that's just the sate of things, what's problematic is taking it at face value, generalizing and over applying.

While I agree that overgeneralizing the statistical finding that women largely fail to populate the higher ranges with intelligence test results would be unethical, I feel a supreme duty to the numbers. I also feel a compulsion to explicate the numbers. The highlighted sentence is hairy because one could take the psychometrics at face value and refrain from overgeneralizing to lower IQ levels. There could be, as you seem to almost concede, some veracity in these findings.

 

[snafupants]

When a woman tells a man women are smarter, the man laughs.
When a man tells a woman men are smarter, the woman gets offended.
Why is this?
And how has the man found a way to keep the woman down in every society since the dawn of time, if they are of equal intelligence?
Why has man invented everything?
How are men paid more?
And where the fuck is my sandwich?

That's such a brilliant question. That's the inquiry Ken Wilber poses to radical feminists, and man does that get their goat. Feminists, in theory, want a subversion of both gender roles; they'd prefer men be more sensitive and women be more assertive. That's not really the way we're designed but all right. Men, as informed by biology, have been concerned with domination/killing and mating/domination since time out of mind; women are typically more nurturing than men, per biology's fiat.

The overall tenor of your post seems misogynist though. We shouldn't conclude that merely because women have been put down, which they probably have been, that this is because of some innate difference in intelligence. I mean, many brilliant Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but this does not mean that Jews were inherently less intelligent than their Nazi persecutors; that would make for one absurd cause/effect relationship.

Men are perhaps paid more because women couldn't vote in the United States until the end of the first quarter of the twentieth century. They were basically disenfranchised and unable to hold property until that point. The invention question is a little more trenchant/valid because one can invent/discover without being tied down to a patriarchal institution. Someone earlier tried to argue the reverse which is patently absurd.

With the intelligence thing and women getting haughty though, women get uptight when some dude posits that he is more beautiful than his wife. Is their haughtiness justified? Probably not. Is she right? Yeah, she probably is: men are quite unbecoming.

 

[snafupants]

Let me quell anyone's bubbling concerns, I would hire a competent women over an incompetent man.

Why has this thread taken on this feminist/good old boy polemic?

My concern is selfishly for integrity towards the statistics.

For this reason, I have also alluded to lower black intelligence quotients. If anyone should be up in arms it should be blacks because their whole race has been partly impugned.

With women, I only questioned their performance at the high ranges. The statistics merely say that women have a smaller standard deviations and are, thus, less likely to populate the higher/lower strata of the bell curve. That's an established fact at this point.

 

[Jedi]

The overall tenor of your post seems misogynist though. We shouldn't conclude that merely because women have been put down, which they probably have been, that this is because of some innate difference in intelligence. I mean, many brilliant Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but this does not mean that Jews were inherently less intelligent than their Nazi persecutors; that would make for one absurd cause/effect relationship.

Perhaps I let my sarcasm get away with me. It does seem quite obvious that men have always been better at inventing and building things, while women no doubt are better caregivers with a superior moral compass. And the question of what defines intelligence can be debated all day long.
The Nazi/Jew thing was an isolated incident, and besides we all know Jews are smarter than everyone else. Hell just look at the IQ test results.

 

[Jennywocky]

With women, I only questioned their performance at the high ranges. The statistics merely say that women have a smaller standard deviations and are, thus, less likely to populate the higher/lower strata of the bell curve. That's an established fact at this point.

Agreed.

(then again, I don't care since I'm in the thin slice to the right anyhoo... ha)

That's how Jenny used to talk to me in the bedroom; then she'd sensuously bite my ear. I detected a cat-like placatingly sexual timbre to her voice at the time. Come back Jenny!

Rawr

... wait a minute, how many IQ points did I just drop?
Why am I being treated like a hot-handed sex vixen just because I'm a woman? Are you going to ask me to fetch your paper and coffee next?
Why am I playing along with all of this and perpetuating the negative image of females in this culture?

(Answer: It's a trap, ha!)


*gnaws tantalizingly on your ear*

You're embarrassing. D;

*rubs Mello's hair affectionately*

 

[snafupants]

Perhaps I let my sarcasm get away with me. It does seem quite obvious that men have always been better at inventing and building things, while women no doubt are better caregivers with a superior moral compass. And the question of what defines intelligence can be debated all day long.
The Nazi/Jew thing was an isolated incident, and besides we all know Jews are smarter than everyone else. Hell just look at the IQ test results.

Yeah Jews and Asians tend to stand triumphantly at the top. Well, spatially at the bottom of the bell curve, but on the right side.

An isolated incident? Not really. Galileo/Copernicus knew they'd be persecuted for defying the Church and the contemporary Ptolemaic system. To be fair, the Greeks had discovered the heliocentric nature of our solar system before this festering brouhaha.

Even today, there's a reason why big shot political candidates hate media coverage and private citizens asking probing questions: inquiry/insight highlights their perfidy and ridiculousness.

 

[snafupants]

Agreed.

(then again, I don't care since I'm in the thin slice to the right anyhoo... ha)



Rawr

... wait a minute, how many IQ points did I just drop?
Why am I being treated like a hot-handed sex vixen just because I'm a woman? Are you going to ask me to fetch your paper and coffee next?
Why am I playing along with all of this and perpetuating the negative image of females in this culture?

(Answer: It's a trap, ha!)


*gnaws tantalizingly on your ear*



*rubs Mello's hair affectionately*

Easy baby. The weirdness belongs to me: I sexually pester Melkor too. Get back in bed. Actually, paper and coffee sounds good.

You're a hot-handed sex vixen because you're Jenny. My Jenny.

 

[Don't mind me]

Men are perhaps paid more because women couldn't vote in the United States until the end of the first quarter of the twentieth century.

It's likely simpler (dubious term, used only for atmosphere) than that. If you disaggregate the genders and instead compare only unmarried women with (possibly unmarried here too, I don't recall what study it was, the closest I found now was this, look it up yourselves if you're so darn interested, dang) men the gap disappears ( I think the women/men wage-ratio was ~0.99). So to find deeper causes you'd have to look at how marriage affects women vs how it affects men (women taking jobs that better mesh with old gender roles over high-paying ones, jobs where extended leave for childcare isn't a problem etc) and stuff like that.

 

[snafupants]

It's likely simpler (dubious term, used only for atmosphere) than that. If you disaggregate the genders and instead compare only unmarried women with (possibly unmarried here too, I don't recall what study it was, the closest I found now was this, look it up yourselves if you're so darn interested, dang) men the gap disappears ( I think the women/men wage-ratio was ~0.99). So to find deeper causes you'd have to look at how marriage affects women vs how it affects men (women taking jobs that better mesh with old gender roles over high-paying ones, jobs where extended leave for childcare isn't a problem etc) and stuff like that.

You're absolutely right. Employers do exercise caution when enlisting the help of a woman who is more apt to become pregnant. One could also argue that the nurturing nature of women steers them towards lesser paying jobs, like teaching and nursing. There's still a reluctance to outfit women with the reigns in higher spheres of industry and government however. At least in the United States, both racism and sexism are enjoying a tropical exuberance, thank you very much.

Edit: That's compelling data enclosed in the link. I worry about reverse discrimination though. Below is, additionally, quite the whopper of a caveat.

Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html#ixzz1qdGNVisU

 

[~~~]

With women, I only questioned their performance at the high ranges. The statistics merely say that women have a smaller standard deviations and are, thus, less likely to populate the higher/lower strata of the bell curve. That's an established fact at this point.

Assuming you still stand by these figures, do you think that these results in your eyes are generalizable across all possible worlds including future possible worlds?

 

[snafupants]

Assuming you still stand by these figures, do you think that these results in your eyes are generalizable across all possible worlds including future possible worlds?

That depends of what's driving the disparity.

 

[~~~]

That depends of what's driving the disparity.

So in your eyes then it is possible - as a theoretical possible world could exist which does not have driver that you believe that may hold?

 

[negativemotivation]

I have recently established a new theory that intelligence comes at a price. As I mentioned earlier both my sister and I have top 2% intelligence. My sister has bipolar, and I believe I'm high functioning autistic. My grandmother had an elevated IQ and was schizophrenic. Snafupants mentioned his father was aspergers like. I believe high intelligence is very rarely found in a "normal" person. This might explain why the top of the IQ spectrum is male dominated. Although I'm not sure if men are more likely to have these mental issues. Just a thought.

 

[Fukyo]

A number of posts have been split here, since the thread has started taking a turn into a different direction - now you can return to the original subject.

 

[snafupants]

I have recently established a new theory that intelligence comes at a price. As I mentioned earlier both my sister and I have top 2% intelligence. My sister has bipolar, and I believe I'm high functioning autistic. My grandmother had an elevated IQ and was schizophrenic. Snafupants mentioned his father was aspergers like. I believe high intelligence is very rarely found in a "normal" person. This might explain why the top of the IQ spectrum is male dominated. Although I'm not sure if men are more likely to have these mental issues. Just a thought.

Men are five times more likely to have autism, barring mental retardation, than women, but there's a current debate burning over whether Aspergers should be subsumed by the autism spectrum disorders. I would argue it's more of a personality quirk although there are predictably idiosyncratic brain regions in Aspergers folk.

My grandparents were pretty interesting. Grandpa (dad's dad) was Army intelligence (oxymoron?) in the Philippines during WWII, and an alcoholic with an IQ of 168; my grandmother was bipolar and batty until ninety two. She just recently passed.

My core family is arguably fairly normal. My father has the same mild Schizoid/Aspergers type stuff as me, softened somewhat by age/experience; my mother and youngest sister are well-adjusted and my other sister has ADHD, what someone might call twice exceptional.

That highlighted region is too hot for me to touch safely. Are you implying women are wholesale more average than men? That's what it looks like from the framing and sequence.

 

[Mello]

Women have lower IQ than men because sandwiches.

No one here(?) cares about your family or you(?).

 

[snafupants]

Women have lower IQ than men because sandwiches.

No one here(?) cares about your family or you(?).

Why the aggression? Mello and Reluctantly have recently/inexplicably turned against me for whatever reason. Do you speak for the forum now by the way?

 

[Mello]

Why the aggression? Mello and Reluctantly have recently/inexplicably turned against me for whatever reason. Do you speak for the forum now by the way?

Why the fundamentally skewed world view?

I do speak for the forum because I am part of the forum.

Edit: What's your IQ?

What's the IQ of one the women here?

Possibility: One of the women here has a higher IQ than you.
Possibility: One of the women here has a lower IQ than you.

Stating a question as a fact: Why do women have lower IQs than men?

Possibility Of Fucks Given:
0.5 out of 5

Current Fucks Given:
0 out of 5

Edit2:
I was never for you in the first place.

 

[negativemotivation]

Men are five times more likely to have autism, barring mental retardation, than women, but there's a current debate burning over whether Aspergers should be subsumed by the autism spectrum disorders. I would argue it's more of a personality quirk although there are predictably idiosyncratic brain regions in Aspergers folk.

My grandparents were pretty interesting. Grandpa (dad's dad) was Army intelligence (oxymoron?) in the Philippines during WWII, and an alcoholic with an IQ of 168; my grandmother was bipolar and batty until ninety two. She just recently passed.

That highlighted region is too hot for me to touch safely. Are you implying women are wholesale more average than men? That's what it looks like from the framing and sequence.

Lmao at the army intelligence thing, it always humored me how the army recruiters at my high school targeted incompetence. A highly intelligent person with an substance abuse problem that's a surprise . It seems mental disorders and intelligence litter your family as well. I wasn't insinuating woman were more average; this is beyond my area of expertise. I was just making an assumption that this could possibly be the case.

 

[snafupants]

Why the fundamentally skewed world view?

I do speak for the forum because I am part of the forum.

Edit: What's your IQ?

What's the IQ of one the women here?

Possibility: One of the women here has a higher IQ than you.
Possibility: One of the women here has a lower IQ than you.

Stating a question as a fact: Why do women have lower IQs than men?

Possibility Of Fucks Given:
0.5 out of 5

Current Fucks Given:
0 out of 5

Edit2:
I was never for you in the first place.

That's logically flimsy at center. Because I belong to the United States that does not mean than I can make decisions on its behalf.

I wrote the post you criticized for my dubiously named friend, negative motivation, who seems to have found it mildly helpful. I was merely looking to provide fodder for his theory and connect somewhat.

You misunderstand this issue as some sort of competition. That's missing the point. I noted an interesting ecological/psychometric phenomenon and solicited explanations.

I absolutely would have made the same post if I were a women or if I were a man with less endowment upstairs. Partisanship does not influence my craving for truth.

You last question is rather crude: my area of interest is with the smaller standard deviations for women throughout the bell curve and, for this reason, smaller numbers at the poles statistically. I am not here to put anyone down, as you seem to be.

 

[snafupants]

Lmao at the army intelligence thing, it always humored me how the army recruiters at my high school targeted incompetence. A highly intelligent person with an substance abuse problem that's a surprise . It seems mental disorders and intelligence litter your family as well. I wasn't insinuating woman were more average; this is beyond my area of expertise. I was just making an assumption that this could possibly be the case.

There's a reason they currently set up shop and shill outside of Walmart stores.

I hardly find it an accident that the majority of recruits are poor and uneducated. They are preyed on rapaciously precisely because they're disenfranchised.

A clarifying exercise: look at the numbers represented in the armed services based on socio-economic status. You will find some exceptions but the rule holds remarkably well.

 

[Jedi]

A number of posts have been split here, since the thread has started taking a turn into a different direction - now you can return to the original subject.

I take it this was at the request of snafupants, the original poster, right?

 

[Mello]

That's logically flimsy at center. Because I belong to the United States that does not mean than I can make decisions on its behalf.

I wrote the post you criticized for my dubiously named friend, negative motivation, who seems to have found it mildly helpful. I was merely looking to provide fodder for his theory and connect somewhat.

You misunderstand this issue as some sort of competition. That's missing the point. I noted an interesting ecological/psychometric phenomenon and solicited explanations.

I absolutely would have made the same post if I were a women or if I were a man with less endowment upstairs. Partisanship does not influence my craving for truth.

You last question is rather crude: my area of interest is with the smaller standard deviations for women throughout the bell curve and, for this reason, smaller numbers at the poles statistically. I am not here to put anyone down, as you seem to be.

You're not here to put people down.
You did not write it for your friend.
You are a terrible liar.

You are here to prove that women are like OMG so dumb. Like, why aren't they rational like men?

Fascinating.

I'm done.
---------------------
@Fukyo, bring me that sandwich now, dear.

 

[snafupants]

I take it this was at the request of snafupants, the original poster, right?

Nope. I woke up today and the thread was split, unprompted by me. Somehow Mello had taken the reins and was attempting to denigrate me in both threads. The dreaded double whammy!

 

[Mello]

Nope. I woke up today and the thread was split, unprompted by me. Somehow Mello had taken the reins and was attempting to denigrate me in both threads. The dreaded double whammy!

There's an acronym for this: DP.
<3

 

[snafupants]

There's an acronym for this: DP.
<3

Or the attempt thereof.

 

[Jedi]

Well I'll be god-damned.

 

[Jedi]

Well I think I'll take this as a hint and leave this god forsaken place. You win Fukyo. You may not have balls, but you do wear the pants around here.

Good-bye all you wonderful INTP bastards. Have fun in North Korea!

 

[Kuu]

We love North Korea!

 

[Don't mind me]

Mello and Reluctantly have recently/inexplicably turned against me for whatever reason.

I personally turned from being against you (well, just thinking you were trolling [and quite poorly at that], actually) to being more or less neutral. The title of the thread and first sentence in your opening post in addition to your highly questionable use of famous women in science are a far cry from the line of inquiry you've later in the thread insisted is your interest (females having smaller standard deviations on tests that attempt to gauge intelligence).



Cog's narrative of males as the genetic playground: can similar differences in standard deviations be found in other variables that affect survival abilities?

 

[snafupants]

Well I think I'll take this as a hint and leave this god forsaken place. You win Fukyo. You may not have balls, but you do wear the pants around here.

Good-bye all you wonderful INTP bastards. Have fun in North Korea!

Well, you went out with class at least.

 

[snafupants]

I personally turned from being against you (well, just thinking you were trolling [and quite poorly at that], actually) to being more or less neutral. The title of the thread and first sentence in your opening post in addition to your highly questionable use of famous women in science are a far cry from the line of inquiry you've later in the thread insisted is your interest (females having smaller standard deviations on tests that attempt to gauge intelligence).



Cog's narrative of males as the genetic playground: can similar differences in standard deviations be found in other variables that affect survival abilities?

I simply restated the same finding in different words. An opening needs to be interesting and should, preferably, be replete with relatable ephemera. That's were the famous ladies come in.

In the beginning (sorry for making this sound like the Book of Genesis) I noted the dearth of female geniuses with the caveat that there were also fewer female idiots, which implies women, for whatever reason, fail to populate the bell curve poles.

Another finding I reported was the slightly lower female mean score, which is paltry and probably the work of chance, motivation and biased tests.

 

[soupymess]

Is the disparity stable across differences in race, nationality, culture, etc. (If so, how stable?)?

Also might be interesting to specify (or try to) exactly what prevents stronger conclusions being made about the mechanisms responsible for it. What would we have to know?

 

[WARchitect]

I simply restated the same finding in different words. An opening needs to be interesting and should, preferably, be replete with relatable ephemera. That's were the famous ladies come in.

In the beginning (sorry for making this sound like the Book of Genesis) I noted the dearth of female geniuses with the caveat that there were also fewer female idiots, which implies women, for whatever reason, fail to populate the bell curve poles.

Another finding I reported was the slightly lower female mean score, which is paltry and probably the work of chance, motivation and biased tests.

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.