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

[Deleted member 1424]

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/soc/20111019HumorTest.asp

In this case, men are mostly funny to other men.....


Hmmm I wonder how this trait could correlate to the subject at hand......
Try not to strain yourselves.

 

[snafupants]

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.
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.

Sounds good.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

^In the future Snafu, don't try to claim a highroad you don't actually have.

 

[snafupants]

^In the future Snafu, don't try to claim a highroad you don't actually have.

Sage advice. I mean, how does anyone respond to such an offensive opener? Was that even a serious comment? The username tells you more than the words ever could.

 

[Grove]

Fair.

My point is that this thread is not going beyond arguments not based on one of those two assumptions (assertions). At risk of dichotomizing all the posters thus far, either they believe the test to be (mostly) objective and an appropriate tool to measure full on intelligence. OR, they view them as culturally biased, of flawed construction, and not an appropriate tool to measure full on intelligence. Am I still correct?

It seems that your original question or how you had hoped this thread would develop is all but lost, again, because no one can get past their own base assumptions.

How did you envision this discussion? What point(s) are you attempting to make, given that everyone follows your base assumptions? What do you see as the repercussions of males (individuals not the group) testing with higher and lower IQs than females (again, individuals not the group)? How does this knowledge affect men as a whole? How does it affect women? How does it affect any given society? Why should we care?

 

[Deleted member 1424]

I've observed two traits of a specific male archetype (I'm sure you can extrapolate) that I personally find noxious.

-A stubborn (and transparent) unwillingness to let go or even question assumptions that work in their favor.

-An eagerness to take credit for things in which they were never involved or contributed.

 

[snafupants]

Fair.

My point is that this thread is not going beyond arguments not based on one of those two assumptions (assertions). At risk of dichotomizing all the posters thus far, either they believe the test to be (mostly) objective and an appropriate tool to measure full on intelligence. OR, they view them as culturally biased, of flawed construction, and not an appropriate tool to measure full on intelligence. Am I still correct?

It seems that your original question or how you had hoped this thread would develop is all but lost, again, because no one can get past their own base assumptions.

How did you envision this discussion? What point(s) are you attempting to make, given that everyone follows your base assumptions? What do you see as the repercussions of males (individuals not the group) testing with higher and lower IQs than females (again, individuals not the group)? How does this knowledge affect men as a whole? How does it affect women? How does it affect any given society? Why should we care?

Quite fair. Although I originally intended the title to be engaging and bring out folks' explication-rich natures, I can understand how the thread's title, subject matter and tenor would, ultimately, degenerate into name calling and pigheaded presumptions. I just felt the bizarreness of the statistical finding deserved its own thread. I feel uncomfortable, however, adjudicating the worth of something based on its perceived personal interest or societal imperativeness. How does it affect women? In truth, these findings guarantee little impact because they've always been there and we've been dealing just fine through the generations with this information. As a theoretical discussion, I suppose I was hoping for more objective defense of positions and less ad hominem mud slinging from both parties, the occurrence of which apparently prompted a split in this thread. Equanimity, though, might be a lot to ask for with a topic this rife with controversy.

 

[Grove]

Civility, reason, knowledge, and understanding are key. A word of advice, snafupants, this assumption is incorrect.

"How does it affect women? In truth, these findings guarantee little impact because they've always been there and we've been dealing just fine through the generations with this information."

You have a lot of learning to do yet.

 

[snafupants]

Civility, reason, knowledge, and understanding are key. A word of advice, snafupants, this assumption is incorrect.

"How does it affect women? In truth, these findings guarantee little impact because they've always been there and we've been dealing just fine through the generations with this information."

You have a lot of learning to do yet.

That's a bit like something Yoda would utter. Anyway, your words are too cryptic for me to glean any meaning, much less apply whatever object lesson you intended to convey. Are you suggesting that sexism is alive and well, still, in America?

 

[Grove]

You still have a lot of learning to do.
You still have a lot of learning to do if you consider this response to not have serious logical and historical flaws (to name only two).

"How does it affect women? In truth, these findings guarantee little impact because they've always been there and we've been dealing just fine through the generations with this information."


Yes, sexism still exists in America.

 

[snafupants]

You still have a lot of learning to do.
You still have a lot of learning to do if you consider this response to not have serious logical and historical flaws (to name only two).

"How does it affect women? In truth, these findings guarantee little impact because they've always been there and we've been dealing just fine through the generations with this information."


Yes, sexism still exists in America.

That comment was actually an attempt to address your own almost apathetic closing comment on the import of these tests. Are you officially positing that these results are credible and do, indeed, have real world implications? A reversal of my position, in respect to that disembodied comment you've trotted out, is that these tests have proactively subjugated women. You can disagree with this deduction, and that's fine, but I'd like you to elaborate if you feel I'm misinformed. But if I've got it right, you're arguing that these tests hurt women somehow, which would be a difficult argument to make considering the rights (suffrage, etc.) and equalities (pay, etc.) women have received since the advent of these tests and concurrently with their implementation.

 

[Grove]

You’re looking for a fight that isn't there. I am not questioning your intelligence; I am questioning your understanding.

My closing comment was not related to the import of the tests, rather it was directed solely at you and your seeming lack of knowledge (or perhaps better word, acknowledgement) that applying the base assumption that these tests are significantly more objective than subjective could have a negative effect on gender equality. As you stated, the potential for positive effects are also true. It can go either way, and that possibility is what we should all be dubious about. Your passé comment that we have done just fine over the generations knowing that women have lower scores than men and that not having an impact is a stark reflection of your lack of knowledge (or acknowledgement) of what transpires when the group with power sees themselves as biologically or culturally superior to another group.

This is not about you vs. me; us vs. them; men vs. women. From its inception, this entire thread is about you not getting it.

 

[snafupants]

You’re looking for a fight that isn't there. I am not questioning your intelligence; I am questioning your understanding.

My closing comment was not related to the import of the tests, rather it was directed solely at you and your seeming lack of knowledge (or perhaps better word, acknowledgement) that applying the base assumption that these tests are significantly more objective than subjective could have a negative effect on gender equality. As you stated, the potential for positive effects are also true. It can go either way, and that possibility is what we should all be dubious about. Your passé comment that we have done just fine over the generations knowing that women have lower scores than men and that not having an impact is a stark reflection of your lack of knowledge (or acknowledgement) of what transpires when the group with power sees themselves as biologically or culturally superior to another group.

This is not about you vs. me; us vs. them; men vs. women. From its inception, this entire thread is about you not getting it.

Question whatever you like. The fact is these tests show rather excellent construct, content and criterion validity alongside high reliability. All right, the word objective can mean many different things? If you take objective to mean gauging a variable in a systematic manner, then I would argue aptitude tests are largely objective, barring subtests the verbal subtests that Wechsler decided to churn out which perhaps call for the administrators discretion and attention. To the highlighted point, I feel the reaction does not match the narrowness of the claim. There is less than one-thirds standard deviation difference between mean male and female intelligence as measured by these tests. That's relatively small but could, indeed, underscore an actual difference in cognitive ability. Finally, there are women who support and disseminate these views, and school psychology, for instance, is dominated by females. I really do not understand what has upset you. May I respectfully ask what I am not getting here? Edit: I know about researchers like Arthur Jensen and Charles Murray, and I have discussed at length the eugenics projects occurring from 1907 to 1917 in the United States. I do not endorse these extreme views but to call me ignorant is a supreme miscalculation.

 

[Grove]

I'm not upset. I don't buy into what you are saying.

From what I can tell, the reason this thread has derailed is because of the inability for some of those posting to separate construct from application. Which is fair, because blind and total application of IQ tests as a complete determinate of intelligence and ability is worrisome. Just as a world without an "objective", and systematic means of identifying preferred & necessary skills and abilities any individual may possess rather than relying on popularity contests is vital for an egalitarian society.

Neither one is right all of the time. This is what I don't see you getting. I don't think you are ignorant, but I do think you are foolishly unrelenting in your arguments for objectivity.

There is a need for a rational application of IQ tests. But, they cannot quantify or qualify the entirety of human intelligence. Relying on them as a singular means of sorting out the more intelligent from the less intelligent is a misapplication of the tool. Using them to signify one group as innately superior (i.e. more intelligent) to another group based on scores is misapplication of the theory.

 

[snafupants]

I'm not upset. I don't buy into what you are saying.

Have you thoroughly reviewed the data?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The fact is these tests show rather excellent construct, content and criterion validity alongside high reliability.

Therein lies the argument.


Things like attitudes have high construct validity because of ease of triangulation and the breadth of experience across the collective human psyche. Intelligence and emotion have neither property.

Intelligence, IQ, EQ, tests out the wazoo. Reliability: yes. Construct validity: NO, but they're the best operationalization we've come up with so far and a lot of people agree that they measure something.

They're all a black box without a physical manifestation of their existence and any attempt to quantify them without literally being able to measure aspects of human consciousness is nothing but a lonely shot in the dark at which their followers can autoeroticate, and that's without throwing in aspects such as synergy, potential, and systemic deference.

 

[Grove]

By data do you mean scholarly articles that support your hypothesis? No, I have not. Are you implying that anyone who reads these articles must come to the same conclusions you have? What's the fun in that?

 

[snafupants]

Therein lies the argument.


Things like attitudes have high construct validity because of ease of triangulation and the breadth of experience across the collective human psyche. Intelligence and emotion have neither property.

Intelligence, IQ, EQ, tests out the wazoo. Reliability: yes. Construct validity: NO, but they're the best operationalization we've come up with so far and a lot of people agree that they measure something.

They're all a black box without a physical manifestation of their existence and any attempt to quantify them without literally being able to measure aspects of human consciousness is nothing but a lonely shot in the dark at which their followers can autoeroticate, and that's without throwing in aspects such as synergy, potential, and systemic deference.

They are the best tools we've got, and there's a huge industrial appetite for these instruments and their yields. Modern society seeks to sort folks. This is just the way that business has to be conducted when you're dealing with mandates and droves of people to process. Ostensibly this is cold to articulate but that's the situation on the ground. So is your official view that Spearman's g is a statistical artifact without too much ecological relevance? I actually happen to agree with your larger argument that the reliability numbers are excellent and the criterion validity trumps the construct validity. You're entitled to your opinion though.

 

[snafupants]

By data do you mean scholarly articles that support your hypothesis? No, I have not. Are you implying that anyone who reads these articles must come to the same conclusions you have? What's the fun in that?

Nope, I meant psychometric data which encapsulates intelligence test results for dissimilar races and genders. The conclusions are tendentious but not unfair based on the numbers. Your best bet is to argue construct validity at this point.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The thing is, IQ tests measure how one's brain works and they heavily rely on an understanding of modern conventions.

For the former is why you may find people that score extraordinarily high or low with borderline or diagnosable mental disorders. These tests are geared towards identifying a specific class of people, in part those whose brains can parse spatial and contextual relationships with significant agility; it is an arbitrary and mentally-lopsided enterprise(and those scoring extraordinarily high or low may be mentally-lopsided themselves).

For the latter is why there is variance among the scores between races, cultures, ages, and genders. You have to be grounded in the culture to even understand the prompt.


In the end, none of this should in anyway be the sole determinant of one's intellect, and is a pretty poor basis for such a topic.

 

[Grove]

Construct validity was touched on before...several times. What else ya got?

 

[snafupants]

The thing is, IQ tests measure how one's brain works and they heavily rely on an understanding of modern conventions.

For the former is why you may find people that score high with borderline or diagnosable mental disorders. These tests are geared towards identifying a specific class of people, in part those whose brains can parse spatial and contextual relationships with significant agility; it is an arbitrary and mentally-lopsided enterprise(and those scoring high may be mentally-lopsided themselves).

For the latter is why there is variance among the scores between races, cultures, ages, and genders. You have to be grounded in the culture to even understand the prompt.


In the end, none of this should in anyway be the sole determinant of one's intellect, and is a pretty poor basis for such a topic.

I've heard that argument made before but blacks score consistently and markedly lower than whites on completely non-verbal tests in which even the prompts and directions bypass speech.

 

[Zero989]

How about all men get a sex change and women, vice versa.

Fundamental problem within society somewhere... Oh yea, inescapable religion and intrinsic structural stupidity.

 

[snafupants]

Construct validity was touched on before...several times. What else ya got?

This isn't really a debate for me, I only hope to express my views fully. You can take or leave what I say, but I believe my conclusions are statistically defensible.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I've heard that argument made before but blacks score consistently and markedly lower than whites on completely non-verbal tests in which even the prompts and directions bypass speech.

The variables have yet to be accounted for. You can show the statistics that back your claims(your posts are lacking in that regard) and you'll also be pressed to explain exactly what methods you have of determining those statistics' integrity, seeing as how historical procedures of IQ measuring have been fairly biased.


The most likely type of person to receive a high(/low) score has(/lacks) the following attributes:
mental dexterity
extensive general knowledge
literacy and proficient reading comprehension
ability to comprehend spatial and contextual relationships
ability to think and process information within the boundaries of logic
ability to think mathematically
ability to recognize, classify and manipulate abstract patterns

Some of these in part are cognitively hardwired into the brain, but they also are dependent on the quality of cultivation. Environments catering to such high quality of cultivation(or neglecting such cultivation) are more likely to produce high(or low) IQ scores.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

So is your official view that Spearman's g is a statistical artifact without too much ecological relevance?

In regard to ecology it depends on the system in question and the level of inquiry. Not all of ecology can be pidgeonholed into principle components analysis.


Ecology tends to be full of interactions that are readily identifiable, measureable, and expressed in real, euclidean dimensions where the notion of a collective shared variance can often be ignored in spite of its existence, i.e. when things like nonmetric multidimensional scaling, or canonical correspondance, indicator species, or cluster analyses apply.


Artifact? No. Foundation? Hell no.

They are the best tools we've got, and there's a huge industrial appetite for these instruments and their yields. Modern society seeks to sort folks. This is just the way that business has to be conducted when you're dealing with mandates and droves of people to process. Ostensibly this is cold to articulate but that's the situation on the ground.

^*watches Snafu ejaculate into the wind*

 

[snafupants]

Feedback on this issue henceforth fails to interest me. We are getting into discussion on intelligence as a construct and its definability and testability. I already, as some have astutely noted, have opinions in this domain, and I see little personal value in delineating what I know ad nauseam. There seem to be two discussions on intelligence - one debate by a largely beguiled public still debating nature versus nurture and the putative inherent bias of aptitude tests and another by scholars who have analyzed the data, and are dogmatic about their stances. That's fine but this current thread is going nowhere, slowly. Thanks for your contributions. You know the way out.

 

[Yet]

and I see little personal value in delineating what I know ad nauseam

what would have been interesting is to 'see you think' / ponder / look for answers, reasons for the observation. It seems you did not have a question at all.
Initially I found it interesting.
I pointed out the roll of testosteron level differences in scores (highest en lowest male scorers have lower testosteron levels than the ones closer to the mean; (Neuropsychologia. 2007 Apr 8;45(7):1378-85.)
I pointed out that logic does not dictate the sex or cultural differences so we might have to reconsider construct validity (predictive validity and criterion validity might partly have to do with self fulfilling prophecy as well).

We do not know Snafu, this might come as a surprise: you do not know. I've seen enough battles of personal truths instead of a communal looking for glimpses of reality. Truth is a cultural or personal thing. It usually suits the creator of the truth. Reality is something we seek..

That is what I missed. It is not possible if the brain is rigid and can only play one tune, defending a (hu)man made instrument for a (hu)man made concept of 'intelligence' which has no theoretical foundation. You tried to use it to make a point about female intellect. You did not care to explain why.

How does it affect women? In truth, these findings guarantee little impact because they've always been there and we've been dealing just fine through the generations with this information.

Yep, females were doing "oké" through the decades with the 'knowledge' (sic) they are less likely to be capable enough to belong to the top intellect. This was not thanks to the ones that stood by and watched it happen without any self criticism. Who do not want to be aware of possible bias because enforcements of their ideas are far more comfortable.
It was probably down to agile and creative brains, which I do not see measured in the regular IQ tests, that keep making society move towards something a like a fair share of chances. There's always some group of people struggling for that.

I know my way out thank you.

 

[WARchitect]

Feedback on this issue henceforth fails to interest me. We are getting into discussion on intelligence as a construct and its definability and testability. I already, as some have astutely noted, have opinions in this domain, and I see little personal value in delineating what I know ad nauseam. There seem to be two discussions on intelligence - one debate by a largely beguiled public still debating nature versus nurture and the putative inherent bias of aptitude tests and another by scholars who have analyzed the data, and are dogmatic about their stances. That's fine but this current thread is going nowhere, slowly. Thanks for your contributions. You know the way out.

True. And as Yet said this is turning into personal truth debate.
Even though I cant write much in english, I'll try to help your thread.

And also help some fellow INTPs that had their reasoning potential destroyed by 'political correctness', 'civil rights paranoia' and 'egalitarianism'. What you know,Snafu, or what I know, won't change anything in this thread. They can read all Rushton, Jensen, Murray, Darwin, Galton works and still say 'biased'.

You all have been talking about all the very recent data and information from as far as the 1907 american eugenics projects.

Lets go back a little further in time. Like 10,000 + years ago.
Its all evolution. Gene selection, the natural way.

Do you have a problem with the following questions:

Why blacks are faster than whites?
Whites are stronger than blacks?
Men are stronger than women? And faster?
What about racial medicine?http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n3/full/7400654.html
And of course gender medicine?

The questions above could be adressed using information on bone structure, muscle fibers, hormones, internal organs diferences, etc... And, as you might know, brain is an organ too. So don't act as evolution affects all things but inteligence. Its absurd!

More than 10,000 years ago we were being selected a lot, naturally. But not all earth populations were experiencing the same level of selection.
Not everybody had to survive a full scale Ice Age or compete against Neanderthals. And way before Homo Erectus, to win against all these odds mother nature had for us, we started labor division between males and females. And it was not an opressive male that said "woman go take care of the cave", it was an natural/inteligent way that saved us all from extinction.

But of course these events makes a big difference in the long run. Where we are today.

It happened, its in the remote past now. Nothing we can do about it. If you want to make everybody equal, fine. But its gonna take lots of lives and thousands of years.

Again, as I said before, don't think Darwins evolution is just a tool to make fun of religion.

Adressing the problem of 'biased' construction of the tests:
Well if we are going to make tests where women score higher, men are not gonna think 'Wow the test is really neutral now'; they are gonna think 'We had to change the test for another egalitarian BS, this just proves that women can't do what men can'
Much like the problem of affirmative action. We have to question the meritocratic system we believe we live in.


And the very good question I've read here: "Why do we care?"

I care because right now this society is going to sh**. We are losing lots of great minds in the name of egalitarianism. If Da Vinci was born today, he would become a janitor.

Chris Langan, bar bouncer with the alleged world's highest IQ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXksaSewCEs

As an INTP/Architect, the path society is going is always important to me.

 

[GYX_Kid]

Why blacks are faster than whites?
Whites are stronger than blacks?

The questions above could be adressed using information on bone structure, muscle fibers, hormones, internal organs diferences, etc... And, as you might know, brain is an organ too. So don't act as evolution affects all things but inteligence. Its absurd!

Is there some statistical data about that?
I remember reading something about blacks having larger flaccid penis size, but both roughly the same when erect.

If Da Vinci was born today, he would become a janitor.

 

[WARchitect]

Is there some statistical data about that?
I remember reading something about blacks having larger flaccid penis size, but both roughly the same when erect.

Maybe not organized by scientific method. I was reffering to sports competitions results, mainly 100m Olympic Sprints and World Strongest Men competitions.

About penis size I don't have enough information. I remember one information about vaginas though. Black females have it positioned on their body slightly lower than whites and asians.

 

[kora]

Men have a surplus of testosterone which gives them their inherant need to be in competition and feel superior, therefore leading to delusions of grandeur and a feeling of superiority over women in general, hence the (shockingly still) ongoing argument that men are more rational and intelligent than women and women have "feminine intuition" and are emotionally sensitive. It's all down to evolution really. Men needed this competitive fighting streak while women needed this nurturing streak.

See? I can make science and apparent facts support bullshit as well

 

[Antediluvian]

Perhaps a natural hormone split between men and women (on average) could be causing this odd ratio. Also, some scientific articles have cited the nebulous variable of "motivation" concerning IQ tests, which is obviously objectively difficult to measure.

There's also the previously noted notion of anxiety impairing performance, which could possibly be due to lower confidence in women, caused by societal pressures.

 

[GYX_Kid]

Men have a surplus of testosterone which gives them their inherant need to be in competition and feel superior, therefore leading to delusions of grandeur and a feeling of superiority over women in general, hence the (shockingly still) ongoing argument that men are more rational and intelligent than women and women have "feminine intuition" and are emotionally sensitive. It's all down to evolution really. Men needed this competitive fighting streak while women needed this nurturing streak.

See? I can make science and apparent facts support bullshit as well

High testosterone doesn't necessarily make a competitive person. A competitive personality might get a surge of testosterone when he's about to compete. A low-testosterone guy might also get depressed and less likely to compete, or do anything at all. But you can be totally amped with balls and be really humble. The most dominant and secure would actually have the least reason to need to prove it.

I get your point though

 

[snafupants]

Studies show, if my memory serves me, that both low IQ and high IQ kids have lower salivary testosterone levels. That whole issue is probably immaterial, and only important to the degree that it points to another clue.

 

[Antediluvian]

it was in 1992 when zoologist C. Davison Ankney through his research discovered that men's brains were about 8 percent heavier than those of women. Ankey arrived at this conclusion on the basis of his study on 1,261 adults.
In 1997, a study in Denmark further concluded that men have about 15 percent more neurons, the functional unit of the brain, than women.

Some interesting tidbits.

Also, shouldn't prenatal levels of testosterone be considered? I'll see if I can dig up the link.

Found the link

http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03/14/testosterone-hormone-linked-to-higher-iq/24379.html

Relevant quote

Mrazik, and a colleague have published a paper in Roeper Review linking giftedness (having an IQ score of 130 or higher) to prenatal exposure of higher levels of testosterone.

Mrazik hypothesizes that, in the same way that physical and cognitive deficiencies may develop in utero, so too could similar exposure to this naturally occurring chemical result in giftedness.

 

[Cavallier]

I'm getting the strongest sense of deja vu right now...

 

[Antediluvian]

I'm getting the strongest sense of deja vu right now...

Has my link already been posted, then?

 

[Cavallier]

No, my remark wasn't aimed at you. Just the thread in general. Something about it really does feel like deja vu to me.

 

[snafupants]

Some interesting tidbits.

Also, shouldn't prenatal levels of testosterone be considered? I'll see if I can dig up the link.

Found the link

http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03/14/testosterone-hormone-linked-to-higher-iq/24379.html

Relevant quote

Would exposure to in utero chemicals from the host be the same as organic in vivo exposure to testosterone though? There are at least two studies which actually bolster my point, although yours isn't exactly a refutation of anything.

 

[Antediluvian]

Would exposure to in utero chemicals from the host be the same as organic in vivo exposure to testosterone though? There are at least two studies which actually bolster my point, although yours isn't exactly a refutation of anything.

I'm not sure if they would have the same effect, it's possible. And, the link wasn't meant to be a refutation, just something else to consider. I'm not sure what to make of the low IQ/high IQ low testosterone common denominator thing. Was your point the low testosterone commonality? I've only had a cursory look at the thread, so I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[snafupants]

I'm not sure if they would have the same effect, it's possible. And, the link wasn't meant to be a refutation, just something else to consider. I'm not sure what to make of the low IQ/high IQ low testosterone common denominator thing. Was your point the low testosterone commonality? I've only had a cursory look at the thread, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Neither were the researchers. My overarching point was that we shouldn't rush to judgement. As an aside, a cursory look is all you really need: I reported some widely corroborated findings and what ensued was an utter bloodbath of sexist statements and embittered rebuttals and feeble squeals of protest and blasphemy. I naively expected something different.

 

[Antediluvian]

Neither were the researchers. My overarching point was that we shouldn't rush to judgement. As an aside, a cursory look is all you really need: I reported some widely corroborated findings and what ensued was an utter bloodbath of sexist statements and embittered rebuttals and feeble squeals of protest and blasphemy. I naively expected something different.

Undoubtedly, there were some defensive and acerbic replies. Regardless of whether men on average are smarter or not (not arguing that point), I look to the individual. My sister would most likely be one of the smartest (if not at the pinnacle), persons on the forums, she supposedly tested out at roughly 140, and her academic prowess is nothing short of extraordinary. As a child, she had interests in archeology, egyptology, among other subjects...point being is that I would put her insultingly above the vast majority of the population.

 

[snafupants]

Undoubtedly, there were some defensive and acerbic replies. Regardless of whether men on average are smarter or not (not arguing that point), I look to the individual. My sister would most likely be one of the smartest (if not at the pinnacle), persons on the forums, she supposedly tested out at roughly 140, and her academic prowess is nothing short of extraordinary. As a child, she had interests in archeology, egyptology, among other subjects...point being is that I would put her insultingly above the vast majority of the population.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call the forum a representative sample, and I realize you didn't quite go that far. If you kept the standard deviation steady, I'd suggest moving over the mean about twenty points for this forum's population; moving over to the right: smartass. There are a lot of folks on the forum who have already scored higher than the score you mentioned. Coincidently my sister - nurse in training - performed at the same level, but she's sort of a couch potato who sits on her laurels so to speak. She has more of a laissez-faire approach to life.

 

[Antediluvian]

There have been many claimed high scores, but I'm wondering how many are going off of internet test scores (I'm sure some correlate decently with actual IQ tests, but still). Even so, her academic prowess was astounding. To be fair, I did say "one of the smartest" and I stand by that assertion

However, my sister, like yours, seems to have little motivation, but holds two jobs.

 

[snafupants]

There have been many claimed high scores, but I'm wondering how many are going off of internet test scores (I'm sure some correlate decently with actual IQ tests, but still). Even so, her academic prowess was astounding. To be fair, I did say "one of the smartest" and I stand by that assertion

However, my sister, like yours, seems to have little motivation, but holds two jobs.

There seems to be an extreme yet understandable reluctance to dole out high scores to strangers. When you look at the rarity of certain scores, though, and realize that half of the population is automatically neutralized, because by definition of the bell curve they fall on the other side, you realize that these numbers aren't quite so improbable. I agree that that score would put her in good intellectual stead on the forum but I know of a few folks who could attain a higher score. We shouldn't say better though, just higher. Also, through some clever SAT verbal score deductions Charles Murray et al. has decided that the mean score at Ivy League schools approximates your sisters score. Remember, however, that mean means, by definition, that half fall below that. I would guess that the standard deviation would be tighter given the restriction of range in that unique population.

 

[Antediluvian]

Oh, I'm not saying everyone is fibbing, but I've encountered instances where someone random forum drifter will pop into a thread and state what a high IQ they have.

And to be fair, that test she took was in a psychology class. Even so, her academic prowess seems to suggest a high one, and they purportedly primarily measure possible academic performance, if I'm not mistaken. Although effort is a rather murky variable.

 

[snafupants]

Oh, I'm not saying everyone is fibbing, but I've encountered instances where someone random forum drifter will pop into a thread and state what a high IQ they have.

And to be fair, that test she took was in a psychology class. Even so, her academic prowess seems to suggest a high one.

Oh yeah, I would say ninety percent of people overestimate their own intellectual prowess, especially as regards test score. There are too many hokum tests in cyberspace. There are two reputable online tests that I know of and one of them is called the Cerebrals Cognitive Ability Tests (CCAT). This tripartite, potentially high-range test has a ceiling of IQ 170 at most age levels so for the vast majority of applications it should get the job done. That should still be free and I know the guy who ran the psychometrics on that one. If you complete all three portions of the test, there's a .9 correlation with the WAIS-III full scale IQ score and a .8 correlation to the ACT, according to updated validity data. Even if you eliminate the middle section, which is math based, the correlation remains a respectable .88 between the CCAT and the WAIS. Those are pretty good numbers for a free test. Actually, he recently attracted an interested test publisher (Pearson maybe?) but you can get a rudimentary score, minus report, for free still I think.

 

[Antediluvian]

I have heard of the CCAT before, chose not to take it, for reasons I'm sure you can imagine. I usually score quite high on verbally inclined online IQ tests, and even the verbal portion of the SAT/ACT, somewhat impressive for being shoddily home-schooled.

Anyway , didn't Dr. Jouve create the CCAT? That aside, it seemed professionally done, at least to me.

 

[snafupants]

I have heard of the CCAT before, chose not to take it, for reasons I'm sure you can imagine. I usually score quite high on verbally inclined IQ tests, and even verbal portion of the SAT/ACT, somewhat impressive for being shoddily home-schooled.

Anyway , didn't Dr. Jouve create the CCAT? That aside, it seemed professionally done, at least to me.

Right, the CCAT was done by Xavier. Apparently he does this stuff professionally in France, so going back to Binet's roots almost. I have the PDF version and the norm tables which were posted online. My flash player is wonky and I'd rather have control over administration and full disclosure of the psychometric properties anyway. I love how factor analysis can prove the naysayers erroneous though. The correlation to supposed achievement tests (ACT=.8) is quite revealing.