The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Thompson ArchiveBlogview
Women's Brains
Brain size and intelligence

men-vs-women-human-brain-analysis-T-UbyazM

Here is a very interesting paper on sex differences in brain size and intelligence, notable for linking people’s brain scans with their detailed intelligence test results. It has been accepted for publication in Intelligence.

Sex differences in brain size and general intelligence (g)

Dimitri van der Linden, Curtis S. Dunkel, Guy Madison

Abstract

Utilizing MRI and cognitive tests data from the Human Connectome project (N = 900), sex differences in general intelligence (g) and molar brain characteristics were examined. Total brain volume, cortical surface area, and white and gray matter correlated 0.1 – 0.3 with g for both sexes, whereas cortical thickness and gray/white matter ratio showed less consistent associations with g. Males displayed higher scores on most of the brain characteristics, even after correcting for body size, and also scored approximately one fourth of a standard deviation higher on g. Mediation analyses and the Method of Correlated Vectors both indicated that the sex difference in g is mediated by general brain characteristics. Selecting a subsample of males and females who were matched on g further suggest that larger brains, on average, lead to higher g, whereas similar levels of g do not necessarily imply equal brain sizes.

Sex diffs in brain size Madison

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZWGNvQjBMNUJGVmc

Men’s brains are bigger than women’s, even when controlling for bigger body size, which means they should have higher intelligence, though the evidence for that is conflicting. Most researchers find no notable differences overall, saying that different strengths and weaknesses balance each other out, but Lynn and Irwing (2002, 2004) argued that adult males are almost 4 IQ points brighter than adult females. The authors of the present paper have found one of the largest MRI samples available, each scanned person having done 10 cognitive tests, which is what makes this study particularly interesting. The tests included: Penn progressive matrices, Peabody vocabulary, reading recognition, working memory, pictorial episodic memory, spatial orientation, card sorting, verbal episodic memory, and the Flanker task of inhibition and sustained attention.

First, here are the correlations between brain measures and overall mental ability.

Sex diffs brain size Madison corr with g

The tests were used to create an overall g score. Correlations with this overall g measure and brain measures are not large, but for both males and females the highest correlations are with gray matter volume. It seems that Agatha Christie’s fictional Belgian detective Hercule Poirot was right, when he said that crime detection and problem solving depended on “the little gray cells”.

Here are the scores for the individual mental ability tests:

Sex diffs brain Madison on particular cognitive tasks

Once again, I recommend that men pay close attention to the largest sex difference, which plays out in their favour: spatial orientation, in which they have a 6 IQ points advantage. I recommend that women play close attention to Episodic memory in which they have an advantage of 4 IQ points, giving women the upper hand when remembering male transgressions. Those particular findings hold up even when you control for g, so they are very real cognitive sex differences, and are mostly across the board of the abilities measured.

The spatial male advantage shows up in the first year of life.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/advice-to-men-caught-unawares

The authors conclude:

there was a significant sex difference in g in this sample, with an effect size of one quarter of a standard deviation. This corresponds to approximately 3.75 IQ points, which is a similar sex difference in general intelligence as reported in previous large population studies (Lynn & Irwing, 2004) and meta-analyses (e.g., Madison, 2016; Irwing & Lynn, 2005).

Analyses of the cognitive subsets used to extract g showed that the sex differences were not related to extremely high scores of males on a limited number of particular tasks, but tends rather to reflect a more general pattern.

the central point of the present study, is that the various statistical methods applied seem to suggest that sex differences in brain characteristics indeed mediate sex differences in g. Direct support for this notion came from the mediation analyses, indicating that brain volume measures could account for roughly half of the sex differences in g.

They note:

It is an interesting observation that in the nineteenth century the consensus was that sex differences in brain size exists, leading to a slightly higher average of males in general intelligence (e.g., Darwin, 1871). However, improved psychometric and brain imaging techniques have led to a new wave of studies and have reactivated the debate on this topic. Regarding this, the present study may contribute to this field by applying a combination of newer and more traditional methods. Overall, we agree with the conclusion of Burgaleta et al. (2012) and Escorial et al. (2015) that within subgroups or at the individual level, larger male brains do not necessarily have to be accompanied with higher general intelligence. Nevertheless, the present study also clearly indicates that, at the group level, there is a sex difference in g and that differences in brain size likely play a relevant role in this. Given that those conclusions were based on the results of one of the larger MRI studies available, it can be expected that the effect sizes provide reliable estimates of the relations and can be regarded as benchmarks in the literature in this area.

This study supports the minority position of Lynn and Irwing, that men are about 4 IQ points brighter than women, an across-the-board advantage, plus better spatial ability, and that part of this difference may be attributed to brain size. Here is Prof Richard Lynn lecturing about it:

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/sex-lies-and-videotaped-lectures

You will see that male advantage shows up in the Wechsler standardisation samples, though Wechsler will not agree to this being acknowledged in print, though they have passed on the results privately. An odd situation, to say the least.

ORDER IT NOW

As usual, a small difference in means has larger consequences at the extremes. If one assumes a 4 point difference straddling the mean, then women will be 98 to men’s 102. Keeping the standard deviations to 15 for both sexes, and setting the cutoff point at IQ 130 then 3.1% of men and 1.6% of women pass the threshold, meaning 65% of the brightest people will be men.

Since this sample showed no sex difference in standard deviations (to the author’s and my surprise) that is as far as I will go with the calculations. However, even without putting in the usually found smaller standard deviation for women, the implication is clear: 65% of intellectually demanding occupations will be taken by men, if entry to those occupations is based only on mental ability. If the bar is set higher at IQ 145, then 70.5% of such posts will be taken by men.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/sex-as-emil-visualises-it

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/differences-in-sex-differences-us

As MRI samples go, this is an excellent sample, and will get better as more results are released. The totals available for study have just increased to 1200 scanned persons, and I have already seen a conference abstract for next month looking at other features of this larger sample. As epidemiological samples go this is a small sample, so whole populations as achieved in birth cohorts and national examinations are better, though these do not have any brain scan results. It is the combination of good numbers of scans and concomitant ability testing which make this study so informative.

Let us see whether the increased sample confirms or changes these results. I hope to see preliminary results soon, though there will be the usual year before they get published. I saw the results of this current paper a year ago, but could only hint at it until it was published.

When will academic publishing catch up with the pace of modern research? In the meantime, the current suggestion is that the biggest study of brain scans supports a sex difference in intelligence of about 4 points, probably due to larger male brains.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Gender, Gender Equality, IQ 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
223 Comments to "Women's Brains"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Men’s brains are bigger than women’s, even when controlling for bigger body size, which means they should have higher intelligence, though the evidence for that is conflicting. Most researchers find no notable differences overall, saying that different strengths and weaknesses balance each other out, but Lynn and Irwing (2002, 2004) argued that adult males are almost 4 IQ points brighter than adult females.

    IQism…

    Res**

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    You speak of "IQism" as if it is mere ideology, without serious, practical implications. This research is profoundly important in its implications for sex differences in various social outcomes.
    , @res
    I don't see any assertion that IQ says everything about intelligence. In fact, if you read further you will notice that Dr. Thompson specifically points out the areas where women perform better on the subtests (I see that you mentioned that in your second comment).

    The motte and bailey game with "IQism" is tiresome (and intellectually dishonest IMHO).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1847521
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. This study supports the minority position of Lynn and Irwing, that men are about 4 IQ points brighter than women, an across-the-board advantage, plus better spatial ability, and that part of this difference may be attributed to brain size

    I recommend that women play close attention to Episodic memory in which they have an advantage of 4 IQ points, giving women the upper hand when remembering male transgressions.

    Look little depreciate isn’t sir*

    Women advantage on episodic memory seems less important than better spatial ability for Thompson, a wise man…

    As usual, a small difference in means has larger consequences at the extremes. If one assumes a 4 point difference straddling the mean, then women will be 98 to men’s 102. Keeping the standard deviations to 15 for both sexes, and setting the cutoff point at IQ 130 then 3.1% of men and 1.6% of women pass the threshold, meaning 65% of the brightest people will be men.

    Res**

    When will academic publishing catch up with the pace of modern research? In the meantime, the current suggestion is that the biggest study of brain scans supports a sex difference in intelligence of about 4 points, probably due to larger male brains.

    Again. We have two salient differences, but seems, male advantage matter and female advantage don’t matter…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Female advantage matters, otherwise the game would progress quickly to a position of clear male advantage. Which it hasn't. Perhaps females lever their ad in remembering male transgressions to dampen or nullify male advantages in other areas. Or perhaps it is not simply a zero-sum male/female conflict, and there are opportunities for cooperation to attend other measures.
  3. The sex difference at the high end is especially notable, keeping in mind that the study does not even address the extent to which the sexes WANT to do high-end work in math and science. Insofar as women, perhaps innately, are not INCLINED to do cold, abstract sorts of tasks, there will, in the absence of affirmative action, be a sharp difference in the number of male vs. female scientists.

    Read More
  4. “Since this sample showed no sex difference in standard deviations (to the author’s and my surprise) that is as far as I will go with the calculations.”

    Does this mean that the commonly-found result that men are overrrepresented on the far left side of the bell curve is now in doubt? Doesn’t really align with what we see in actual life outcomes. Could men be more susceptible to rare mutations (such as on the X chromosome) that give some of them serious disadvantages?

    Read More
  5. @Santoculto

    Men’s brains are bigger than women’s, even when controlling for bigger body size, which means they should have higher intelligence, though the evidence for that is conflicting. Most researchers find no notable differences overall, saying that different strengths and weaknesses balance each other out, but Lynn and Irwing (2002, 2004) argued that adult males are almost 4 IQ points brighter than adult females.
     
    IQism...

    Res**

    You speak of “IQism” as if it is mere ideology, without serious, practical implications. This research is profoundly important in its implications for sex differences in various social outcomes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Nope. IQism also as ideology. Ideology is when we choice a set of perspectives AND not all perspectives of certain particularity. Certain perspectives of intelligence are over emphasized by IQism distorting this reality just like a Mercator geographical projection.

    And as happen with all belief systems we still have a lot a unfactual beliefs for example that higher IQ people are TOTALLY or INVINCIBLY smart-er.

    All ideologies are understood by their followers as serious stuff from the most bizarre to the most scientific.

    Ideologies also need key replaced words or symbols. IQ is that symbol that replaces intelligence.

  6. @phil
    You speak of "IQism" as if it is mere ideology, without serious, practical implications. This research is profoundly important in its implications for sex differences in various social outcomes.

    Nope. IQism also as ideology. Ideology is when we choice a set of perspectives AND not all perspectives of certain particularity. Certain perspectives of intelligence are over emphasized by IQism distorting this reality just like a Mercator geographical projection.

    And as happen with all belief systems we still have a lot a unfactual beliefs for example that higher IQ people are TOTALLY or INVINCIBLY smart-er.

    All ideologies are understood by their followers as serious stuff from the most bizarre to the most scientific.

    Ideologies also need key replaced words or symbols. IQ is that symbol that replaces intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You are missing the point. Whether IQ completely and perfectly models "intelligence" as you define it isn't the important part, phil's point is that it does in fact have relevance to intelligence. For example, all other things relatively equal, larger muscles reflect greater strength.

    Now one can certainly argue that muscles are of different densities, that they might be placed slightly differently on the bone, and so on. And this might even affect the effective strength that the individual can apply to an object. Absolutely.

    But it doesn't change the general rule that larger muscles allow for more strength to be applied, and when this is also supported by various other studies, such as IQ being reflected with life outcomes and educational status, it means that it is an useful model.

    No model is perfect. But some models are more useful than others. Ultimately, the major practical goal of science is to find models which can be predictive and IQ is pretty predictive and useful.
    , @MBlanc46
    That's simply a caricature.
  7. “You will see that male advantage shows up in the Wechsler standardisation samples, though Wechsler will not agree to this being acknowledged in print, though they have passed on the results privately”

    It does but there is considerable debate about whether this reflects a sex difference in g. See for instance

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000671

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000887

    In general I would consider underlying (latent) g factor to be of more importance than the WAIS FSIQ

    The study seems to be well done but seeing as there is no consensus of whether sex differences in g actually exist (in the general population) not conclusive either

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thanks for these interesting papers. My original observation was that the original Wechsler standardisation samples showed a general male advantage, of about 2 points, which was then set to zero in the manuals. That is, it was considered a standardisation error. When tests are used on subsequent samples, as in the examples given, male advantage is attributed to a) not being on g and b) in the case of Information, male bias. The first is a reasonable argument, but it would put paid to a lot of the Flynn effect, and I personally don't think that argument is convincing against the Flynn effect or against sex differences, though it is a hotly contested issue. The second is more questionable, because if you look at my recent post on General Knowledge, it appears that men actually do have more general knowledge. It is an achievement, not something which is an artefact of a biased assessment.
    Anyway, thanks for more reading, in the already full in tray.
    , @Commenting
    Reading this more closely now male superiority in processing speed is rather unexpected. Usually the opposite. Not finding a difference in variability could potentially be attributed to the relatively small sample size (though large for MRI) but then again the same might be true of the mean difference
  8. You will see that male advantage shows up in the Wechsler standardisation samples, though Wechsler will not agree to this being acknowledged in print, though they have passed on the results privately. An odd situation, to say the least.

    All bragging of male superiority is hollow and silly when a certain physical reality is placed on the scales of inherent worth.

    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/the-abrahamists-et-alii-vs-the-clitoris-or/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Unz: I tried to mark this as troll, however, it said that I was commenting too quickly. After I returned, I couldn't mark this as troll anymore due to the reaction per hour limit. Could this be looked into?

    Thanks.
  9. @Commenting
    "You will see that male advantage shows up in the Wechsler standardisation samples, though Wechsler will not agree to this being acknowledged in print, though they have passed on the results privately"

    It does but there is considerable debate about whether this reflects a sex difference in g. See for instance

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000671
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000887

    In general I would consider underlying (latent) g factor to be of more importance than the WAIS FSIQ

    The study seems to be well done but seeing as there is no consensus of whether sex differences in g actually exist (in the general population) not conclusive either

    Thanks for these interesting papers. My original observation was that the original Wechsler standardisation samples showed a general male advantage, of about 2 points, which was then set to zero in the manuals. That is, it was considered a standardisation error. When tests are used on subsequent samples, as in the examples given, male advantage is attributed to a) not being on g and b) in the case of Information, male bias. The first is a reasonable argument, but it would put paid to a lot of the Flynn effect, and I personally don’t think that argument is convincing against the Flynn effect or against sex differences, though it is a hotly contested issue. The second is more questionable, because if you look at my recent post on General Knowledge, it appears that men actually do have more general knowledge. It is an achievement, not something which is an artefact of a biased assessment.
    Anyway, thanks for more reading, in the already full in tray.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    I don't know about the original Wechsler samples but the two point male advantage also shows up in modern US standardisations of the WAIS-IV. The same doesn't happen for other batteries which is why I think latent g might be preferable, at least for the sex differences question. Far as I know there is no reason to believe WAIS full scale IQ (showing sex differences) is more predictive than e.g. IQ as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson showing no difference.

    Latent g factor extracted from one battery correlates extremely well with latent g of another battery so that might be a better measure to compare the sexes on. Also I think it was Jensen who advocated comparing g factor scores and I greatly respect Jensen.

    I'm not up to date with the literature on general knowledge. Stumbled across a study on Twitter a while ago which showed that you can manipulate tests to favor either sex but that's not necessarily a convincing argument to disprove male advantage here. We would have to find out what "the best measure" of general knowledge looks like I assume
  10. @Commenting
    "You will see that male advantage shows up in the Wechsler standardisation samples, though Wechsler will not agree to this being acknowledged in print, though they have passed on the results privately"

    It does but there is considerable debate about whether this reflects a sex difference in g. See for instance

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000671
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000887

    In general I would consider underlying (latent) g factor to be of more importance than the WAIS FSIQ

    The study seems to be well done but seeing as there is no consensus of whether sex differences in g actually exist (in the general population) not conclusive either

    Reading this more closely now male superiority in processing speed is rather unexpected. Usually the opposite. Not finding a difference in variability could potentially be attributed to the relatively small sample size (though large for MRI) but then again the same might be true of the mean difference

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    Reading this more closely now male superiority in processing speed is rather unexpected.
     
    Clearly, you have not reflected on the fact that an under fifteen male soccer team beat the US Women's team.

    Also, many guys point out that men are faster than women in a range of competitive sports that require participants to react to the opponent.
  11. Didn’t they also conclude due to “genetic similarity” that “male brains are far more similar to female brains than they are different?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    With some apprehensive modesty I commend #101 and #103 to you for a very spare moment.
  12. @Santoculto
    Nope. IQism also as ideology. Ideology is when we choice a set of perspectives AND not all perspectives of certain particularity. Certain perspectives of intelligence are over emphasized by IQism distorting this reality just like a Mercator geographical projection.

    And as happen with all belief systems we still have a lot a unfactual beliefs for example that higher IQ people are TOTALLY or INVINCIBLY smart-er.

    All ideologies are understood by their followers as serious stuff from the most bizarre to the most scientific.

    Ideologies also need key replaced words or symbols. IQ is that symbol that replaces intelligence.

    You are missing the point. Whether IQ completely and perfectly models “intelligence” as you define it isn’t the important part, phil’s point is that it does in fact have relevance to intelligence. For example, all other things relatively equal, larger muscles reflect greater strength.

    Now one can certainly argue that muscles are of different densities, that they might be placed slightly differently on the bone, and so on. And this might even affect the effective strength that the individual can apply to an object. Absolutely.

    But it doesn’t change the general rule that larger muscles allow for more strength to be applied, and when this is also supported by various other studies, such as IQ being reflected with life outcomes and educational status, it means that it is an useful model.

    No model is perfect. But some models are more useful than others. Ultimately, the major practical goal of science is to find models which can be predictive and IQ is pretty predictive and useful.

    Read More
    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I have little impression that conceptual intelligence research is becoming more closed because this IQism.

    It's the fundamental part instead I agree that it's useful too, I always agree about that. I'm showing what is already happening. As if conceptual understanding of intelligence as well complete psychological evaluation already don't need to be done, IQ replace everything that is correlated with intelligence.

    You are comparing intelligence, a complex entity with muscles. I don't think this comparison is valid.

    "No model is perfect"

    No??

    So why buildings don't fall in the ground??

    It's a excuse.

    Even creativity IQ don't measure or predict... One of the most important ability human may have.

    Good social outcomes require higher cognitive skills (and not psycho-cognitive) and conformity.

    Quantitative = size

    Do you agree with me??

    IQ correlates with a lot of outcomes

    Great, now we need analyze it in more intimate way. But most people here seems just analyze by the surface and conclude by it...
    , @RaceRealist88
    Men have, on average, 61 percent more total muscle mass than women, 75 percent more arm muscle mass, which translates approximately into a 90 percent greater upper body strength in men. 99.9 percent of females fall below the male mean, meaning that sex accounts for 70 percent of human variation in muscle mass and upper-body strength in humans (Lassek and Gaulin, 2009).

    http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.anth.d7/files/sitefiles/people/gaulin/Lassek%20%26%20Gaulin_muscle%20mass.pdf

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/muscular-strength-by-gender-and-race/
  13. @Robert Magill

    You will see that male advantage shows up in the Wechsler standardisation samples, though Wechsler will not agree to this being acknowledged in print, though they have passed on the results privately. An odd situation, to say the least.
     
    All bragging of male superiority is hollow and silly when a certain physical reality is placed on the scales of inherent worth.
    https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/the-abrahamists-et-alii-vs-the-clitoris-or/

    Unz: I tried to mark this as troll, however, it said that I was commenting too quickly. After I returned, I couldn’t mark this as troll anymore due to the reaction per hour limit. Could this be looked into?

    Thanks.

    Read More
  14. Smarter sex
    Male (average IQ) – 112
    Women – 108

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/isteve-metrics/#comment-1827416

    Great study!

    There is also this:

    Smarter brains are blood-thirsty brains

    https://m.phys.org/news/2016-08-smarter-brains-blood-thirsty.html

    Brain size has increased about 350% over human evolution, but we found that blood flow to the brain increased an amazing 600%,” says project leader Professor Emeritus Roger Seymour, from the University of Adelaide. “We believe this is possibly related to the brain’s need to satisfy increasingly energetic connections between nerve cells that allowed the evolution of complex thinking and learning.

    “To allow our brain to be so intelligent, it must be constantly fed oxygen and nutrients from the blood.

    “The more metabolically active the brain is, the more blood it requires, so the supply arteries are larger. The holes in fossil skulls are accurate gauges of arterial size.”

    Carotid Artery Diameter in Men and Women
    and the Relation to Body and Neck Size

    Conclusions—Carotid arteries are smaller in women even after adjusting for body and neck size, age, and blood pressure.

    http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/strokeaha/37/4/1103.full.pdf Krejza et al. (2006)

    Could the combination of a large brain and insufficient blood supply to it actually mean less brain power? Is the ratio between blood supply (carotid artery diameter) and brain size the true determinant of intelligence/brain power? Of course, a big brain plus sufficient blood supply (wide carotid artery diameter) would then likely mean very high intelligence/brain nerve cell connectivity/activity.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/isteve-metrics/#comment-1829793

    ”L. Willerman, “Commentary on Rushton’s Mongoloid-Caucasoid Differences in Brain Size”, Intelligence, vol.15, 1991, pp.361-364, argues that Rushton makes an inappropriate correction; I maintain that a correction per se is inappropriate. Rushton seems to be operating with a model of cranial capacity as an index of brain power, like the engine capacity of a car. But there is no neurological reason to “correct” for stature and weight because these are irrelevant, even on his neurological model to the “brain power” of a given brain. Women, have brains, on average 15 percent smaller than men. To deal with this “inconvenient truth” scaling occurs so that when scaled against their smaller bodies the brain size difference disappears. But outside of political correctness, why should such a scaling occur if what we are interested in is “engine capacity”? But even though women’s brains are smaller than men’s, the Wernicke area, a key area for comprehending sounds and word meanings is 30 percent larger in women, and the Broca area, important for the ability to produce fluent and expressive speech, is 20 percent larger. Even here we cannot conclude from these size differences that women’s have a greater verbal superiority to men, as men’s Wernicke and Broca areas may be neurologically more efficient, even if smaller. Even though girls are outperforming boys at school (in an anti-male feminist environment), there is evidence that men’s brain cells transmit nerve impulses faster than women’s. The research was done by Professor Edward Reed of Toronto University, and Philip Vernon and Andrew Johnson of the University of Western Ontario. Males were found to have four times faster nerve conduction velocities than females, a significant sex difference in all test conditions in favour of males. […]
    Another problem for Rushton’s theory is the considerable neurological redundancy in the human brain. John Lorber, “Is Your Brain Really Necessary?” Science, vol.210, 1980, p.1232, reported on studies of victims of hydrocephalus (water on the brain). One subject had a respectable IQ of 126 and was a maths honour student, but had “virtually no brain”! All that the neurologist Lorber found in this subject’s head was a thin layer of brain cells only a millimetre in thickness. The rest of the intercranial space was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. This, not only raises problems for Rushton’s theory, but also for reductionist neurology. It is sufficient to note that brain size, at best, is only weakly correlated with IQ. What seems to be more important is the degree of neural connectiveness. Otherwise blue whales would be of a super-intelligence level. Further it has been argued that the degree of fissuring and thickness in the frontal cortical brain layers is more important than the sheer size of the human brain. The Negroid brain is generally less fissured than the White and Mongoloid brain. See C.F. Connolly, “External Morphology of the Primate Brain”, (Thomas, Springfield, 1950); F.W. Vint, “The Brain of the Kenya Native”, Journal of Anatomy, vol.66, 1934; H.G. Garrett, “IQ and Race Differences”, (Howard Allen, Cape Canaveral, 1973), p.14.

    Sociobiologists have noted that during the last 20,000 years the upward trend in brain size has been reversed. Modern man has a smaller brain than the Cro-Magnons, by about 100-200 cubic cms. It is usually inferred that the Cro-Magnons were more intelligent than modern man: J.W. Jamieson, “Biological Diversity and Ethnic Identity: Changing Patterns in the Modern World”, The Mankind Quarterly, vol.36, 1995, pp.193-199; B. Chiarelli, “Some comments on the Evolution of Hominid Intelligence” The Mankind Quarterly, vol.37, 1996, pp.29-36. Yet could it be that with modern man evolution departed from pursuing quantity and pursued quality? Perhaps evolution pursued the path of neural efficiency rather than sheer brain size? We will never know the answer to that question because we do not have a Cro-Magnon brain to subject to neurological investigation.”

    – The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White http://thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacy

    Read More
  15. @Santoculto

    Men’s brains are bigger than women’s, even when controlling for bigger body size, which means they should have higher intelligence, though the evidence for that is conflicting. Most researchers find no notable differences overall, saying that different strengths and weaknesses balance each other out, but Lynn and Irwing (2002, 2004) argued that adult males are almost 4 IQ points brighter than adult females.
     
    IQism...

    Res**

    I don’t see any assertion that IQ says everything about intelligence. In fact, if you read further you will notice that Dr. Thompson specifically points out the areas where women perform better on the subtests (I see that you mentioned that in your second comment).

    The motte and bailey game with “IQism” is tiresome (and intellectually dishonest IMHO).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    To clarify, I am using the definition of "IQism" which CanSpeccy asserted in this comment: http://www.unz.com/article/will-scrabble-have-the-last-word-on-the-iq-debate/#comment-1844872

    adherents of the IQ-is-all-there-is-to-intelligence school
     
    Santoculto, if you are using a different definition of IQism please state it both concisely and precisely.

    P.S. To the "anti-IQists" (in quotes because using that definition I am also an anti-IQist), this is what providing a direct link and quote confirming what I say looks like. Please try it yourselves sometime.
    , @Santoculto
    One of the most challenging tasks is

    Extract the confession from dishonest people. I'm not gullible to believe that you will admit IQism some day, specially today.

    Ok you want a explicit assertion.

    You are incapable to think for yourself??

    Do you need a explicit confession...

    The entire narrative of IQism is explicit. Check out my first comments directed to you and tell me if it's not a "IQ and intelligence are the synonymous".

    I mention how sir Thompson despise women advantage over men advantage. Your final sentence he don't talk about both salient findings, women are on avg better than men in episodic memory and men better than women in spatial ability. It's not just on leftist media we can find manipulation of the findings.
    , @FKA Max

    I don’t see any assertion that IQ says everything about intelligence. In fact, if you read further you will notice that Dr. Thompson specifically points out the areas where women perform better on the subtests (I see that you mentioned that in your second comment).
     
    Yes, I agree. I think women's intelligence and behaviors, the good and the bad, have only been understood very poorly so far, in my opinion. I highly appreciate, that Mr. Thompson takes such a measured and balanced approach to this research. Why for example, do women live on average longer than men when they are on average slightly less intelligent than men, and longer life expectancy has been found to be positively correlated with higher intelligence? Is it because the male IQ distribution bell curve is flatter than the female one, and if that is true, what really causes it? Or is it due to less risk-taking, less aggressiveness, etc. (due to lower testosterone levels and higher rates of high-activity MAOA in women than in men?)?:

    Opinion: Intelligence variability is not gender-dependent
    Why the Greater Male Variability hypothesis is not an established fact

    Further, the GMV hypothesis may not even be necessary to account for the greater number of far-below-average males. There is still a genetic explanation, but more mechanical than due to specific encoding on the Y-chromosome and/or its consequent effects on the expression of other genes. For example, Fragile X syndrome is a major cause of mental disability and is a result of a mutation of the FMR1 gene on the X-chromosome. Its incidence is lower in females despite the irrelevance of the Y-chromosome because females have a “spare” X-chromosome that often has the functional FMR1 allele.

    I will not deny that there is a great deal of support for the GMV hypothesis — and we certainly shouldn’t shy away from an uncomfortable conclusion simply because it doesn’t jibe with our preconceived notions — but because the studies that support it, especially the famous study of Scottish children, come from societies steeped in gender norms that favor the results the studies produce, it would be disingenuous and premature to consider the case closed in the face of a stubborn body of evidence that supports a totally different conclusion.
     
    - http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N23/veldman.html

    After having, hopefully, finally figured out how to read and interpret page 12 of the Göttingen study properly, I was astonished by the huge difference between the sexes in the ability to judge neuroticism during first impressions/meetings:

    So the men actually were way off target in judging the neuroticism of the men (-.43), not the “highly neurotic” female psychology students (.10) as I falsely believed and interpreted it.
    [...]
    As Mr. Thompson and commenter Frank J observed, women (.34) were actually much more successful than men (.05) in judging intelligence from first impressions, so it is not quite clear to me why the Göttingen study would state “Both men and women could accurately judge intelligence,” when women seem to be far superior judges of intelligence than men:

    This is interesting in itself. I never claim to be able to judge intelligence immediately, but these women seem to do so at better than chance level.
    [...]
    Interesting that they predicted the IQ test better.

    – http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837652
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837783

    The researchers have given the guys every chance to reveal their intellects and, crucially, the women making the judgments are able to hazard guesses as to how bright the guys are, which correlate 0.34 with tested intelligence. This is interesting in itself. I never claim to be able to judge intelligence immediately, but these women seem to do so at better than chance level.

    – http://www.unz.com/jthompson/male-intelligence-and-what-women-really/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837652


    Psychopathy in women: theoretical and clinical perspectives

    [ Finally, it is suggested that social norms may influence the evaluation of certain psychopathic characteristics differently in men and women. ]

    – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3379858/

    Women are protected in two ways: the MAOA gene is linked to the X chromosome so that women with the MAOA-L variety on one chromosome usually have a normal allele on the other; and there is circumstantial evidence that women are also protected by other genes from being disposed to violence. – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/lifestyle-advice/#comment-1809071

    If a woman is a psychopath, she can be just as dangerous as a male psychopath—perhaps more so because, based on social conventions, we’re less likely to see her coming.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/lifestyle-advice/#comment-1809777

    We just had a discussion on this very topic over in the other thread, and I posited that exactly the opposite is true, namely that greater female emancipation/influence/power has yielded tremendous macro scale benefits to the World, that might not be entirely obvious to everyone quite yet:
    [...]
    Secondly, I believe that female emancipation and feminism are highly eugenic and pacifying
    [...]
    So the less chauvinistic/“macho” a race or culture is the more likely it is to select for intelligence and low(er) testosterone, i.e., lower aggressiveness, and against the “warrior gene,” i.e., psychopathy.
    [...]
    Watch the video of Christopher Hitchens in my linked comment; he, rightly in my opinion, states that women are on average not as funny/intelligent as men, but that does not mean that they don’t have a sense of humor, i.e., they can, maybe even better than men, recognize and appreciate humor/intelligence/eccentricity
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/tomster-on-marriage/#comment-1838477

    Christopher Hitchens: Why Women Still Aren't Funny

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA
  16. @res
    I don't see any assertion that IQ says everything about intelligence. In fact, if you read further you will notice that Dr. Thompson specifically points out the areas where women perform better on the subtests (I see that you mentioned that in your second comment).

    The motte and bailey game with "IQism" is tiresome (and intellectually dishonest IMHO).

    To clarify, I am using the definition of “IQism” which CanSpeccy asserted in this comment: http://www.unz.com/article/will-scrabble-have-the-last-word-on-the-iq-debate/#comment-1844872

    adherents of the IQ-is-all-there-is-to-intelligence school

    Santoculto, if you are using a different definition of IQism please state it both concisely and precisely.

    P.S. To the “anti-IQists” (in quotes because using that definition I am also an anti-IQist), this is what providing a direct link and quote confirming what I say looks like. Please try it yourselves sometime.

    Read More
  17. @James Thompson
    Thanks for these interesting papers. My original observation was that the original Wechsler standardisation samples showed a general male advantage, of about 2 points, which was then set to zero in the manuals. That is, it was considered a standardisation error. When tests are used on subsequent samples, as in the examples given, male advantage is attributed to a) not being on g and b) in the case of Information, male bias. The first is a reasonable argument, but it would put paid to a lot of the Flynn effect, and I personally don't think that argument is convincing against the Flynn effect or against sex differences, though it is a hotly contested issue. The second is more questionable, because if you look at my recent post on General Knowledge, it appears that men actually do have more general knowledge. It is an achievement, not something which is an artefact of a biased assessment.
    Anyway, thanks for more reading, in the already full in tray.

    I don’t know about the original Wechsler samples but the two point male advantage also shows up in modern US standardisations of the WAIS-IV. The same doesn’t happen for other batteries which is why I think latent g might be preferable, at least for the sex differences question. Far as I know there is no reason to believe WAIS full scale IQ (showing sex differences) is more predictive than e.g. IQ as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson showing no difference.

    Latent g factor extracted from one battery correlates extremely well with latent g of another battery so that might be a better measure to compare the sexes on. Also I think it was Jensen who advocated comparing g factor scores and I greatly respect Jensen.

    I’m not up to date with the literature on general knowledge. Stumbled across a study on Twitter a while ago which showed that you can manipulate tests to favor either sex but that’s not necessarily a convincing argument to disprove male advantage here. We would have to find out what “the best measure” of general knowledge looks like I assume

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    On the potential manipulation of general knowledge tests, reasonable studies have been done to see what subjects, in which proportions, habitually show up in general knowledge tests. Then a representative test can be constructed to see if that shows sex differences. Those results show a male advantage.
    , @James Thompson
    general points covered here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/
    , @Wizard of Oz
    If you have a few minutes you may find something of interest in #103 and/or #105. I am a bit sceptical about JT's blithe apparent assumption that making the test of general knowledge "general" is easý enough.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Oops! UR's or my error: #101 and #103
  18. @Daniel Chieh
    You are missing the point. Whether IQ completely and perfectly models "intelligence" as you define it isn't the important part, phil's point is that it does in fact have relevance to intelligence. For example, all other things relatively equal, larger muscles reflect greater strength.

    Now one can certainly argue that muscles are of different densities, that they might be placed slightly differently on the bone, and so on. And this might even affect the effective strength that the individual can apply to an object. Absolutely.

    But it doesn't change the general rule that larger muscles allow for more strength to be applied, and when this is also supported by various other studies, such as IQ being reflected with life outcomes and educational status, it means that it is an useful model.

    No model is perfect. But some models are more useful than others. Ultimately, the major practical goal of science is to find models which can be predictive and IQ is pretty predictive and useful.

    I have little impression that conceptual intelligence research is becoming more closed because this IQism.

    It’s the fundamental part instead I agree that it’s useful too, I always agree about that. I’m showing what is already happening. As if conceptual understanding of intelligence as well complete psychological evaluation already don’t need to be done, IQ replace everything that is correlated with intelligence.

    You are comparing intelligence, a complex entity with muscles. I don’t think this comparison is valid.

    “No model is perfect”

    No??

    So why buildings don’t fall in the ground??

    It’s a excuse.

    Even creativity IQ don’t measure or predict… One of the most important ability human may have.

    Good social outcomes require higher cognitive skills (and not psycho-cognitive) and conformity.

    Quantitative = size

    Do you agree with me??

    IQ correlates with a lot of outcomes

    Great, now we need analyze it in more intimate way. But most people here seems just analyze by the surface and conclude by it…

    Read More
  19. @res
    I don't see any assertion that IQ says everything about intelligence. In fact, if you read further you will notice that Dr. Thompson specifically points out the areas where women perform better on the subtests (I see that you mentioned that in your second comment).

    The motte and bailey game with "IQism" is tiresome (and intellectually dishonest IMHO).

    One of the most challenging tasks is

    Extract the confession from dishonest people. I’m not gullible to believe that you will admit IQism some day, specially today.

    Ok you want a explicit assertion.

    You are incapable to think for yourself??

    Do you need a explicit confession…

    The entire narrative of IQism is explicit. Check out my first comments directed to you and tell me if it’s not a “IQ and intelligence are the synonymous”.

    I mention how sir Thompson despise women advantage over men advantage. Your final sentence he don’t talk about both salient findings, women are on avg better than men in episodic memory and men better than women in spatial ability. It’s not just on leftist media we can find manipulation of the findings.

    Read More
  20. One could replicate this study, or much of it, in the PING dataset. This has only children and some youths, but also excellent MRI data and 7 cognitive tests or so. I did not and the brain size gap is there. I don’t recall if there’s a cognitive gap or not. Per Lynnian developmental theory, it should be quite small or nonexistent (might be reversed even, as 11 is the mean age IIRC).

    Read More
  21. Santoculto, I usually can’t understand WTF you’re talking about, so eventually I gave up trying. But the idea that taking IQ seriously is the same as IQ fetishism is nonsense. I do the former, but not the latter.

    remembering male transgressions.

    It’s always amazing to me, the way females punch way above their weight class in this regard. They’re like Jews, they seem to store slights away for later use. I have learned to do the same to them.

    As for your calculations of how the tails shake out, let’s keep in mind that behavioral differences matter, too. Women are more risk-averse, more conformist, less aggressive, etc.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    IQ is not only fetishism. Maybe it explain why you think I believe in. I will not explain because you will not understand.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    He has excellent verbal abstraction skills, don't you know? If only if it could also be translated into verbal communication skills.
  22. @Commenting
    I don't know about the original Wechsler samples but the two point male advantage also shows up in modern US standardisations of the WAIS-IV. The same doesn't happen for other batteries which is why I think latent g might be preferable, at least for the sex differences question. Far as I know there is no reason to believe WAIS full scale IQ (showing sex differences) is more predictive than e.g. IQ as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson showing no difference.

    Latent g factor extracted from one battery correlates extremely well with latent g of another battery so that might be a better measure to compare the sexes on. Also I think it was Jensen who advocated comparing g factor scores and I greatly respect Jensen.

    I'm not up to date with the literature on general knowledge. Stumbled across a study on Twitter a while ago which showed that you can manipulate tests to favor either sex but that's not necessarily a convincing argument to disprove male advantage here. We would have to find out what "the best measure" of general knowledge looks like I assume

    On the potential manipulation of general knowledge tests, reasonable studies have been done to see what subjects, in which proportions, habitually show up in general knowledge tests. Then a representative test can be constructed to see if that shows sex differences. Those results show a male advantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I really can't bring myself to accept what you seem to be putting forward (with due academic modesty and propriety) about female IQ/intelligence and general knowledge despite my having, in youth, noted that results on the fill-in-time-after-other-exams-but-for-a-prize general knowledge exam, at least at the top, strongly supported your case. Why? Because a female well known to me with a *very* high IQ measured in childhood but never in doubt has a quite extraordinary, indeed vast, knowledge of things botanical and to do with antiques, porcelain, craftworks and cooking ingredients but is way behind me on the matters of e.g. politics, military history, sports, even (I think) opera facts though she is much more musical. As for sports...

    She is btw probably one of the class whose high IQs were found in a right bulge by Burt and fits with Greg Clark's thesis on a thitherto unrecognised reason the industrial revolution occurred where and when it did. Which leads me to the truth of a joke I made with a smart younger man recently, namely that all the great female CEOs with there 0, 1 or 2 children would do more for the present and future nation if they did what their great-(great)-grandmothers did and had 16 children of whom 12 grew to adulthood (or 10 and 6 or...).

    My young friend was quick to point out, and I - all marbles rolling - to acknowledge that the same could be saiď mutatis mutandis, of male CEOs!

    For the present thread I note the implications of the truth of (relevantly) lower female IQs adds considerable weight to my anti-dysgenic point about them contributing more if they had 15 (or 5) children (as long as enough of their issue were male my nitpicking mind adds). Funny how I have recently invested in three science based startups (funny how many years starting up can take: it makes recent increases in longevity specially welcome) whose CEOs are attractive 30 or 40ish women with PhDs in scientific disciplines, all recommended by smart men as it happens. (A good reminder that averages and probabilities are what count even if politicians and opinionmakers will never grasp and acknowledge it.)

    , @Wizard of Oz
    I've been sloppy. I forgot to mention and justify my chosen discount rate for assessing the relative utility of women as breeders as against women as scientists and CEOs. Some high minded greats have chosen 1 per cent or even zero. (It would be an interesting subject for a mini thesis to research the effect of age and number and age of issue on implicit discount rates. Does the 90 year old patriarch with multiple great-grandchildren and a prospect of his genes multiplying over 100 years decrease his discount rate compared with his 40 year old self? It may be that he does because he has had time to reflect that the only goods are the welfare of others and that his others, once the immediate nuclear family is no more, are his multigeneration tribe (not excluding collaterals).

    I seem to remember that (Lord) Nicholas Stern adopted a zero discount rate in asssessing what should be done now about AGW and, on Googling I am reminded that he cited my intellectual hero Frank Ramsey in support (Keynes quoted another as describing FR as one of the chief intellectual glories of Cambridge - who taught himself enough German in a few months to be able, at the age of 24, to supervise Wittgenstein's PhD, and died at 31). What does psychology say about age related choice of discount rates?
  23. Sorry, doc, I can’t read that piece. Anyone who says “utilizing” when all he means is “using” is too precious or pompous or silly for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    As with "hopefully" and other linguistic tics, that's probably a list cause.
  24. @Commenting
    I don't know about the original Wechsler samples but the two point male advantage also shows up in modern US standardisations of the WAIS-IV. The same doesn't happen for other batteries which is why I think latent g might be preferable, at least for the sex differences question. Far as I know there is no reason to believe WAIS full scale IQ (showing sex differences) is more predictive than e.g. IQ as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson showing no difference.

    Latent g factor extracted from one battery correlates extremely well with latent g of another battery so that might be a better measure to compare the sexes on. Also I think it was Jensen who advocated comparing g factor scores and I greatly respect Jensen.

    I'm not up to date with the literature on general knowledge. Stumbled across a study on Twitter a while ago which showed that you can manipulate tests to favor either sex but that's not necessarily a convincing argument to disprove male advantage here. We would have to find out what "the best measure" of general knowledge looks like I assume
    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    Forgivc me if I'm missing something here. It's rather late so that may well be the case. Lynn and Irwing don't seem to get into the matter of subject choice or item sampling. They note that a 0.5SD difference is replicable although from what I have seen it also seems to vary by test.

    The paper I mentioned was posted in the comment section of your article although my description of it wasn't the best. It's this one

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305005874_The_influence_of_item_sampling_on_sex_differences_in_knowledge_tests
  25. @res
    I don't see any assertion that IQ says everything about intelligence. In fact, if you read further you will notice that Dr. Thompson specifically points out the areas where women perform better on the subtests (I see that you mentioned that in your second comment).

    The motte and bailey game with "IQism" is tiresome (and intellectually dishonest IMHO).

    I don’t see any assertion that IQ says everything about intelligence. In fact, if you read further you will notice that Dr. Thompson specifically points out the areas where women perform better on the subtests (I see that you mentioned that in your second comment).

    Yes, I agree. I think women’s intelligence and behaviors, the good and the bad, have only been understood very poorly so far, in my opinion. I highly appreciate, that Mr. Thompson takes such a measured and balanced approach to this research. Why for example, do women live on average longer than men when they are on average slightly less intelligent than men, and longer life expectancy has been found to be positively correlated with higher intelligence? Is it because the male IQ distribution bell curve is flatter than the female one, and if that is true, what really causes it? Or is it due to less risk-taking, less aggressiveness, etc. (due to lower testosterone levels and higher rates of high-activity MAOA in women than in men?)?:

    Opinion: Intelligence variability is not gender-dependent
    Why the Greater Male Variability hypothesis is not an established fact

    Further, the GMV hypothesis may not even be necessary to account for the greater number of far-below-average males. There is still a genetic explanation, but more mechanical than due to specific encoding on the Y-chromosome and/or its consequent effects on the expression of other genes. For example, Fragile X syndrome is a major cause of mental disability and is a result of a mutation of the FMR1 gene on the X-chromosome. Its incidence is lower in females despite the irrelevance of the Y-chromosome because females have a “spare” X-chromosome that often has the functional FMR1 allele.

    I will not deny that there is a great deal of support for the GMV hypothesis — and we certainly shouldn’t shy away from an uncomfortable conclusion simply because it doesn’t jibe with our preconceived notions — but because the studies that support it, especially the famous study of Scottish children, come from societies steeped in gender norms that favor the results the studies produce, it would be disingenuous and premature to consider the case closed in the face of a stubborn body of evidence that supports a totally different conclusion.

    - http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N23/veldman.html

    After having, hopefully, finally figured out how to read and interpret page 12 of the Göttingen study properly, I was astonished by the huge difference between the sexes in the ability to judge neuroticism during first impressions/meetings:

    So the men actually were way off target in judging the neuroticism of the men (-.43), not the “highly neurotic” female psychology students (.10) as I falsely believed and interpreted it.
    [...]
    As Mr. Thompson and commenter Frank J observed, women (.34) were actually much more successful than men (.05) in judging intelligence from first impressions, so it is not quite clear to me why the Göttingen study would state “Both men and women could accurately judge intelligence,” when women seem to be far superior judges of intelligence than men:

    This is interesting in itself. I never claim to be able to judge intelligence immediately, but these women seem to do so at better than chance level.
    [...]
    Interesting that they predicted the IQ test better.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837652

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837783

    The researchers have given the guys every chance to reveal their intellects and, crucially, the women making the judgments are able to hazard guesses as to how bright the guys are, which correlate 0.34 with tested intelligence. This is interesting in itself. I never claim to be able to judge intelligence immediately, but these women seem to do so at better than chance level.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/male-intelligence-and-what-women-really/

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837652


    Psychopathy in women: theoretical and clinical perspectives

    [ Finally, it is suggested that social norms may influence the evaluation of certain psychopathic characteristics differently in men and women. ]

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3379858/

    Women are protected in two ways: the MAOA gene is linked to the X chromosome so that women with the MAOA-L variety on one chromosome usually have a normal allele on the other; and there is circumstantial evidence that women are also protected by other genes from being disposed to violence.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/lifestyle-advice/#comment-1809071

    If a woman is a psychopath, she can be just as dangerous as a male psychopath—perhaps more so because, based on social conventions, we’re less likely to see her coming.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/lifestyle-advice/#comment-1809777

    We just had a discussion on this very topic over in the other thread, and I posited that exactly the opposite is true, namely that greater female emancipation/influence/power has yielded tremendous macro scale benefits to the World, that might not be entirely obvious to everyone quite yet:
    [...]
    Secondly, I believe that female emancipation and feminism are highly eugenic and pacifying
    [...]
    So the less chauvinistic/“macho” a race or culture is the more likely it is to select for intelligence and low(er) testosterone, i.e., lower aggressiveness, and against the “warrior gene,” i.e., psychopathy.
    [...]
    Watch the video of Christopher Hitchens in my linked comment; he, rightly in my opinion, states that women are on average not as funny/intelligent as men, but that does not mean that they don’t have a sense of humor, i.e., they can, maybe even better than men, recognize and appreciate humor/intelligence/eccentricity

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/tomster-on-marriage/#comment-1838477

    Christopher Hitchens: Why Women Still Aren’t Funny

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    This is interesting too:

    Warren Buffett Invests Like A Girl?


    How has Warren Buffett become the third richest person in the world with a net worth of $50 billion? It may be because he invests like a girl. Financial editor and writer LouAnn Lofton, author of recently released Warren Buffett Invests Like A Girl, studied the habits of the world’s most renowned investor and compared them to the latest research about men, women and money. The conclusion: The Oracle of Omaha has a decidedly feminine investing style.

    Like Buffett, women are more likely to have a calm temperament, a longer-term outlook, do more research, trade less and remain steady under pressure, says Lofton. And what does Buffett think about the claim? "I plead guilty," he said.
    [...]
    Men tend to be more overconfident than women. They think they know more than they do. It can lead them to trade too much, take too much risk and invest in companies they don’t understand. Women will say they don’t know as much. They’re not as confident and tend to be more risk-averse. It sounds like a bad thing, but it can work in your favor. You’re going to do more research and take it more seriously.
     

    - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/06/27/warren-buffett-invests-like-a-girl/#3d9bc12e6845

    Conclusion: Baby-faced (low testosterone), tall guys are the most intelligent people on the planet.

    Warren Buffett fits that bill, in my opinion. He is not extremely tall (5’10”), but not short either, and he has quite a baby face going for himself.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1803147

    I actually believe you might be suffering from “Imposter syndrome” [ Some studies suggest that impostor syndrome is particularly common among high-achieving women.] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1815864

    Where Are the Women in Finance?


    Men also trade more frequently, according to this study from the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley, and as we all know excessive trading racks up fees that eat away at returns. Another study by a former Goldman Sachs trader reached a similar conclusion and found that “higher levels of testosterone led to more frequent trading and an increased risk of losses.”

    There are some encouraging signs: According to recent data, women now hold 20 percent of the board seats at the largest companies, up from 15 percent a decade ago.
     

    - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-02-24/why-don-t-more-women-hold-top-jobs-in-finance

    I am convinced, that if more women start to work in the financial sector, that we will see fewer stock market crashes, financial crises, etc.

    Corporate psychopath theory of the global financial crisis


    For example, during the financial crisis, the behaviour of some key people at the top of the world's largest banks came under scrutiny. At the time of its collapse in 2008 the Royal Bank of Scotland was the world's fifth largest bank by market capitalisation. CEO Fred "the shred" Goodwin was known for taking excessive risks and showing little concern for his mismanagement, which led to the banks collapse. Goodwin's demeanour toward colleagues was unpredictable and he is said to have lived a luxury lifestyle while fostering a culture of fear, such that "colleagues suspected he was a psychopath."[32]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Corporate_psychopath_theory_of_the_global_financial_crisis

    Fuld was nicknamed the “Gorilla” on Wall Street for his competitiveness.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1732997

    Don’t be fuld! - http://www.unz.com/isteve/obama-finally-de-blackballed-by-jewish-country-club/#comment-1738159

    Dick Fuld rip out your heart

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmWkQuyPc

    , @FKA Max
    Two fascinating papers:

    Why Are Most Drowning Victims Men? Sex Differences in Aquatic Skills and Behaviors
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380371/pdf/amjph00512-0095.pdf Howland et al. (1996)

    Male drowning rates peak between ages 1 and 2 years, decline thereafter until age 10, and then increase sharply to a maximum during the late teens. In contrast, female drowning rates peak by age 1 year and decline to a relatively low, consistent level. During late adolescence and early adulthood, the ratio of male to female drowning rates is about 10:1 (Figure 1).
    [...]
    In 1990, there were 4685 US drowning deaths; 3854 were men and 831 were women. [...]
    Evans has suggested that testosterone may con-tribute to the relatively high vehicular crash rates among young men. Testosterone may similarly contribute to the peak male drowning rates during the late teen and early adult years. Yet preadolescent males also have higher injury rates than young females for many injury categories.
     
    Effects of Castration on the Life Expectancy of Contemporary Men

    http://lesswrong.com/lw/lm4/effects_of_castration_on_the_life_expectancy_of/

    Conclusion and Motivation

    Orchiectomy should prolong the lifespans of modern males, especially if done before puberty. While the estimates of life expectancy gains from castration given in Figure 4 and Table 1 aren't perfect, they are my best guesses, and should be interpreted with the correspondingly appropriate level of credence.

    My original motivation for writing this post was that I was interested in learning about the different ways in which humans could extend their lifespans and life expectancies. So, while being castrated is one way for males to live longer, quitting smoking and improving one's diet and exercise regimen are better uses of time and energy for people who are just beginning to think about changing their lifestyles in order to live longer.
     
  26. @Svigor
    Santoculto, I usually can't understand WTF you're talking about, so eventually I gave up trying. But the idea that taking IQ seriously is the same as IQ fetishism is nonsense. I do the former, but not the latter.

    remembering male transgressions.
     
    It's always amazing to me, the way females punch way above their weight class in this regard. They're like Jews, they seem to store slights away for later use. I have learned to do the same to them.

    As for your calculations of how the tails shake out, let's keep in mind that behavioral differences matter, too. Women are more risk-averse, more conformist, less aggressive, etc.

    IQ is not only fetishism. Maybe it explain why you think I believe in. I will not explain because you will not understand.

    Read More
  27. Yes, but there are no standardized tests to measure successful manipulating of others,
    self interested duplicity, and those other areas women tend to excel at.
    Since the invention of the Uzi and other light weapons, women should be half of a country’s
    military force. But somehow they were smart enough to get out of that one.

    Graunt, the Vaunt

    Read More
    • Replies: @atavisionary
    Here is an article on the extreme male theory of Autism, which suggests that testosterone mediates how much a brain develops to handle systems as opposed to other people, and too much leads to autism. There is apparently some sort of trade off in being better at Machiavellian reasoning vs. systemizing reasoning and it probably has to do with testosterone in the womb. Normal male development is away from Machiavellian and towards systemizing.

    https://altright.com/2016/12/22/autism-and-the-extreme-male-brain/
  28. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    With many closely-allied species, following nearly the same habits of life, the males have come to differ from each other chiefly through the action of sexual selection, whilst the females have come to differ chiefly from partaking more or less of the characters thus acquired by the males.

    It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

    Who is quoted above?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    My guess was Darwin, and indeed it was: The descent of man.

    It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.
     
    The problem for this view is that human brain sizes are ultimately limited by pelvic openings.

    Women having smaller brains on average, even when controlled for body size, makes sense if women have less intellectually demanding lives. It probably also means that more of them will survive birth ...
  29. @James Thompson
    general points covered here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/

    Forgivc me if I’m missing something here. It’s rather late so that may well be the case. Lynn and Irwing don’t seem to get into the matter of subject choice or item sampling. They note that a 0.5SD difference is replicable although from what I have seen it also seems to vary by test.

    The paper I mentioned was posted in the comment section of your article although my description of it wasn’t the best. It’s this one

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305005874_The_influence_of_item_sampling_on_sex_differences_in_knowledge_tests

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    This is my current understanding of the situation.
    The picture seems to be that men have wider general knowledge. In the widest ranging tests of general knowledge, they do well. That is why they win general knowledge tests. One could check this by making sure that the test items are extremely "general".
    Now, within their broad range of interests men have some subjects on which they do less well. If you sample selectively within those subjects you can manipulate the outcome.
    Bottom line: general knowledge quizzes must be general in the broad sense of that word.
  30. @FKA Max

    I don’t see any assertion that IQ says everything about intelligence. In fact, if you read further you will notice that Dr. Thompson specifically points out the areas where women perform better on the subtests (I see that you mentioned that in your second comment).
     
    Yes, I agree. I think women's intelligence and behaviors, the good and the bad, have only been understood very poorly so far, in my opinion. I highly appreciate, that Mr. Thompson takes such a measured and balanced approach to this research. Why for example, do women live on average longer than men when they are on average slightly less intelligent than men, and longer life expectancy has been found to be positively correlated with higher intelligence? Is it because the male IQ distribution bell curve is flatter than the female one, and if that is true, what really causes it? Or is it due to less risk-taking, less aggressiveness, etc. (due to lower testosterone levels and higher rates of high-activity MAOA in women than in men?)?:

    Opinion: Intelligence variability is not gender-dependent
    Why the Greater Male Variability hypothesis is not an established fact

    Further, the GMV hypothesis may not even be necessary to account for the greater number of far-below-average males. There is still a genetic explanation, but more mechanical than due to specific encoding on the Y-chromosome and/or its consequent effects on the expression of other genes. For example, Fragile X syndrome is a major cause of mental disability and is a result of a mutation of the FMR1 gene on the X-chromosome. Its incidence is lower in females despite the irrelevance of the Y-chromosome because females have a “spare” X-chromosome that often has the functional FMR1 allele.

    I will not deny that there is a great deal of support for the GMV hypothesis — and we certainly shouldn’t shy away from an uncomfortable conclusion simply because it doesn’t jibe with our preconceived notions — but because the studies that support it, especially the famous study of Scottish children, come from societies steeped in gender norms that favor the results the studies produce, it would be disingenuous and premature to consider the case closed in the face of a stubborn body of evidence that supports a totally different conclusion.
     
    - http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N23/veldman.html

    After having, hopefully, finally figured out how to read and interpret page 12 of the Göttingen study properly, I was astonished by the huge difference between the sexes in the ability to judge neuroticism during first impressions/meetings:

    So the men actually were way off target in judging the neuroticism of the men (-.43), not the “highly neurotic” female psychology students (.10) as I falsely believed and interpreted it.
    [...]
    As Mr. Thompson and commenter Frank J observed, women (.34) were actually much more successful than men (.05) in judging intelligence from first impressions, so it is not quite clear to me why the Göttingen study would state “Both men and women could accurately judge intelligence,” when women seem to be far superior judges of intelligence than men:

    This is interesting in itself. I never claim to be able to judge intelligence immediately, but these women seem to do so at better than chance level.
    [...]
    Interesting that they predicted the IQ test better.

    – http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837652
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837783

    The researchers have given the guys every chance to reveal their intellects and, crucially, the women making the judgments are able to hazard guesses as to how bright the guys are, which correlate 0.34 with tested intelligence. This is interesting in itself. I never claim to be able to judge intelligence immediately, but these women seem to do so at better than chance level.

    – http://www.unz.com/jthompson/male-intelligence-and-what-women-really/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837652


    Psychopathy in women: theoretical and clinical perspectives

    [ Finally, it is suggested that social norms may influence the evaluation of certain psychopathic characteristics differently in men and women. ]

    – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3379858/

    Women are protected in two ways: the MAOA gene is linked to the X chromosome so that women with the MAOA-L variety on one chromosome usually have a normal allele on the other; and there is circumstantial evidence that women are also protected by other genes from being disposed to violence. – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/lifestyle-advice/#comment-1809071

    If a woman is a psychopath, she can be just as dangerous as a male psychopath—perhaps more so because, based on social conventions, we’re less likely to see her coming.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/lifestyle-advice/#comment-1809777

    We just had a discussion on this very topic over in the other thread, and I posited that exactly the opposite is true, namely that greater female emancipation/influence/power has yielded tremendous macro scale benefits to the World, that might not be entirely obvious to everyone quite yet:
    [...]
    Secondly, I believe that female emancipation and feminism are highly eugenic and pacifying
    [...]
    So the less chauvinistic/“macho” a race or culture is the more likely it is to select for intelligence and low(er) testosterone, i.e., lower aggressiveness, and against the “warrior gene,” i.e., psychopathy.
    [...]
    Watch the video of Christopher Hitchens in my linked comment; he, rightly in my opinion, states that women are on average not as funny/intelligent as men, but that does not mean that they don’t have a sense of humor, i.e., they can, maybe even better than men, recognize and appreciate humor/intelligence/eccentricity
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/tomster-on-marriage/#comment-1838477

    Christopher Hitchens: Why Women Still Aren't Funny

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

    This is interesting too:

    Warren Buffett Invests Like A Girl?

    How has Warren Buffett become the third richest person in the world with a net worth of $50 billion? It may be because he invests like a girl. Financial editor and writer LouAnn Lofton, author of recently released Warren Buffett Invests Like A Girl, studied the habits of the world’s most renowned investor and compared them to the latest research about men, women and money. The conclusion: The Oracle of Omaha has a decidedly feminine investing style.

    Like Buffett, women are more likely to have a calm temperament, a longer-term outlook, do more research, trade less and remain steady under pressure, says Lofton. And what does Buffett think about the claim? “I plead guilty,” he said.
    [...]
    Men tend to be more overconfident than women. They think they know more than they do. It can lead them to trade too much, take too much risk and invest in companies they don’t understand. Women will say they don’t know as much. They’re not as confident and tend to be more risk-averse. It sounds like a bad thing, but it can work in your favor. You’re going to do more research and take it more seriously.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/06/27/warren-buffett-invests-like-a-girl/#3d9bc12e6845

    Conclusion: Baby-faced (low testosterone), tall guys are the most intelligent people on the planet.

    Warren Buffett fits that bill, in my opinion. He is not extremely tall (5’10”), but not short either, and he has quite a baby face going for himself.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1803147

    I actually believe you might be suffering from “Imposter syndrome” [ Some studies suggest that impostor syndrome is particularly common among high-achieving women.] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1815864

    Where Are the Women in Finance?

    Men also trade more frequently, according to this study from the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley, and as we all know excessive trading racks up fees that eat away at returns. Another study by a former Goldman Sachs trader reached a similar conclusion and found that “higher levels of testosterone led to more frequent trading and an increased risk of losses.”

    There are some encouraging signs: According to recent data, women now hold 20 percent of the board seats at the largest companies, up from 15 percent a decade ago.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-02-24/why-don-t-more-women-hold-top-jobs-in-finance

    I am convinced, that if more women start to work in the financial sector, that we will see fewer stock market crashes, financial crises, etc.

    Corporate psychopath theory of the global financial crisis

    For example, during the financial crisis, the behaviour of some key people at the top of the world’s largest banks came under scrutiny. At the time of its collapse in 2008 the Royal Bank of Scotland was the world’s fifth largest bank by market capitalisation. CEO Fred “the shred” Goodwin was known for taking excessive risks and showing little concern for his mismanagement, which led to the banks collapse. Goodwin’s demeanour toward colleagues was unpredictable and he is said to have lived a luxury lifestyle while fostering a culture of fear, such that “colleagues suspected he was a psychopath.”[32]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Corporate_psychopath_theory_of_the_global_financial_crisis

    Fuld was nicknamed the “Gorilla” on Wall Street for his competitiveness.

    http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1732997

    Don’t be fuld!http://www.unz.com/isteve/obama-finally-de-blackballed-by-jewish-country-club/#comment-1738159

    Dick Fuld rip out your heart

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    From molecule to market: steroid hormones and financial risk-taking
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2827458/ Coates et al. (2010)

    The research, moreover, carries intriguing policy implications: if hormones affect risk-taking, then perhaps financial markets can be made more stable by having a greater endocrine diversity in the financial industry. How do we achieve endocrine diversity? Hormone levels change over the course of our lives, with testosterone and oestrogen declining, and cortisol increasing; so young and old have markedly different endocrine profiles. The sexes as well have very different endocrine systems. Market stability is served by opinion diversity; so it may be served as well by having more balance in the banks between young and old, men and women. One does not need to argue that one group is better than others for this policy to work; merely different (Dreher et al. 2007). However, there are grounds for thinking that women may be less ‘hormonally reactive’ when it comes to financial risk-taking. For example, women have only 5–10% of the circulating levels of testosterone of men, and they have not been exposed to the same organizing effects of pre-natal androgens. Furthermore, some studies have found that women's HPA axes are less reactive to stressors stemming from a competitive situation (Stroud et al. 2002). Their greater presence in the ranks of money managers may therefore help dampen hormonal swings in the market.
     
  31. These results seem to support the notion that culture goes to seed. Good memory is valuable for gathering a wide variety of foods. Good spacial perception and resourcefulness is valuable for hunting.

    Read More
  32. @Commenting
    Reading this more closely now male superiority in processing speed is rather unexpected. Usually the opposite. Not finding a difference in variability could potentially be attributed to the relatively small sample size (though large for MRI) but then again the same might be true of the mean difference

    Reading this more closely now male superiority in processing speed is rather unexpected.

    Clearly, you have not reflected on the fact that an under fifteen male soccer team beat the US Women’s team.

    Also, many guys point out that men are faster than women in a range of competitive sports that require participants to react to the opponent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    Reaction time != processing speed

    Processing speed tests usually measure the ability to do moderately difficult cognitive tasks in time.
    There is substantial evidence of a female superiority in processing speed e.g.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960500125X
  33. @Anonymous

    With many closely-allied species, following nearly the same habits of life, the males have come to differ from each other chiefly through the action of sexual selection, whilst the females have come to differ chiefly from partaking more or less of the characters thus acquired by the males.

    It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

     

    Who is quoted above?

    My guess was Darwin, and indeed it was: The descent of man.

    It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

    The problem for this view is that human brain sizes are ultimately limited by pelvic openings.

    Women having smaller brains on average, even when controlled for body size, makes sense if women have less intellectually demanding lives. It probably also means that more of them will survive birth …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Yes and average man supposedly have very demanding intellectual life...
  34. @Peripatetic commenter
    My guess was Darwin, and indeed it was: The descent of man.

    It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.
     
    The problem for this view is that human brain sizes are ultimately limited by pelvic openings.

    Women having smaller brains on average, even when controlled for body size, makes sense if women have less intellectually demanding lives. It probably also means that more of them will survive birth ...

    Yes and average man supposedly have very demanding intellectual life…

    Read More
  35. Imagine a female Michelangelo, Einstein or Beethoven!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ALMOST men are not geniuses, even, most regular men are subconsciously and viciously anti-genius.
  36. @Peripatetic commenter

    Reading this more closely now male superiority in processing speed is rather unexpected.
     
    Clearly, you have not reflected on the fact that an under fifteen male soccer team beat the US Women's team.

    Also, many guys point out that men are faster than women in a range of competitive sports that require participants to react to the opponent.

    Reaction time != processing speed

    Processing speed tests usually measure the ability to do moderately difficult cognitive tasks in time.
    There is substantial evidence of a female superiority in processing speed e.g.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960500125X

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for the info. From the abstract:

    There was a high degree of concordance across tests and no sex difference was observed in overall estimates of general intellectual ability (GIA) on the WJ III.
     
    Is this study subject to possibly normalizing away real sex differences? (I thought that was discussed in the links from this article, but can't find the reference now)
  37. Women are morons at their core. Then, their moods outrun their meds. Women were an excellent group to have handed unfettered control of our education system over to. Also Capitol Hill, media, news. Examine all the realms of failed society in the West, the beginnings of failure were infusing our systems of education, law, communications and news with women.

    Any other conclusion is politically correct white-knighting.

    Read More
    • Agree: MBlanc46
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Women are morons at their core.
     
    Are you a homo?
  38. @Commenting
    Reaction time != processing speed

    Processing speed tests usually measure the ability to do moderately difficult cognitive tasks in time.
    There is substantial evidence of a female superiority in processing speed e.g.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016028960500125X

    Thanks for the info. From the abstract:

    There was a high degree of concordance across tests and no sex difference was observed in overall estimates of general intellectual ability (GIA) on the WJ III.

    Is this study subject to possibly normalizing away real sex differences? (I thought that was discussed in the links from this article, but can’t find the reference now)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    Yes I would think so. Most IQ tests are "normed" so sex differences balance each other out in the general index (or items showing large differences are simply omitted). I don't know why it should be different for the Woodcock-Johnson

    That said the one study I know measuring the underlying g factor on the Woodcock Johnson actually found a small female advantage.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660770_Sex_differences_in_latent_cognitive_abilities_ages_6_to_59_Evidence_from_the_Woodcock-Johnson_III_tests_of_cognitive_abilities
    , @Commenting
    My reply seems to have got stuck somehow so I'm posting this again.

    Most IQ tests are normed to show no sex differences either by balancing items showing advantage for either sex against each other or by omitting those showing larger differences all together. I would imagine the Woodcock-Johnson is no different here.

    That said the only latent variable study performed on it showed a small female advantage in g interestingly. In general the g factor extracted from one battery is highly similar to that of another so I don't think the result can be attributed to test composition

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660770_Sex_differences_in_latent_cognitive_abilities_ages_6_to_59_Evidence_from_the_Woodcock-Johnson_III_tests_of_cognitive_abilities
  39. An already-disappeared study published last week in the respectable journal Personality and Individual Differences also found men outscoring women by about 5 IQ points on the Wechsler scale, among a representative sample of 2,000 German subjects. But don’t expect to read anything about it in the news.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886917302520

    Read More
  40. I’m not denying the science behind it, but even if IQ were granted to be 100% genetic (Which it almost certainly isn’t), any comments about the IQs of women vs. men or black vs. white etc. cannot be logically extrapolated to say anything about the individual.

    If only that point could be easily ascertained by the greater population, none of this science would be controversial. By looking at a woman, you have no rational way of determining where she falls on the IQ spectrum in relation to all women, so even with the knowledge that women’s IQs are generally a few points less than men, you can’t say anything with surety about an individual woman’s IQ.

    The implication of these studies should be that we should treat each person as an individual, not as a member of a collective group. Knowing the colour of my skin or my gender tells you nothing about me, simply because of the great variance that exists within populations. Only by admitting we are not born equal and we are not the same, can a true meritocracy be established where each person is treated as an individual. Studies like this should relegate identity politics and any sort of Marxist ideal into the tumble-drier of nonsense where it belongs.

    Unfortunately as we have seen with Charles Murray and others, the opposite has been, and will likely continue to be true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    The implication of these studies should be that we should treat each person as an individual, not as a member of a collective group. Knowing the colour of my skin or my gender tells you nothing about me, simply because of the great variance that exists within populations.
     
    This is absolutely correct. But if these results are valid - although they should not change how we view individuals whom we meet, they ought to change how we view perceived discrepancies in group achievement.

    As Dr. Thompson writes:

    ....a small difference in means has larger consequences at the extremes. If one assumes a 4 point difference straddling the mean, then women will be 98 to men’s 102. Keeping the standard deviations to 15 for both sexes, and setting the cutoff point at IQ 130 then 3.1% of men and 1.6% of women pass the threshold, meaning 65% of the brightest people will be men.

    Since this sample showed no sex difference in standard deviations (to the author’s and my surprise) that is as far as I will go with the calculations. However, even without putting in the usually found smaller standard deviation for women, the implication is clear: 65% of intellectually demanding occupations will be taken by men, if entry to those occupations is based only on mental ability. If the bar is set higher at IQ 145, then 70.5% of such posts will be taken by men.
     
    This means that a preponderance of men in high positions in intellectually demanding fields might simply reflect natural ability, and not discrimination or bias.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    "By looking at a woman....."". You speak as a mere man. The women I love could write a book (maybe a novel) about what they know when they have looked at a womsn....
  41. @FKA Max
    This is interesting too:

    Warren Buffett Invests Like A Girl?


    How has Warren Buffett become the third richest person in the world with a net worth of $50 billion? It may be because he invests like a girl. Financial editor and writer LouAnn Lofton, author of recently released Warren Buffett Invests Like A Girl, studied the habits of the world’s most renowned investor and compared them to the latest research about men, women and money. The conclusion: The Oracle of Omaha has a decidedly feminine investing style.

    Like Buffett, women are more likely to have a calm temperament, a longer-term outlook, do more research, trade less and remain steady under pressure, says Lofton. And what does Buffett think about the claim? "I plead guilty," he said.
    [...]
    Men tend to be more overconfident than women. They think they know more than they do. It can lead them to trade too much, take too much risk and invest in companies they don’t understand. Women will say they don’t know as much. They’re not as confident and tend to be more risk-averse. It sounds like a bad thing, but it can work in your favor. You’re going to do more research and take it more seriously.
     

    - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/06/27/warren-buffett-invests-like-a-girl/#3d9bc12e6845

    Conclusion: Baby-faced (low testosterone), tall guys are the most intelligent people on the planet.

    Warren Buffett fits that bill, in my opinion. He is not extremely tall (5’10”), but not short either, and he has quite a baby face going for himself.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1803147

    I actually believe you might be suffering from “Imposter syndrome” [ Some studies suggest that impostor syndrome is particularly common among high-achieving women.] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1815864

    Where Are the Women in Finance?


    Men also trade more frequently, according to this study from the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley, and as we all know excessive trading racks up fees that eat away at returns. Another study by a former Goldman Sachs trader reached a similar conclusion and found that “higher levels of testosterone led to more frequent trading and an increased risk of losses.”

    There are some encouraging signs: According to recent data, women now hold 20 percent of the board seats at the largest companies, up from 15 percent a decade ago.
     

    - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-02-24/why-don-t-more-women-hold-top-jobs-in-finance

    I am convinced, that if more women start to work in the financial sector, that we will see fewer stock market crashes, financial crises, etc.

    Corporate psychopath theory of the global financial crisis


    For example, during the financial crisis, the behaviour of some key people at the top of the world's largest banks came under scrutiny. At the time of its collapse in 2008 the Royal Bank of Scotland was the world's fifth largest bank by market capitalisation. CEO Fred "the shred" Goodwin was known for taking excessive risks and showing little concern for his mismanagement, which led to the banks collapse. Goodwin's demeanour toward colleagues was unpredictable and he is said to have lived a luxury lifestyle while fostering a culture of fear, such that "colleagues suspected he was a psychopath."[32]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace#Corporate_psychopath_theory_of_the_global_financial_crisis

    Fuld was nicknamed the “Gorilla” on Wall Street for his competitiveness.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1732997

    Don’t be fuld! - http://www.unz.com/isteve/obama-finally-de-blackballed-by-jewish-country-club/#comment-1738159

    Dick Fuld rip out your heart

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmWkQuyPc

    From molecule to market: steroid hormones and financial risk-taking
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2827458/ Coates et al. (2010)

    The research, moreover, carries intriguing policy implications: if hormones affect risk-taking, then perhaps financial markets can be made more stable by having a greater endocrine diversity in the financial industry. How do we achieve endocrine diversity? Hormone levels change over the course of our lives, with testosterone and oestrogen declining, and cortisol increasing; so young and old have markedly different endocrine profiles. The sexes as well have very different endocrine systems. Market stability is served by opinion diversity; so it may be served as well by having more balance in the banks between young and old, men and women. One does not need to argue that one group is better than others for this policy to work; merely different (Dreher et al. 2007). However, there are grounds for thinking that women may be less ‘hormonally reactive’ when it comes to financial risk-taking. For example, women have only 5–10% of the circulating levels of testosterone of men, and they have not been exposed to the same organizing effects of pre-natal androgens. Furthermore, some studies have found that women’s HPA axes are less reactive to stressors stemming from a competitive situation (Stroud et al. 2002). Their greater presence in the ranks of money managers may therefore help dampen hormonal swings in the market.

    Read More
  42. @res
    Thanks for the info. From the abstract:

    There was a high degree of concordance across tests and no sex difference was observed in overall estimates of general intellectual ability (GIA) on the WJ III.
     
    Is this study subject to possibly normalizing away real sex differences? (I thought that was discussed in the links from this article, but can't find the reference now)

    Yes I would think so. Most IQ tests are “normed” so sex differences balance each other out in the general index (or items showing large differences are simply omitted). I don’t know why it should be different for the Woodcock-Johnson

    That said the one study I know measuring the underlying g factor on the Woodcock Johnson actually found a small female advantage.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660770_Sex_differences_in_latent_cognitive_abilities_ages_6_to_59_Evidence_from_the_Woodcock-Johnson_III_tests_of_cognitive_abilities

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    Should maybe add here that g factor is highly similar across batteries which is why I consider it a better metric to compare the sexes on

    http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Just-one-g-Consistent-results-from-three-test-batteries.pdf

    Otherwise you could easily create IQ tests favoring either sex (using items on which either men or women perform better in) and there wouldn't be an easy way to know which is "the best one"
  43. @Commenting
    Yes I would think so. Most IQ tests are "normed" so sex differences balance each other out in the general index (or items showing large differences are simply omitted). I don't know why it should be different for the Woodcock-Johnson

    That said the one study I know measuring the underlying g factor on the Woodcock Johnson actually found a small female advantage.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660770_Sex_differences_in_latent_cognitive_abilities_ages_6_to_59_Evidence_from_the_Woodcock-Johnson_III_tests_of_cognitive_abilities

    Should maybe add here that g factor is highly similar across batteries which is why I consider it a better metric to compare the sexes on

    http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Just-one-g-Consistent-results-from-three-test-batteries.pdf

    Otherwise you could easily create IQ tests favoring either sex (using items on which either men or women perform better in) and there wouldn’t be an easy way to know which is “the best one”

    Read More
  44. @Commenting
    Forgivc me if I'm missing something here. It's rather late so that may well be the case. Lynn and Irwing don't seem to get into the matter of subject choice or item sampling. They note that a 0.5SD difference is replicable although from what I have seen it also seems to vary by test.

    The paper I mentioned was posted in the comment section of your article although my description of it wasn't the best. It's this one

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305005874_The_influence_of_item_sampling_on_sex_differences_in_knowledge_tests

    This is my current understanding of the situation.
    The picture seems to be that men have wider general knowledge. In the widest ranging tests of general knowledge, they do well. That is why they win general knowledge tests. One could check this by making sure that the test items are extremely “general”.
    Now, within their broad range of interests men have some subjects on which they do less well. If you sample selectively within those subjects you can manipulate the outcome.
    Bottom line: general knowledge quizzes must be general in the broad sense of that word.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    That does make sense and also explains discrepancies between different tests. The paper I posted seems to insist on specific item sampling issues rather than male bias due to subjects but I think I will have to read it again before talking more about it
  45. The interesting question isn’t really overall brain size, but the relative size of different brain areas. Women are supposed to have a larger hippocampus, which gives them an advantage in some memory tasks. Men have larger parietal lobes which gives them an advantage in spatial intelligence. That leaves the frontal lobes – are the frontal lobes bigger in men, and if so does that give them an IQ advantage? So far, the evidence isn’t very clear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Interesting. I hope you get an informed response. May I draw your attention to #103 and #105 if you have a few minutes.
  46. A highly researched book on sex differences in intelligence “Smart and Sexy” by roderick kaine also elaborates on this finding which is available from an array of different studies. Broadly speaking there is, like you show, a small difference in the average that seems to be somewhere between 3-6 IQ points in favor of men. In addition men have a larger variance than women, which arguably is much more important in determining who counts among the highest achievers. The book makes a persuasive claim that this pattern is a result of intelligence being substantially X linked. Here is a review and summary of the book:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/11/why-most-high-achievers-are-men/

    An interview with the author:

    https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/smart-and-sexy-biological-differences-between-men-and-women

    Read More
  47. @Graunt, the Vaunt
    Yes, but there are no standardized tests to measure successful manipulating of others,
    self interested duplicity, and those other areas women tend to excel at.
    Since the invention of the Uzi and other light weapons, women should be half of a country's
    military force. But somehow they were smart enough to get out of that one.

    Graunt, the Vaunt

    Here is an article on the extreme male theory of Autism, which suggests that testosterone mediates how much a brain develops to handle systems as opposed to other people, and too much leads to autism. There is apparently some sort of trade off in being better at Machiavellian reasoning vs. systemizing reasoning and it probably has to do with testosterone in the womb. Normal male development is away from Machiavellian and towards systemizing.

    https://altright.com/2016/12/22/autism-and-the-extreme-male-brain/

    Read More
  48. … but what about the colour/gender elephant in the room … it is off limits in Claremont but surely not everywhere …

    Read More
  49. I think that women on average are as smart as or smarter than men. They are only held back by the white male patriarchy. (Men of color are of course at least as intelligent as white women. Only racist sexists will want to break down people of color according to gender, which is a social construct anyway. We know since at least Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel that People of Color are smarter than dumb whites anyway.)

    This biased study also confirms that sexism is rampant in science. This is no way to accommodate women or people of color in science, so I propose that these scientists get sacked from whatever jobs they have. They should also engage in self-criticism sessions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Gosh, I'm surprised that you're not president of Harvard yet.s
  50. @res
    Thanks for the info. From the abstract:

    There was a high degree of concordance across tests and no sex difference was observed in overall estimates of general intellectual ability (GIA) on the WJ III.
     
    Is this study subject to possibly normalizing away real sex differences? (I thought that was discussed in the links from this article, but can't find the reference now)

    My reply seems to have got stuck somehow so I’m posting this again.

    Most IQ tests are normed to show no sex differences either by balancing items showing advantage for either sex against each other or by omitting those showing larger differences all together. I would imagine the Woodcock-Johnson is no different here.

    That said the only latent variable study performed on it showed a small female advantage in g interestingly. In general the g factor extracted from one battery is highly similar to that of another so I don’t think the result can be attributed to test composition

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660770_Sex_differences_in_latent_cognitive_abilities_ages_6_to_59_Evidence_from_the_Woodcock-Johnson_III_tests_of_cognitive_abilities

    Read More
  51. @James Thompson
    This is my current understanding of the situation.
    The picture seems to be that men have wider general knowledge. In the widest ranging tests of general knowledge, they do well. That is why they win general knowledge tests. One could check this by making sure that the test items are extremely "general".
    Now, within their broad range of interests men have some subjects on which they do less well. If you sample selectively within those subjects you can manipulate the outcome.
    Bottom line: general knowledge quizzes must be general in the broad sense of that word.

    That does make sense and also explains discrepancies between different tests. The paper I posted seems to insist on specific item sampling issues rather than male bias due to subjects but I think I will have to read it again before talking more about it

    Read More
  52. @Thales the Milesian
    Imagine a female Michelangelo, Einstein or Beethoven!!!

    ALMOST men are not geniuses, even, most regular men are subconsciously and viciously anti-genius.

    Read More
  53. A Tale of Two Brains

    In this entertaining film, marriage expert Mark Gungor explores the differences between men and women.

    Read More
  54. I’m not going to disagree with the results of this study – I am not familiar with it. But one thing to keep in mind:

    Certainly between different species of animals, larger brains generally means more intelligent (although primates have a neural ‘hack’ that gives them an even greater edge). However, within a species, the link is trickier.

    For example, there is a well defined area in the back of your brain called “primary visual cortex.” It’s pretty big, on average the size of a credit card (if unfolded) in each cerebral hemisphere. In otherwise normal subjects with no pathology, the relative size of this primary visual area varies by 2.5 to 1. And yet researchers have been trying for some time to see if people with bigger primary visual cortices have better visual abilities, and mostly failing.

    Consider also that any given female with an IQ of 120 almost certainly has a smaller brain than a standard male with an IQ of 80, even accounting for body size.

    So sure, statistically men may have an edge in many areas, and strict proportional affirmative action may well be a bad idea, but person by person brain size is not destiny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Consider also that any given female with an IQ of 120 almost certainly has a smaller brain than a standard male with an IQ of 80, even accounting for body size.
     
    This is a testable hypothesis. Do any of the studies mentioned here contain data which can test it?
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Certainly between different species of animals, larger brains generally means more intelligent (although primates have a neural ‘hack’ that gives them an even greater edge). However, within a species, the link is trickier."

    Wrong. You're right that primates have the highest neuronal packing density (NPD) which is why we have the most cortical neurons of all mammalian species (and which explains our outstanding intelligence in comparison to other animals).

    In non-primates, total brain size predicts cognition better than EQ.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6321027_Overall_Brain_Size_and_Not_Encephalization_Quotient_Best_Predicts_Cognitive_Ability_across_Non-Human_Primates

    Along the same lines, we have recently suggested that the human brain is an isometrically enlarged version of a common primate plan (Herculano-Houzel et al., 2007). This finding raises the possibility that the human species derives its cognitive advantages over other primates from a very large number of excess brain neurons, rather than from being highly encephalized. This possibility is currently under investigation.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20598/full

    Total neuronal count in the brain explains between species variation better than Jerison's EQ. See also my article on brain size increasing for expertise capacity, not IQ.
  55. When my I.Q. was low, I argued that
    I.Q. didn’t matter. When it got high, I argued that it did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    This sounds like the usual mode of operation for most commentators.
    , @res
    Funny how that works. That idea extends to many other traits as well in my experience.
  56. Because women has been dominated by men so they have been selected to be tamed, more than men, and more tamed also mean ”not bigger brains”.

    And less tamed women maybe tend to be less prone to like maternity.

    In the same way long-term slaves can/may be selected to be obedient/more tamed to their ”owners”.

    What is wrong is to think that it’s just the intrinsic nature of feminility everywhere. Maybe ”we” can over select women with higher visual spatial skills, over select men with higher episod memory as well over-des-select men with higher visual skills and women with higher episod memory and see what would happened.

    Looking for that perspective, the idea that no there universally intrinsic differences between man and woman brain don’t appear to be so absurd, even because this current differences are product of hundred, thousand of culture co-evolution overall common patterns: men [hunters], women [gatherers].

    Read More
  57. @Useyourhead
    I'm not denying the science behind it, but even if IQ were granted to be 100% genetic (Which it almost certainly isn't), any comments about the IQs of women vs. men or black vs. white etc. cannot be logically extrapolated to say anything about the individual.

    If only that point could be easily ascertained by the greater population, none of this science would be controversial. By looking at a woman, you have no rational way of determining where she falls on the IQ spectrum in relation to all women, so even with the knowledge that women's IQs are generally a few points less than men, you can't say anything with surety about an individual woman's IQ.

    The implication of these studies should be that we should treat each person as an individual, not as a member of a collective group. Knowing the colour of my skin or my gender tells you nothing about me, simply because of the great variance that exists within populations. Only by admitting we are not born equal and we are not the same, can a true meritocracy be established where each person is treated as an individual. Studies like this should relegate identity politics and any sort of Marxist ideal into the tumble-drier of nonsense where it belongs.

    Unfortunately as we have seen with Charles Murray and others, the opposite has been, and will likely continue to be true.

    The implication of these studies should be that we should treat each person as an individual, not as a member of a collective group. Knowing the colour of my skin or my gender tells you nothing about me, simply because of the great variance that exists within populations.

    This is absolutely correct. But if these results are valid – although they should not change how we view individuals whom we meet, they ought to change how we view perceived discrepancies in group achievement.

    As Dr. Thompson writes:

    ….a small difference in means has larger consequences at the extremes. If one assumes a 4 point difference straddling the mean, then women will be 98 to men’s 102. Keeping the standard deviations to 15 for both sexes, and setting the cutoff point at IQ 130 then 3.1% of men and 1.6% of women pass the threshold, meaning 65% of the brightest people will be men.

    Since this sample showed no sex difference in standard deviations (to the author’s and my surprise) that is as far as I will go with the calculations. However, even without putting in the usually found smaller standard deviation for women, the implication is clear: 65% of intellectually demanding occupations will be taken by men, if entry to those occupations is based only on mental ability. If the bar is set higher at IQ 145, then 70.5% of such posts will be taken by men.

    This means that a preponderance of men in high positions in intellectually demanding fields might simply reflect natural ability, and not discrimination or bias.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Useyourhead
    Absolutely in agreement there. I probably didn't expand as much as I should have. Studies like these should act as the antidote to social justice issues. Men in tech (insert any intellectual pursuit) should not be taken as discrimination, but simply a tilted board due to genetic talent and genetic interest.

    In other words the implication of these studies should not be that we hire less women. It should be that we judge each applicant as an individual, and then stop wondering about why there are less women in certain professions on a grand scale.

  58. @Joe Hide
    When my I.Q. was low, I argued that
    I.Q. didn't matter. When it got high, I argued that it did.

    This sounds like the usual mode of operation for most commentators.

    Read More
  59. @TG
    I'm not going to disagree with the results of this study - I am not familiar with it. But one thing to keep in mind:

    Certainly between different species of animals, larger brains generally means more intelligent (although primates have a neural 'hack' that gives them an even greater edge). However, within a species, the link is trickier.

    For example, there is a well defined area in the back of your brain called "primary visual cortex." It's pretty big, on average the size of a credit card (if unfolded) in each cerebral hemisphere. In otherwise normal subjects with no pathology, the relative size of this primary visual area varies by 2.5 to 1. And yet researchers have been trying for some time to see if people with bigger primary visual cortices have better visual abilities, and mostly failing.

    Consider also that any given female with an IQ of 120 almost certainly has a smaller brain than a standard male with an IQ of 80, even accounting for body size.

    So sure, statistically men may have an edge in many areas, and strict proportional affirmative action may well be a bad idea, but person by person brain size is not destiny.

    Consider also that any given female with an IQ of 120 almost certainly has a smaller brain than a standard male with an IQ of 80, even accounting for body size.

    This is a testable hypothesis. Do any of the studies mentioned here contain data which can test it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Yes, you can rank by IQ and then compare brain sizes by sex. Done on g scores in the paper under discussion.
  60. @Joe Hide
    When my I.Q. was low, I argued that
    I.Q. didn't matter. When it got high, I argued that it did.

    Funny how that works. That idea extends to many other traits as well in my experience.

    Read More
  61. Hsve I missed something? I can’t see in this thread any reference to one obvious commonsense test.

    Assuming the factual accuracy and validity of what can be calculated from the study’s small (unless somehow perfectly representative) sample what would one predict the difference between men’s and women’s SAT scores would be? And do they match the prediction?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    Rushton found a male advantage of about 3.6 IQ points (in g) on a 1991 validity sample of the SAT.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000250

    However Hunt argues that since more men than women take the SAT the gap found by Rushton is very much to be expected assuming there are no sex differences in the general population. He provides a mathematical model to prove this

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000251

    People in this study are older though and Lynn would argue that male advantage is larger in adulthood. So we will see.
  62. @res

    Consider also that any given female with an IQ of 120 almost certainly has a smaller brain than a standard male with an IQ of 80, even accounting for body size.
     
    This is a testable hypothesis. Do any of the studies mentioned here contain data which can test it?

    Yes, you can rank by IQ and then compare brain sizes by sex. Done on g scores in the paper under discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks. I skimmed the paper and don't see a way to address TG's assertion directly. Although there is lots of suggestive data and analysis I don't have a good enough sense of the effect sizes to evaluate that assertion (e.g. how would the likely difference in brain size for a 40 IQ point difference, just less than 3 SD, compare to a .75 SD brain size difference between sexes?).

    Here are some quotes I find suggestive:

    After correcting for body size, the brain volume of males was approximately .75 of a standard deviation larger than that of females
    ...
    eventually lead to a sex difference in g estimated to abound one third of a standard deviation, which translates to 3 to 5 IQ points
    ...
    Consistent with this idea, several studies indicate that sex differences in g are related to sex differences in brain size in adults (Ankney, 1992; Lynn, 1994).

     

    The kinds of things I have an mind to test the hypothesis would be:
    1. Specific examples (e.g. Boxplots) of all the brain sizes (corrected for body size?) in a given IQ bin by sex. This would provide counterexamples to argue against "almost certainly" if they exist.
    2. A scatterplot of IQ vs. corrected brain size with sex indicated by different colors/symbols and separate regression lines (and/or splines) for each sex.
    (I use this kind of scatterplot frequently to look at sex differences in my analyses of medical data. John Fox's car R package scatterplot function does a nice job of doing this with little effort. The separation and slopes of the regression lines give a good overview of how the differences in the y variable with respect to sex and x axis variable differences compare in size.)

    Would someone who has access to the data be willing to do something like this?

    One other thing that struck me was:

    First, in line with previous studies, we extracted the first unrotated factor (using principal axis factoring) from the entire set of cognitive measures. This factor had an Eigenvalue of 3.01 and explained a total of 33.40% of the variance (25.72% when considering the shared variance only).
     
    That seems like a surprisingly low % variance explained for g. Can anyone explain the parenthetical comment to me (I would have expected restricting the variance looked at to increase the % variance explained by g, so I must be misreading)?

    Any thoughts on the low % variance explained by g here?
  63. Yeah, this confirms why I get to be Tech Support and do all the difficult shizzle around the house.

    But let’s face it guys: We might have the IQ, but our women tend to beat us hands down on EQ (notwithstanding moods), which is likely another reason nature steers most of us to cross-gender pair-bonding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    True. Also don't neglect the value of differing perspectives. Some amount/sorts of diversity is good for decision making. Provided the differences aren't so large that agreement becomes difficult (no shortage of examples of that in 21st century USA).
  64. Jim, watch your “six o’clock”. I knew there was a “Hasbara” in place to attack what were perceived as anti-Zionist posts in the Unz Review, but I had no idea that there was a similar crowd poised to protect the visage that gender was a personal choice … and that there are no differences between men and women.

    I roam the Unz Review a couple of hours a day. I know I should have better things to do with my time. However, I become very familiar with the “handles” of the regulars. Why is it that “handles” show up for what can be perceived as anti-Zionist and now anti-feminist posts? Is there organized warning systems out in the ether?

    The best thing about reality is … reality “bites”. Believe what one wants to justify a counter-factual, utopian, emotional-based reality and it goes for naught. Reality wins every time.

    Read More
  65. Thing is: Was this study made with incredibly homogenous samples? Like, with an island population who lived there for 1000 of years?
    If not, the findings could be compromised. Just imagine if there’s a racial unbalance between the groups?
    If there’s more Asian men and African women, the difference will be artificially increased, and if the opposite holds true, the difference will be decreased.
    But even then, the study would have problems: Who were those Asians? Chinese Han? Thai? Philippines? They all possess huge difference among themselves too. And who were those Africans? Pure, mixed? From where? Who were the Whites? Anglo-Saxons or Slavs?

    You see, this study needs complete and total racial consistency across the board. I recommend doing it again in some place, say, the Orkney Island.

    Read More
  66. @Wizard of Oz
    Hsve I missed something? I can't see in this thread any reference to one obvious commonsense test.

    Assuming the factual accuracy and validity of what can be calculated from the study's small (unless somehow perfectly representative) sample what would one predict the difference between men's and women's SAT scores would be? And do they match the prediction?

    Rushton found a male advantage of about 3.6 IQ points (in g) on a 1991 validity sample of the SAT.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000250

    However Hunt argues that since more men than women take the SAT the gap found by Rushton is very much to be expected assuming there are no sex differences in the general population. He provides a mathematical model to prove this

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000251

    People in this study are older though and Lynn would argue that male advantage is larger in adulthood. So we will see.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    However Hunt argues that since more men than women take the SAT the gap found by Rushton is very much to be expected assuming there are no sex differences in the general population.
     
    But should this be the case in a validity sample? In fact, if you look at Rushton's abstract his sample had more females than males.
  67. @Svigor
    Santoculto, I usually can't understand WTF you're talking about, so eventually I gave up trying. But the idea that taking IQ seriously is the same as IQ fetishism is nonsense. I do the former, but not the latter.

    remembering male transgressions.
     
    It's always amazing to me, the way females punch way above their weight class in this regard. They're like Jews, they seem to store slights away for later use. I have learned to do the same to them.

    As for your calculations of how the tails shake out, let's keep in mind that behavioral differences matter, too. Women are more risk-averse, more conformist, less aggressive, etc.

    He has excellent verbal abstraction skills, don’t you know? If only if it could also be translated into verbal communication skills.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    But the best part is the humility with which he renders his assertions of excellence. Lest anyone think I am picking on Santoculto excessively for two isolated comments, this has come up before. I can chase down an earlier example if anyone insists.

    P.S. I consider it a victory if someone asks me to back up what I say (in a hostile fashion, friendly requests are welcome) and I do so. Please don't ask me unless you are prepared to deal with that.

    P.P.S. To save time, here is the example I had in mind. In particular note the multiple specific references (especially the humble one) in the second paragraph and the overall theme of the last paragraph: http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1740152
    , @Santoculto
    A yellow man shaking its hands with typical white nationalist. God bless globalization.

    People who can learn my English can tell for themselves why I'm right about my humble self statement.
  68. @The Alarmist
    Yeah, this confirms why I get to be Tech Support and do all the difficult shizzle around the house.

    But let's face it guys: We might have the IQ, but our women tend to beat us hands down on EQ (notwithstanding moods), which is likely another reason nature steers most of us to cross-gender pair-bonding.

    True. Also don’t neglect the value of differing perspectives. Some amount/sorts of diversity is good for decision making. Provided the differences aren’t so large that agreement becomes difficult (no shortage of examples of that in 21st century USA).

    Read More
  69. What is g in male-female studies? Apparently it is what Jensen decided to be. The following is from H. Cyborg, Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status, Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005)

    factor analysis gives inconsistent results: Females outscore males in some studies, males do better in other studies, and the remaining studies show no sex difference in g.

    Pretty much what you would expect when dealing with something was so ill defined, right? But obviously Jensen knew better

    The reason for this inconsistency is methodological: g factor scores can be contaminated to some extent by group factors and test specificity

    If you believe that ghosts exist all studies giving negative results must have been contaminated, right? This is pretty much the level of thinking of Jensen and the rest of g-mongers and IQ-quists.

    So, lo and behold and voila!

    the female g lead disappeared after Jensen eliminated the unusually large number of test items favouring females in the General Aptitude Test Battery, and repeated the factor analysis. In other words, the female g superiority was an artefact due to test bias that favoured females.

    What a pathetic bunch!

    Read More
  70. @James Thompson
    Yes, you can rank by IQ and then compare brain sizes by sex. Done on g scores in the paper under discussion.

    Thanks. I skimmed the paper and don’t see a way to address TG’s assertion directly. Although there is lots of suggestive data and analysis I don’t have a good enough sense of the effect sizes to evaluate that assertion (e.g. how would the likely difference in brain size for a 40 IQ point difference, just less than 3 SD, compare to a .75 SD brain size difference between sexes?).

    Here are some quotes I find suggestive:

    After correcting for body size, the brain volume of males was approximately .75 of a standard deviation larger than that of females

    eventually lead to a sex difference in g estimated to abound one third of a standard deviation, which translates to 3 to 5 IQ points

    Consistent with this idea, several studies indicate that sex differences in g are related to sex differences in brain size in adults (Ankney, 1992; Lynn, 1994).

    The kinds of things I have an mind to test the hypothesis would be:
    1. Specific examples (e.g. Boxplots) of all the brain sizes (corrected for body size?) in a given IQ bin by sex. This would provide counterexamples to argue against “almost certainly” if they exist.
    2. A scatterplot of IQ vs. corrected brain size with sex indicated by different colors/symbols and separate regression lines (and/or splines) for each sex.
    (I use this kind of scatterplot frequently to look at sex differences in my analyses of medical data. John Fox’s car R package scatterplot function does a nice job of doing this with little effort. The separation and slopes of the regression lines give a good overview of how the differences in the y variable with respect to sex and x axis variable differences compare in size.)

    Would someone who has access to the data be willing to do something like this?

    One other thing that struck me was:

    First, in line with previous studies, we extracted the first unrotated factor (using principal axis factoring) from the entire set of cognitive measures. This factor had an Eigenvalue of 3.01 and explained a total of 33.40% of the variance (25.72% when considering the shared variance only).

    That seems like a surprisingly low % variance explained for g. Can anyone explain the parenthetical comment to me (I would have expected restricting the variance looked at to increase the % variance explained by g, so I must be misreading)?

    Any thoughts on the low % variance explained by g here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Happy to raise these issues with the authors, but best if you write to them with your suggestions. Depending on the methods used, g usually accounts for 30-50% of the variance.
    Here is a slightly out of date summary, too brief for your needs, but general background:
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-in-2000-words
    Probably more to your taste:
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-wechsler-factor-factory
  71. Is IQ still legal? Are our commisars sleeping on the job?

    Can an argument be true if a woman fails to understand it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester

    Can an argument be true if a woman fails to understand it?
     
    It is deeper than that. If a woman feels something is true, it must be true ... because, otherwise, why would she feel so strongly about it?

    Datapoints: Living among women for 70 years ... and being happily married for 49 of those years.
  72. @Daniel Chieh
    He has excellent verbal abstraction skills, don't you know? If only if it could also be translated into verbal communication skills.

    But the best part is the humility with which he renders his assertions of excellence. Lest anyone think I am picking on Santoculto excessively for two isolated comments, this has come up before. I can chase down an earlier example if anyone insists.

    P.S. I consider it a victory if someone asks me to back up what I say (in a hostile fashion, friendly requests are welcome) and I do so. Please don’t ask me unless you are prepared to deal with that.

    P.P.S. To save time, here is the example I had in mind. In particular note the multiple specific references (especially the humble one) in the second paragraph and the overall theme of the last paragraph: http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1740152

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Yea. You consider a victory what you still don't answer, my subsequent comment... ??
    I consider it as a "escape from inescapable victory", my victory over you.

    I already answer

    Lower intellectual self esteem IS NOT humility. Do you answer my/this comment?? I don't think, oh, RES, the honest.

    , @Santoculto
    RES, the honest, seems have a interesting strategic pattern. When he know it can't refute me he give up. I still expecting your refutation of my comment, "intellectual humility is not intellectual lower self esteem"...
  73. @Commenting
    Rushton found a male advantage of about 3.6 IQ points (in g) on a 1991 validity sample of the SAT.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000250

    However Hunt argues that since more men than women take the SAT the gap found by Rushton is very much to be expected assuming there are no sex differences in the general population. He provides a mathematical model to prove this

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000251

    People in this study are older though and Lynn would argue that male advantage is larger in adulthood. So we will see.

    However Hunt argues that since more men than women take the SAT the gap found by Rushton is very much to be expected assuming there are no sex differences in the general population.

    But should this be the case in a validity sample? In fact, if you look at Rushton’s abstract his sample had more females than males.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    My mistake. It's obviously because more women than men take the SAT. Otherwise one would expect women to score higher given no difference in the general population.

    Pit the top 55% of women against the top 45% of men and you will have higher average scores for men. Can easily be verified comparing with NAEP 12th grade data (difference is 0.1SD and - 0.2SD for math and reading respectively instead of 0.3SD and 0 in the SAT) although that lacks a reliable g estimate
  74. @Daniel Chieh
    He has excellent verbal abstraction skills, don't you know? If only if it could also be translated into verbal communication skills.

    A yellow man shaking its hands with typical white nationalist. God bless globalization.

    People who can learn my English can tell for themselves why I’m right about my humble self statement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    A yellow man shaking its hands with typical white nationalist. God bless globalization.
     
    One of the things I like best about the Unz Review commentariat is the diversity of backgrounds, beliefs, and ideas. Along with our ability despite that to converse in reasonably civil fashion and gain a greater understanding of each other's viewpoints. Not to mention the ability to reach points of agreement between some superficially strange bedfellows. For those who laugh at my invocation of diversity (as I kind of do) in this context, I would contend there is more actual diversity of thought here than in the mainstream and no shortage of places to go to get that kind of diversity and point of view any time I want.
  75. @res
    But the best part is the humility with which he renders his assertions of excellence. Lest anyone think I am picking on Santoculto excessively for two isolated comments, this has come up before. I can chase down an earlier example if anyone insists.

    P.S. I consider it a victory if someone asks me to back up what I say (in a hostile fashion, friendly requests are welcome) and I do so. Please don't ask me unless you are prepared to deal with that.

    P.P.S. To save time, here is the example I had in mind. In particular note the multiple specific references (especially the humble one) in the second paragraph and the overall theme of the last paragraph: http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1740152

    Yea. You consider a victory what you still don’t answer, my subsequent comment… ??
    I consider it as a “escape from inescapable victory”, my victory over you.

    I already answer

    Lower intellectual self esteem IS NOT humility. Do you answer my/this comment?? I don’t think, oh, RES, the honest.

    Read More
  76. @res
    But the best part is the humility with which he renders his assertions of excellence. Lest anyone think I am picking on Santoculto excessively for two isolated comments, this has come up before. I can chase down an earlier example if anyone insists.

    P.S. I consider it a victory if someone asks me to back up what I say (in a hostile fashion, friendly requests are welcome) and I do so. Please don't ask me unless you are prepared to deal with that.

    P.P.S. To save time, here is the example I had in mind. In particular note the multiple specific references (especially the humble one) in the second paragraph and the overall theme of the last paragraph: http://www.unz.com/freed/iq-a-skeptics-view/#comment-1740152

    RES, the honest, seems have a interesting strategic pattern. When he know it can’t refute me he give up. I still expecting your refutation of my comment, “intellectual humility is not intellectual lower self esteem”…

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    RES, the honest
     
    I'm just asking you to either:
    1. Stop calling me intellectually dishonest.
    OR
    2. Back it up with evidence.

    You are the one who seems obsessed with dishonesty. I tend to assume people are honest until they prove otherwise (this gets me in trouble sometimes, the perils of growing up in a high trust society which is quickly becoming lower trust).

    When he know it can’t refute me he give up.
     
    No. I have learned through bitter experience that refuting you is a waste of time. I have expended thousands of words doing so (literally, for a start see my link above) with little to no acknowledgment that anything I have said is either valid or useful (contrast that with I try to say complimentary things when I think Santoculto makes a good point, I just find it difficult to find examples of that).

    Basically I choose not to respond (aka give up) when I realize a given conversation has reached the point of uselessness (admittedly sometimes I am slow to recognize this). I also often choose not to respond to comments I do not find understandable--which is distressingly frequent.

    I still expecting your refutation of my comment, “intellectual humility is not intellectual lower self esteem”
     
    I don't refute that because I agree with it. They are different, but correlations exist. Perhaps it would help if I give the definition of arrogance I internalized at a very competitive college (arrogance was a frequent topic of conversation there).

    It's not arrogance if you can back it up.

    I know I have an ego (as you say, self esteem). The thing I find demoralizing is how frequently people find simple demonstrations of competence to be threatening, bragging, or arrogant.

    Santoculto, if you would spend more time demonstrating your excellence and humility and less time asserting them we would get along much better.

    P.S. To anyone who hasn't realized this yet, Santoculto's comments are much more fun if you read them with the assumption he is guilty of everything he accuses other people of. Projection is real...
  77. @res

    However Hunt argues that since more men than women take the SAT the gap found by Rushton is very much to be expected assuming there are no sex differences in the general population.
     
    But should this be the case in a validity sample? In fact, if you look at Rushton's abstract his sample had more females than males.

    My mistake. It’s obviously because more women than men take the SAT. Otherwise one would expect women to score higher given no difference in the general population.

    Pit the top 55% of women against the top 45% of men and you will have higher average scores for men. Can easily be verified comparing with NAEP 12th grade data (difference is 0.1SD and – 0.2SD for math and reading respectively instead of 0.3SD and 0 in the SAT) although that lacks a reliable g estimate

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Can you offer any opinion on Hunt's explanation? I get the basic idea, but so many of the "denial of group differences" arguments are mostly obfuscatory squid ink that I lose my motivation for striving for a detailed understanding.
  78. @Commenting
    My mistake. It's obviously because more women than men take the SAT. Otherwise one would expect women to score higher given no difference in the general population.

    Pit the top 55% of women against the top 45% of men and you will have higher average scores for men. Can easily be verified comparing with NAEP 12th grade data (difference is 0.1SD and - 0.2SD for math and reading respectively instead of 0.3SD and 0 in the SAT) although that lacks a reliable g estimate

    That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Can you offer any opinion on Hunt’s explanation? I get the basic idea, but so many of the “denial of group differences” arguments are mostly obfuscatory squid ink that I lose my motivation for striving for a detailed understanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    I agree with him in this case. The possibility that recruitment effects are distorting their results is already acknowledged by Rushton and Jackson and Hunt just further verifies it.

    Hunt also isn't a 100% environmentalist like Nisbett and has far as I know never done anything embarassing like attempting to disprove brain size/IQ correlation with an n = 36 study.
  79. @Santoculto
    A yellow man shaking its hands with typical white nationalist. God bless globalization.

    People who can learn my English can tell for themselves why I'm right about my humble self statement.

    A yellow man shaking its hands with typical white nationalist. God bless globalization.

    One of the things I like best about the Unz Review commentariat is the diversity of backgrounds, beliefs, and ideas. Along with our ability despite that to converse in reasonably civil fashion and gain a greater understanding of each other’s viewpoints. Not to mention the ability to reach points of agreement between some superficially strange bedfellows. For those who laugh at my invocation of diversity (as I kind of do) in this context, I would contend there is more actual diversity of thought here than in the mainstream and no shortage of places to go to get that kind of diversity and point of view any time I want.

    Read More
  80. The main thing to note about the data presented would seem to be the triviality of the correlations. For example, among partial correlations of brain characteristics with the g factor (whatever that may be), the highest r value is 0.305 meaning that, within the population of males examined, variation in gray matter volume accounted for just 9.3% (r-squared) of the variation in g.

    For the overall sample, variation in brain size accounted for just 5.7% of the variation in g, a little less than the estimate of 7% cited by Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man — variation that Gould suggested could be largely explained by the influence of pathological microcephaly, meaning that among developmentally normal individuals the effect would probably disappear.

    But insofar as the effect is unrelated to the incidence of developmental defects, one might expect the relationship to be affected by nutritional factors, disease factors, and socio-economic factors. Such factors would probably rule out inter-group comparisons, including perhaps, comparisons between men and women.

    There are likely also educational or occupational factors since there is evidence of learning-related neurogenesis. Moreover, occupation must have an impact on brain:body mass ratio, e.g., in well-muscled professional athletes or manual workers versus computer geeks or professional models.

    Taking all these possibilities into consideration and taking account also of the remarkable case of the man with a math degree, a well above average IQ, but virtually no brain, it seems that the study of brain size is unlikely to explain very much about intelligence, let alone the genius of persons such as Carl Gauss or Albert Einstein, whose brains were found on autopsy to be of quite normal size.

    Concerning the results presented, one wonders how adjustment was made for body weight. What allometric coefficients were used? Was a different coefficient used for men than for women, and if not, were weights adjusted to a fat-free basis to take account of the fact that women, on average, carry more fat than men?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Wanted to note in regards to neurogenesis, though, that adult neurogenesis may be limited in the areas that it actually affect: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Adult_neurogenesis

    But basically, it primarily affects the hippocampus in a healthy brain, which seems sensible as a function of learning. But not necessarily to a great degree or even any to other parts of the brain.

    I used to study this a great deal as a pet cause, but it seems that ultimately neurogenesis - at least adult neurogenesis - has real but overall mild effects compared to the effect of hormones or even regular drug use that passes the blood-brain barrier.
  81. James Thompson writes, “The spatial male advantage shows up in the first year of life.”

    How were the relevant measurements made in that part of the first year of life that was pre-birth?

    Read More
  82. @Santoculto
    RES, the honest, seems have a interesting strategic pattern. When he know it can't refute me he give up. I still expecting your refutation of my comment, "intellectual humility is not intellectual lower self esteem"...

    RES, the honest

    I’m just asking you to either:
    1. Stop calling me intellectually dishonest.
    OR
    2. Back it up with evidence.

    You are the one who seems obsessed with dishonesty. I tend to assume people are honest until they prove otherwise (this gets me in trouble sometimes, the perils of growing up in a high trust society which is quickly becoming lower trust).

    When he know it can’t refute me he give up.

    No. I have learned through bitter experience that refuting you is a waste of time. I have expended thousands of words doing so (literally, for a start see my link above) with little to no acknowledgment that anything I have said is either valid or useful (contrast that with I try to say complimentary things when I think Santoculto makes a good point, I just find it difficult to find examples of that).

    Basically I choose not to respond (aka give up) when I realize a given conversation has reached the point of uselessness (admittedly sometimes I am slow to recognize this). I also often choose not to respond to comments I do not find understandable–which is distressingly frequent.

    I still expecting your refutation of my comment, “intellectual humility is not intellectual lower self esteem”

    I don’t refute that because I agree with it. They are different, but correlations exist. Perhaps it would help if I give the definition of arrogance I internalized at a very competitive college (arrogance was a frequent topic of conversation there).

    It’s not arrogance if you can back it up.

    I know I have an ego (as you say, self esteem). The thing I find demoralizing is how frequently people find simple demonstrations of competence to be threatening, bragging, or arrogant.

    Santoculto, if you would spend more time demonstrating your excellence and humility and less time asserting them we would get along much better.

    P.S. To anyone who hasn’t realized this yet, Santoculto’s comments are much more fun if you read them with the assumption he is guilty of everything he accuses other people of. Projection is real…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    I’m just asking you to either:
    1. Stop calling me intellectually dishonest.
    OR
    2. Back it up with evidence.
     
    I stop, now i'm calling you RES, the HONEST.

    Evidence required that in this sentence i call you a INTELECTUALLY DISHONEST person.


    You are the one who seems obsessed with dishonesty.
     
    OI*

    So dishonesty is not THAT problem in debates, stop to focus on intelectual honesty of debaters... is it*


    I tend to assume people are honest until they prove otherwise (this gets me in trouble sometimes, the perils of growing up in a high trust society which is quickly becoming lower trust).
     
    oooooh

    No. I have learned through bitter experience that refuting you is a waste of time. I have expended thousands of words doing so (literally, for a start see my link above) with little to no acknowledgment that anything I have said is either valid or useful (contrast that with I try to say complimentary things when I think Santoculto makes a good point, I just find it difficult to find examples of that).
     
    ''good point'' = agree with me regardless the levels of intelectual correctness.

    I don’t refute that because I agree with it. They are different, but correlations exist. Perhaps it would help if I give the definition of arrogance I internalized at a very competitive college (arrogance was a frequent topic of conversation there).
     
    so, i win again...

    you TRY to paint my ''face'' as arrogant AND fail... bcause i explain that self-lower esteem is not exactly the same to intelectual humility. And that, a very good manifestation of intelectual humility IS accept own [intelectual] mistakes or misunderstoods and try to improve it, i could estimate at least 60% of people are deficient in intelectual humility as autistics are to the theory of mind.


    Santoculto, if you would spend more time demonstrating your excellence and humility and less time asserting them we would get along much better.

     

    evidence that i'm not demonstrating at least humility [don't mistake with lower intelectual self esteem]... only one time i said what YOU and MOST if not ALL people believe about themselves...

    i don't know if it is humility or courage to say what most people cleverly hide or manipulate from others, you included.


    P.S. To anyone who hasn’t realized this yet, Santoculto’s comments are much more fun if you read them with the assumption he is guilty of everything he accuses other people of. Projection is real…
     
    And you are not dis-honest...

    So is it you think about me**

    finally...

    now i can call you

    RES, the HONEST.

    , @Santoculto
    Ah, i answer your comments on Fred post....
    , @Wizard of Oz
    With due modesty I invite your attention in a relaxed and idle moment to #101 and #103...
  83. @res
    That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Can you offer any opinion on Hunt's explanation? I get the basic idea, but so many of the "denial of group differences" arguments are mostly obfuscatory squid ink that I lose my motivation for striving for a detailed understanding.

    I agree with him in this case. The possibility that recruitment effects are distorting their results is already acknowledged by Rushton and Jackson and Hunt just further verifies it.

    Hunt also isn’t a 100% environmentalist like Nisbett and has far as I know never done anything embarassing like attempting to disprove brain size/IQ correlation with an n = 36 study.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks. I just downloaded and skimmed his paper. It looks like a serious effort with realistic quantitative estimates and detailed justification.

    A sample of the arguments:

    This leads to an expected sample mean score of 1.26 standard deviation units for men and 1.13 for women, a difference of .13 standard deviation units in favor of men. Jackson and Rushton report a value of .24. A straightforward acceptance of the left censored model implies that the difference between population means is about .11, less than half the difference reported by Jackson and Rushton, and just over 1.5 points in the normal IQ metric. However this is not the only source of bias in their data.
    ...
    When this correction is applied, the expected value of the difference between the SAT scores of men and women, assuming the left truncation model, is .27, slightly higher than the .24 that Jackson and Rushton observed. According to the left truncation model, Jackson and Rushton observed less of a difference in SAT scores than would be expected on the assumption
    that there is no difference in population means.
    We believe that the above argument is sufficient to lead to questions about both the Jackson and Rushton analysis, in particular, and, in general, the fairly common practice of extrapolating from observations in self-selected samples to observations in populations, without considering the possibility of recruitment effects. Such extrapolations are not validated by correcting for range restriction, for the issue is one of systematic bias, not restriction in variance.
     
    The models get more complicated from there, but that should provide an idea for others.

    P.S. Based on the references you have provided and your Hunt/Nisbett comparison I am guessing you are active in the intelligence research field (I am a layman, which is probably obvious). Thanks for commenting here. It's great to have as many people here as possible with a command of the literature.
    , @RaceRealist88
    Even assuming that the correlation between IQ and brain size is .5, that still leaves 75 percent of the variation to be explained. But the true correlation is what, .33? Then we still need to explain 89 percent of the variation in IQ. So robust...
  84. don’t forget, Man Thinks, Women Feel, and God Laughs.

    even when there is a smart woman, her emotions sabotage her thinking. Of course, there are a few outliers who can think as well as a man, about one per cent of females. Joe Webb

    Read More
  85. @res

    RES, the honest
     
    I'm just asking you to either:
    1. Stop calling me intellectually dishonest.
    OR
    2. Back it up with evidence.

    You are the one who seems obsessed with dishonesty. I tend to assume people are honest until they prove otherwise (this gets me in trouble sometimes, the perils of growing up in a high trust society which is quickly becoming lower trust).

    When he know it can’t refute me he give up.
     
    No. I have learned through bitter experience that refuting you is a waste of time. I have expended thousands of words doing so (literally, for a start see my link above) with little to no acknowledgment that anything I have said is either valid or useful (contrast that with I try to say complimentary things when I think Santoculto makes a good point, I just find it difficult to find examples of that).

    Basically I choose not to respond (aka give up) when I realize a given conversation has reached the point of uselessness (admittedly sometimes I am slow to recognize this). I also often choose not to respond to comments I do not find understandable--which is distressingly frequent.

    I still expecting your refutation of my comment, “intellectual humility is not intellectual lower self esteem”
     
    I don't refute that because I agree with it. They are different, but correlations exist. Perhaps it would help if I give the definition of arrogance I internalized at a very competitive college (arrogance was a frequent topic of conversation there).

    It's not arrogance if you can back it up.

    I know I have an ego (as you say, self esteem). The thing I find demoralizing is how frequently people find simple demonstrations of competence to be threatening, bragging, or arrogant.

    Santoculto, if you would spend more time demonstrating your excellence and humility and less time asserting them we would get along much better.

    P.S. To anyone who hasn't realized this yet, Santoculto's comments are much more fun if you read them with the assumption he is guilty of everything he accuses other people of. Projection is real...

    I’m just asking you to either:
    1. Stop calling me intellectually dishonest.
    OR
    2. Back it up with evidence.

    I stop, now i’m calling you RES, the HONEST.

    Evidence required that in this sentence i call you a INTELECTUALLY DISHONEST person.

    You are the one who seems obsessed with dishonesty.

    OI*

    So dishonesty is not THAT problem in debates, stop to focus on intelectual honesty of debaters… is it*

    I tend to assume people are honest until they prove otherwise (this gets me in trouble sometimes, the perils of growing up in a high trust society which is quickly becoming lower trust).

    oooooh

    No. I have learned through bitter experience that refuting you is a waste of time. I have expended thousands of words doing so (literally, for a start see my link above) with little to no acknowledgment that anything I have said is either valid or useful (contrast that with I try to say complimentary things when I think Santoculto makes a good point, I just find it difficult to find examples of that).

    ”good point” = agree with me regardless the levels of intelectual correctness.

    I don’t refute that because I agree with it. They are different, but correlations exist. Perhaps it would help if I give the definition of arrogance I internalized at a very competitive college (arrogance was a frequent topic of conversation there).

    so, i win again…

    you TRY to paint my ”face” as arrogant AND fail… bcause i explain that self-lower esteem is not exactly the same to intelectual humility. And that, a very good manifestation of intelectual humility IS accept own [intelectual] mistakes or misunderstoods and try to improve it, i could estimate at least 60% of people are deficient in intelectual humility as autistics are to the theory of mind.

    Santoculto, if you would spend more time demonstrating your excellence and humility and less time asserting them we would get along much better.

    evidence that i’m not demonstrating at least humility [don't mistake with lower intelectual self esteem]… only one time i said what YOU and MOST if not ALL people believe about themselves…

    i don’t know if it is humility or courage to say what most people cleverly hide or manipulate from others, you included.

    P.S. To anyone who hasn’t realized this yet, Santoculto’s comments are much more fun if you read them with the assumption he is guilty of everything he accuses other people of. Projection is real…

    And you are not dis-honest…

    So is it you think about me**

    finally…

    now i can call you

    RES, the HONEST.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    it's what... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr banzaaaaai
    , @res
    This is what is known as a self refuting comment. Cheers.
  86. @Commenting
    I agree with him in this case. The possibility that recruitment effects are distorting their results is already acknowledged by Rushton and Jackson and Hunt just further verifies it.

    Hunt also isn't a 100% environmentalist like Nisbett and has far as I know never done anything embarassing like attempting to disprove brain size/IQ correlation with an n = 36 study.

    Thanks. I just downloaded and skimmed his paper. It looks like a serious effort with realistic quantitative estimates and detailed justification.

    A sample of the arguments:

    This leads to an expected sample mean score of 1.26 standard deviation units for men and 1.13 for women, a difference of .13 standard deviation units in favor of men. Jackson and Rushton report a value of .24. A straightforward acceptance of the left censored model implies that the difference between population means is about .11, less than half the difference reported by Jackson and Rushton, and just over 1.5 points in the normal IQ metric. However this is not the only source of bias in their data.

    When this correction is applied, the expected value of the difference between the SAT scores of men and women, assuming the left truncation model, is .27, slightly higher than the .24 that Jackson and Rushton observed. According to the left truncation model, Jackson and Rushton observed less of a difference in SAT scores than would be expected on the assumption
    that there is no difference in population means.
    We believe that the above argument is sufficient to lead to questions about both the Jackson and Rushton analysis, in particular, and, in general, the fairly common practice of extrapolating from observations in self-selected samples to observations in populations, without considering the possibility of recruitment effects. Such extrapolations are not validated by correcting for range restriction, for the issue is one of systematic bias, not restriction in variance.

    The models get more complicated from there, but that should provide an idea for others.

    P.S. Based on the references you have provided and your Hunt/Nisbett comparison I am guessing you are active in the intelligence research field (I am a layman, which is probably obvious). Thanks for commenting here. It’s great to have as many people here as possible with a command of the literature.

    Read More
  87. @res

    RES, the honest
     
    I'm just asking you to either:
    1. Stop calling me intellectually dishonest.
    OR
    2. Back it up with evidence.

    You are the one who seems obsessed with dishonesty. I tend to assume people are honest until they prove otherwise (this gets me in trouble sometimes, the perils of growing up in a high trust society which is quickly becoming lower trust).

    When he know it can’t refute me he give up.
     
    No. I have learned through bitter experience that refuting you is a waste of time. I have expended thousands of words doing so (literally, for a start see my link above) with little to no acknowledgment that anything I have said is either valid or useful (contrast that with I try to say complimentary things when I think Santoculto makes a good point, I just find it difficult to find examples of that).

    Basically I choose not to respond (aka give up) when I realize a given conversation has reached the point of uselessness (admittedly sometimes I am slow to recognize this). I also often choose not to respond to comments I do not find understandable--which is distressingly frequent.

    I still expecting your refutation of my comment, “intellectual humility is not intellectual lower self esteem”
     
    I don't refute that because I agree with it. They are different, but correlations exist. Perhaps it would help if I give the definition of arrogance I internalized at a very competitive college (arrogance was a frequent topic of conversation there).

    It's not arrogance if you can back it up.

    I know I have an ego (as you say, self esteem). The thing I find demoralizing is how frequently people find simple demonstrations of competence to be threatening, bragging, or arrogant.

    Santoculto, if you would spend more time demonstrating your excellence and humility and less time asserting them we would get along much better.

    P.S. To anyone who hasn't realized this yet, Santoculto's comments are much more fun if you read them with the assumption he is guilty of everything he accuses other people of. Projection is real...

    Ah, i answer your comments on Fred post….

    Read More
  88. @Santoculto

    I’m just asking you to either:
    1. Stop calling me intellectually dishonest.
    OR
    2. Back it up with evidence.
     
    I stop, now i'm calling you RES, the HONEST.

    Evidence required that in this sentence i call you a INTELECTUALLY DISHONEST person.


    You are the one who seems obsessed with dishonesty.
     
    OI*

    So dishonesty is not THAT problem in debates, stop to focus on intelectual honesty of debaters... is it*


    I tend to assume people are honest until they prove otherwise (this gets me in trouble sometimes, the perils of growing up in a high trust society which is quickly becoming lower trust).
     
    oooooh

    No. I have learned through bitter experience that refuting you is a waste of time. I have expended thousands of words doing so (literally, for a start see my link above) with little to no acknowledgment that anything I have said is either valid or useful (contrast that with I try to say complimentary things when I think Santoculto makes a good point, I just find it difficult to find examples of that).
     
    ''good point'' = agree with me regardless the levels of intelectual correctness.

    I don’t refute that because I agree with it. They are different, but correlations exist. Perhaps it would help if I give the definition of arrogance I internalized at a very competitive college (arrogance was a frequent topic of conversation there).
     
    so, i win again...

    you TRY to paint my ''face'' as arrogant AND fail... bcause i explain that self-lower esteem is not exactly the same to intelectual humility. And that, a very good manifestation of intelectual humility IS accept own [intelectual] mistakes or misunderstoods and try to improve it, i could estimate at least 60% of people are deficient in intelectual humility as autistics are to the theory of mind.


    Santoculto, if you would spend more time demonstrating your excellence and humility and less time asserting them we would get along much better.

     

    evidence that i'm not demonstrating at least humility [don't mistake with lower intelectual self esteem]... only one time i said what YOU and MOST if not ALL people believe about themselves...

    i don't know if it is humility or courage to say what most people cleverly hide or manipulate from others, you included.


    P.S. To anyone who hasn’t realized this yet, Santoculto’s comments are much more fun if you read them with the assumption he is guilty of everything he accuses other people of. Projection is real…
     
    And you are not dis-honest...

    So is it you think about me**

    finally...

    now i can call you

    RES, the HONEST.

    it’s what… grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr banzaaaaai

    Read More
  89. @FKA Max

    I don’t see any assertion that IQ says everything about intelligence. In fact, if you read further you will notice that Dr. Thompson specifically points out the areas where women perform better on the subtests (I see that you mentioned that in your second comment).
     
    Yes, I agree. I think women's intelligence and behaviors, the good and the bad, have only been understood very poorly so far, in my opinion. I highly appreciate, that Mr. Thompson takes such a measured and balanced approach to this research. Why for example, do women live on average longer than men when they are on average slightly less intelligent than men, and longer life expectancy has been found to be positively correlated with higher intelligence? Is it because the male IQ distribution bell curve is flatter than the female one, and if that is true, what really causes it? Or is it due to less risk-taking, less aggressiveness, etc. (due to lower testosterone levels and higher rates of high-activity MAOA in women than in men?)?:

    Opinion: Intelligence variability is not gender-dependent
    Why the Greater Male Variability hypothesis is not an established fact

    Further, the GMV hypothesis may not even be necessary to account for the greater number of far-below-average males. There is still a genetic explanation, but more mechanical than due to specific encoding on the Y-chromosome and/or its consequent effects on the expression of other genes. For example, Fragile X syndrome is a major cause of mental disability and is a result of a mutation of the FMR1 gene on the X-chromosome. Its incidence is lower in females despite the irrelevance of the Y-chromosome because females have a “spare” X-chromosome that often has the functional FMR1 allele.

    I will not deny that there is a great deal of support for the GMV hypothesis — and we certainly shouldn’t shy away from an uncomfortable conclusion simply because it doesn’t jibe with our preconceived notions — but because the studies that support it, especially the famous study of Scottish children, come from societies steeped in gender norms that favor the results the studies produce, it would be disingenuous and premature to consider the case closed in the face of a stubborn body of evidence that supports a totally different conclusion.
     
    - http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N23/veldman.html

    After having, hopefully, finally figured out how to read and interpret page 12 of the Göttingen study properly, I was astonished by the huge difference between the sexes in the ability to judge neuroticism during first impressions/meetings:

    So the men actually were way off target in judging the neuroticism of the men (-.43), not the “highly neurotic” female psychology students (.10) as I falsely believed and interpreted it.
    [...]
    As Mr. Thompson and commenter Frank J observed, women (.34) were actually much more successful than men (.05) in judging intelligence from first impressions, so it is not quite clear to me why the Göttingen study would state “Both men and women could accurately judge intelligence,” when women seem to be far superior judges of intelligence than men:

    This is interesting in itself. I never claim to be able to judge intelligence immediately, but these women seem to do so at better than chance level.
    [...]
    Interesting that they predicted the IQ test better.

    – http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837652
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837783

    The researchers have given the guys every chance to reveal their intellects and, crucially, the women making the judgments are able to hazard guesses as to how bright the guys are, which correlate 0.34 with tested intelligence. This is interesting in itself. I never claim to be able to judge intelligence immediately, but these women seem to do so at better than chance level.

    – http://www.unz.com/jthompson/male-intelligence-and-what-women-really/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-and-general-knowledge-your-starter-for-10/#comment-1837652


    Psychopathy in women: theoretical and clinical perspectives

    [ Finally, it is suggested that social norms may influence the evaluation of certain psychopathic characteristics differently in men and women. ]

    – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3379858/

    Women are protected in two ways: the MAOA gene is linked to the X chromosome so that women with the MAOA-L variety on one chromosome usually have a normal allele on the other; and there is circumstantial evidence that women are also protected by other genes from being disposed to violence. – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/lifestyle-advice/#comment-1809071

    If a woman is a psychopath, she can be just as dangerous as a male psychopath—perhaps more so because, based on social conventions, we’re less likely to see her coming.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/lifestyle-advice/#comment-1809777

    We just had a discussion on this very topic over in the other thread, and I posited that exactly the opposite is true, namely that greater female emancipation/influence/power has yielded tremendous macro scale benefits to the World, that might not be entirely obvious to everyone quite yet:
    [...]
    Secondly, I believe that female emancipation and feminism are highly eugenic and pacifying
    [...]
    So the less chauvinistic/“macho” a race or culture is the more likely it is to select for intelligence and low(er) testosterone, i.e., lower aggressiveness, and against the “warrior gene,” i.e., psychopathy.
    [...]
    Watch the video of Christopher Hitchens in my linked comment; he, rightly in my opinion, states that women are on average not as funny/intelligent as men, but that does not mean that they don’t have a sense of humor, i.e., they can, maybe even better than men, recognize and appreciate humor/intelligence/eccentricity
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/tomster-on-marriage/#comment-1838477

    Christopher Hitchens: Why Women Still Aren't Funny

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

    Two fascinating papers:

    Why Are Most Drowning Victims Men? Sex Differences in Aquatic Skills and Behaviors
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380371/pdf/amjph00512-0095.pdf Howland et al. (1996)

    Male drowning rates peak between ages 1 and 2 years, decline thereafter until age 10, and then increase sharply to a maximum during the late teens. In contrast, female drowning rates peak by age 1 year and decline to a relatively low, consistent level. During late adolescence and early adulthood, the ratio of male to female drowning rates is about 10:1 (Figure 1).
    [...]
    In 1990, there were 4685 US drowning deaths; 3854 were men and 831 were women. [...]
    Evans has suggested that testosterone may con-tribute to the relatively high vehicular crash rates among young men. Testosterone may similarly contribute to the peak male drowning rates during the late teen and early adult years. Yet preadolescent males also have higher injury rates than young females for many injury categories.

    Effects of Castration on the Life Expectancy of Contemporary Men

    http://lesswrong.com/lw/lm4/effects_of_castration_on_the_life_expectancy_of/

    Conclusion and Motivation

    Orchiectomy should prolong the lifespans of modern males, especially if done before puberty. While the estimates of life expectancy gains from castration given in Figure 4 and Table 1 aren’t perfect, they are my best guesses, and should be interpreted with the correspondingly appropriate level of credence.

    My original motivation for writing this post was that I was interested in learning about the different ways in which humans could extend their lifespans and life expectancies. So, while being castrated is one way for males to live longer, quitting smoking and improving one’s diet and exercise regimen are better uses of time and energy for people who are just beginning to think about changing their lifestyles in order to live longer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Hope you're not implying that low testosterone is a good thing. . .

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/04/the-testosterone-problem-a-western-perspective/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/12/testosterone-and-society/
  90. @CanSpeccy
    The main thing to note about the data presented would seem to be the triviality of the correlations. For example, among partial correlations of brain characteristics with the g factor (whatever that may be), the highest r value is 0.305 meaning that, within the population of males examined, variation in gray matter volume accounted for just 9.3% (r-squared) of the variation in g.

    For the overall sample, variation in brain size accounted for just 5.7% of the variation in g, a little less than the estimate of 7% cited by Stephen Jay Gould in The Mismeasure of Man — variation that Gould suggested could be largely explained by the influence of pathological microcephaly, meaning that among developmentally normal individuals the effect would probably disappear.

    But insofar as the effect is unrelated to the incidence of developmental defects, one might expect the relationship to be affected by nutritional factors, disease factors, and socio-economic factors. Such factors would probably rule out inter-group comparisons, including perhaps, comparisons between men and women.

    There are likely also educational or occupational factors since there is evidence of learning-related neurogenesis. Moreover, occupation must have an impact on brain:body mass ratio, e.g., in well-muscled professional athletes or manual workers versus computer geeks or professional models.

    Taking all these possibilities into consideration and taking account also of the remarkable case of the man with a math degree, a well above average IQ, but virtually no brain, it seems that the study of brain size is unlikely to explain very much about intelligence, let alone the genius of persons such as Carl Gauss or Albert Einstein, whose brains were found on autopsy to be of quite normal size.

    Concerning the results presented, one wonders how adjustment was made for body weight. What allometric coefficients were used? Was a different coefficient used for men than for women, and if not, were weights adjusted to a fat-free basis to take account of the fact that women, on average, carry more fat than men?

    Wanted to note in regards to neurogenesis, though, that adult neurogenesis may be limited in the areas that it actually affect: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Adult_neurogenesis

    But basically, it primarily affects the hippocampus in a healthy brain, which seems sensible as a function of learning. But not necessarily to a great degree or even any to other parts of the brain.

    I used to study this a great deal as a pet cause, but it seems that ultimately neurogenesis – at least adult neurogenesis – has real but overall mild effects compared to the effect of hormones or even regular drug use that passes the blood-brain barrier.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Re: Drugs that promote neurogenesis.

    That's interesting. Lithium, also, promote neurogenesis in some parts of the brain increasing, gray matter by as much as 15%. Wonder if they have bigger brains and higher IQ's in Texas where there is lithium in the water supply in many towns, e.g., San Antonio.
  91. @AP

    The implication of these studies should be that we should treat each person as an individual, not as a member of a collective group. Knowing the colour of my skin or my gender tells you nothing about me, simply because of the great variance that exists within populations.
     
    This is absolutely correct. But if these results are valid - although they should not change how we view individuals whom we meet, they ought to change how we view perceived discrepancies in group achievement.

    As Dr. Thompson writes:

    ....a small difference in means has larger consequences at the extremes. If one assumes a 4 point difference straddling the mean, then women will be 98 to men’s 102. Keeping the standard deviations to 15 for both sexes, and setting the cutoff point at IQ 130 then 3.1% of men and 1.6% of women pass the threshold, meaning 65% of the brightest people will be men.

    Since this sample showed no sex difference in standard deviations (to the author’s and my surprise) that is as far as I will go with the calculations. However, even without putting in the usually found smaller standard deviation for women, the implication is clear: 65% of intellectually demanding occupations will be taken by men, if entry to those occupations is based only on mental ability. If the bar is set higher at IQ 145, then 70.5% of such posts will be taken by men.
     
    This means that a preponderance of men in high positions in intellectually demanding fields might simply reflect natural ability, and not discrimination or bias.

    Absolutely in agreement there. I probably didn’t expand as much as I should have. Studies like these should act as the antidote to social justice issues. Men in tech (insert any intellectual pursuit) should not be taken as discrimination, but simply a tilted board due to genetic talent and genetic interest.

    In other words the implication of these studies should not be that we hire less women. It should be that we judge each applicant as an individual, and then stop wondering about why there are less women in certain professions on a grand scale.

    Read More
  92. @res
    Thanks. I skimmed the paper and don't see a way to address TG's assertion directly. Although there is lots of suggestive data and analysis I don't have a good enough sense of the effect sizes to evaluate that assertion (e.g. how would the likely difference in brain size for a 40 IQ point difference, just less than 3 SD, compare to a .75 SD brain size difference between sexes?).

    Here are some quotes I find suggestive:

    After correcting for body size, the brain volume of males was approximately .75 of a standard deviation larger than that of females
    ...
    eventually lead to a sex difference in g estimated to abound one third of a standard deviation, which translates to 3 to 5 IQ points
    ...
    Consistent with this idea, several studies indicate that sex differences in g are related to sex differences in brain size in adults (Ankney, 1992; Lynn, 1994).

     

    The kinds of things I have an mind to test the hypothesis would be:
    1. Specific examples (e.g. Boxplots) of all the brain sizes (corrected for body size?) in a given IQ bin by sex. This would provide counterexamples to argue against "almost certainly" if they exist.
    2. A scatterplot of IQ vs. corrected brain size with sex indicated by different colors/symbols and separate regression lines (and/or splines) for each sex.
    (I use this kind of scatterplot frequently to look at sex differences in my analyses of medical data. John Fox's car R package scatterplot function does a nice job of doing this with little effort. The separation and slopes of the regression lines give a good overview of how the differences in the y variable with respect to sex and x axis variable differences compare in size.)

    Would someone who has access to the data be willing to do something like this?

    One other thing that struck me was:

    First, in line with previous studies, we extracted the first unrotated factor (using principal axis factoring) from the entire set of cognitive measures. This factor had an Eigenvalue of 3.01 and explained a total of 33.40% of the variance (25.72% when considering the shared variance only).
     
    That seems like a surprisingly low % variance explained for g. Can anyone explain the parenthetical comment to me (I would have expected restricting the variance looked at to increase the % variance explained by g, so I must be misreading)?

    Any thoughts on the low % variance explained by g here?

    Happy to raise these issues with the authors, but best if you write to them with your suggestions. Depending on the methods used, g usually accounts for 30-50% of the variance.
    Here is a slightly out of date summary, too brief for your needs, but general background:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-in-2000-words

    Probably more to your taste:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-wechsler-factor-factory

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks! I found the Wechsler paper (second link) dense, but if I understood correctly they were mostly talking about how much of the variance of EA (educational attainment) was explained by g and additional intelligence measures. This seems different to me than percentage of total subtest variance explained by g which was how I interpreted the other paper (if I misunderstand, corrections welcome). I would expect g to be much better at explaining the subtest results than a somewhat indirect separate variable like EA.

    If g explaining 30% of total subtest variance is a typical result I need to readjust my beliefs. I was more used to seeing numbers like 50-60% and occasionally higher. I suppose it depends on the exact nature of the subtests. For example, I imagine including a spatial test hurt the % variance explained for g.

    If you think the authors would be receptive I can do that. If you think the idea has merit I think you saying something would help--I would certainly be happy to expand on the idea or even do analysis work if that would be acceptable. I have had mixed results as a layman dealing with academics in their area of expertise (which is understandable). On the good side, I did get to see a paper published a couple of years ago based on an email exchange I had with a researcher who had written an earlier paper in an area of common interest. They had access to a really great dataset for doing what I would call large sample social epidemiology (coincidentally, EA was their outcome variable). My idea (a refinement of something they had tried but with non-statistically significant results, based on some work I had done in another context) panned out and they were kind enough to acknowledge me which made me happy and proud.
  93. @Santoculto

    I’m just asking you to either:
    1. Stop calling me intellectually dishonest.
    OR
    2. Back it up with evidence.
     
    I stop, now i'm calling you RES, the HONEST.

    Evidence required that in this sentence i call you a INTELECTUALLY DISHONEST person.


    You are the one who seems obsessed with dishonesty.
     
    OI*

    So dishonesty is not THAT problem in debates, stop to focus on intelectual honesty of debaters... is it*


    I tend to assume people are honest until they prove otherwise (this gets me in trouble sometimes, the perils of growing up in a high trust society which is quickly becoming lower trust).
     
    oooooh

    No. I have learned through bitter experience that refuting you is a waste of time. I have expended thousands of words doing so (literally, for a start see my link above) with little to no acknowledgment that anything I have said is either valid or useful (contrast that with I try to say complimentary things when I think Santoculto makes a good point, I just find it difficult to find examples of that).
     
    ''good point'' = agree with me regardless the levels of intelectual correctness.

    I don’t refute that because I agree with it. They are different, but correlations exist. Perhaps it would help if I give the definition of arrogance I internalized at a very competitive college (arrogance was a frequent topic of conversation there).
     
    so, i win again...

    you TRY to paint my ''face'' as arrogant AND fail... bcause i explain that self-lower esteem is not exactly the same to intelectual humility. And that, a very good manifestation of intelectual humility IS accept own [intelectual] mistakes or misunderstoods and try to improve it, i could estimate at least 60% of people are deficient in intelectual humility as autistics are to the theory of mind.


    Santoculto, if you would spend more time demonstrating your excellence and humility and less time asserting them we would get along much better.

     

    evidence that i'm not demonstrating at least humility [don't mistake with lower intelectual self esteem]... only one time i said what YOU and MOST if not ALL people believe about themselves...

    i don't know if it is humility or courage to say what most people cleverly hide or manipulate from others, you included.


    P.S. To anyone who hasn’t realized this yet, Santoculto’s comments are much more fun if you read them with the assumption he is guilty of everything he accuses other people of. Projection is real…
     
    And you are not dis-honest...

    So is it you think about me**

    finally...

    now i can call you

    RES, the HONEST.

    This is what is known as a self refuting comment. Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    and

    no…

    Look, i hope i will not have anymore the ”pleasure” to ”debate” with such a intelectual as you…

    I can’t reach you, sorry!!

    I was agreeing and/or trusting you that you’re not a IQist but you did a great job to convince me the otherwise with your amateur capacity to manipulate other people.

    I was agreeing, seriously, believe in me!! and you destroy it.

    And in contrast, i don’t think your comments are derrogatively ”funny”, i think you’re very intelligent, but as always, when the instinct speak louder…

    And not again, i don’t want a ”friendly’ exchange of compliments, which I know will be false, especially coming from you.

  94. @Ben Frank
    Is IQ still legal? Are our commisars sleeping on the job?

    Can an argument be true if a woman fails to understand it?

    Can an argument be true if a woman fails to understand it?

    It is deeper than that. If a woman feels something is true, it must be true … because, otherwise, why would she feel so strongly about it?

    Datapoints: Living among women for 70 years … and being happily married for 49 of those years.

    Read More
  95. @Daniel Chieh
    Wanted to note in regards to neurogenesis, though, that adult neurogenesis may be limited in the areas that it actually affect: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Adult_neurogenesis

    But basically, it primarily affects the hippocampus in a healthy brain, which seems sensible as a function of learning. But not necessarily to a great degree or even any to other parts of the brain.

    I used to study this a great deal as a pet cause, but it seems that ultimately neurogenesis - at least adult neurogenesis - has real but overall mild effects compared to the effect of hormones or even regular drug use that passes the blood-brain barrier.

    Re: Drugs that promote neurogenesis.

    That’s interesting. Lithium, also, promote neurogenesis in some parts of the brain increasing, gray matter by as much as 15%. Wonder if they have bigger brains and higher IQ’s in Texas where there is lithium in the water supply in many towns, e.g., San Antonio.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I have no objections whatsoever to involuntary experiments run on unsuspecting populations, either. I was thinking more of the well-known negative effects such as lead, but also some mildly positive effects such as green tea.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666310000267

    Its a pretty interesting topic overall.

  96. @res
    This is what is known as a self refuting comment. Cheers.

    and

    no…

    Look, i hope i will not have anymore the ”pleasure” to ”debate” with such a intelectual as you…

    I can’t reach you, sorry!!

    I was agreeing and/or trusting you that you’re not a IQist but you did a great job to convince me the otherwise with your amateur capacity to manipulate other people.

    I was agreeing, seriously, believe in me!! and you destroy it.

    And in contrast, i don’t think your comments are derrogatively ”funny”, i think you’re very intelligent, but as always, when the instinct speak louder…

    And not again, i don’t want a ”friendly’ exchange of compliments, which I know will be false, especially coming from you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I can’t reach you, sorry!!

    I was agreeing and/or trusting you that you’re not a IQist but you did a great job to convince me the otherwise with your amateur capacity to manipulate other people.

    I was agreeing, seriously, believe in me!! and you destroy it.
     
    I just read your comment again. If you were agreeing with me I sincerely don't see it. I see lots of sniping comments (which is fair enough, I haven't exactly been nice to you in my last few comments) which I find hard to interpret. And then you follow up with "it’s what… grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr banzaaaaai" in a later comment.

    Perhaps it is my fault for not being able to understand your comments, but we seem to be talking past each other enough that I don't think it is worth it for either of us to engage the other.
  97. @James Thompson
    Happy to raise these issues with the authors, but best if you write to them with your suggestions. Depending on the methods used, g usually accounts for 30-50% of the variance.
    Here is a slightly out of date summary, too brief for your needs, but general background:
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/intelligence-in-2000-words
    Probably more to your taste:
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-wechsler-factor-factory

    Thanks! I found the Wechsler paper (second link) dense, but if I understood correctly they were mostly talking about how much of the variance of EA (educational attainment) was explained by g and additional intelligence measures. This seems different to me than percentage of total subtest variance explained by g which was how I interpreted the other paper (if I misunderstand, corrections welcome). I would expect g to be much better at explaining the subtest results than a somewhat indirect separate variable like EA.

    If g explaining 30% of total subtest variance is a typical result I need to readjust my beliefs. I was more used to seeing numbers like 50-60% and occasionally higher. I suppose it depends on the exact nature of the subtests. For example, I imagine including a spatial test hurt the % variance explained for g.

    If you think the authors would be receptive I can do that. If you think the idea has merit I think you saying something would help–I would certainly be happy to expand on the idea or even do analysis work if that would be acceptable. I have had mixed results as a layman dealing with academics in their area of expertise (which is understandable). On the good side, I did get to see a paper published a couple of years ago based on an email exchange I had with a researcher who had written an earlier paper in an area of common interest. They had access to a really great dataset for doing what I would call large sample social epidemiology (coincidentally, EA was their outcome variable). My idea (a refinement of something they had tried but with non-statistically significant results, based on some work I had done in another context) panned out and they were kind enough to acknowledge me which made me happy and proud.

    Read More
  98. I believe IQ scores have been gender neutralized since the start,

    Terman made efforts to correct item bias in the Stanford Binet so that as many girls as boys would be identified, and he went so far as to obscure the drop in girls’ IQ scores between 11 and 17 by collapsing their means scores with the boys, yielding a nonsignificant decline in IQ for the entire group.

    And since girls have been doing better in schooling since the start, the IQ gap and gender gaps on tests like NAEP and SAT(SAT-V especially with the 50 point drop in a decade) should be even more male favoring than observed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    Factor analysis should get around this problem to some degree and there are batteries available that have not been constructed to avoid sex differences (British Ability scales, GATB, only makes sense to compare the general factor for those). E.g. see Jensen's conclusions in 1981

    "Some intelligence tests have been deliberately constructed to minimize or eliminate
    a sex difference in IQ by eliminating or balancing items that significantly favor either sex. Such tests, of course, cannot answer the question of sex differences in ability. However, examination of tests that were not constructed with reference to sex, along with factor analyses of test batteries that permit the comparison of males and females on factor scores, indicate that the sexes do not differ in g, the general intelligence factor. Sex differences on single items or on homogenous subtests are differences in item-specific characteristics or in group factors uncorrelated with g. But there is no evidence of a mean sex difference in g. However, there appears to be a true difference (of about 1 IQ point) in the standard deviation of IQ, with males showing the greater variability. This fact accounts for the generally observed greater frequencies of males in the extreme upper and lower ranges of the IQ distribution.2"

    Of course Lynn's theory came around later and there are conflicting reports both for composite and latent variable studies among adults

  99. @Jim Christian
    Women are morons at their core. Then, their moods outrun their meds. Women were an excellent group to have handed unfettered control of our education system over to. Also Capitol Hill, media, news. Examine all the realms of failed society in the West, the beginnings of failure were infusing our systems of education, law, communications and news with women.

    Any other conclusion is politically correct white-knighting.

    Women are morons at their core.

    Are you a homo?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Absolutely not. Just because they're morons doesn't mean I have no use for women. But that you would out with a remark like that, I DO wonder about YOU.
  100. @James Thompson
    On the potential manipulation of general knowledge tests, reasonable studies have been done to see what subjects, in which proportions, habitually show up in general knowledge tests. Then a representative test can be constructed to see if that shows sex differences. Those results show a male advantage.

    I really can’t bring myself to accept what you seem to be putting forward (with due academic modesty and propriety) about female IQ/intelligence and general knowledge despite my having, in youth, noted that results on the fill-in-time-after-other-exams-but-for-a-prize general knowledge exam, at least at the top, strongly supported your case. Why? Because a female well known to me with a *very* high IQ measured in childhood but never in doubt has a quite extraordinary, indeed vast, knowledge of things botanical and to do with antiques, porcelain, craftworks and cooking ingredients but is way behind me on the matters of e.g. politics, military history, sports, even (I think) opera facts though she is much more musical. As for sports…

    She is btw probably one of the class whose high IQs were found in a right bulge by Burt and fits with Greg Clark’s thesis on a thitherto unrecognised reason the industrial revolution occurred where and when it did. Which leads me to the truth of a joke I made with a smart younger man recently, namely that all the great female CEOs with there 0, 1 or 2 children would do more for the present and future nation if they did what their great-(great)-grandmothers did and had 16 children of whom 12 grew to adulthood (or 10 and 6 or…).

    My young friend was quick to point out, and I – all marbles rolling – to acknowledge that the same could be saiď mutatis mutandis, of male CEOs!

    For the present thread I note the implications of the truth of (relevantly) lower female IQs adds considerable weight to my anti-dysgenic point about them contributing more if they had 15 (or 5) children (as long as enough of their issue were male my nitpicking mind adds). Funny how I have recently invested in three science based startups (funny how many years starting up can take: it makes recent increases in longevity specially welcome) whose CEOs are attractive 30 or 40ish women with PhDs in scientific disciplines, all recommended by smart men as it happens. (A good reminder that averages and probabilities are what count even if politicians and opinionmakers will never grasp and acknowledge it.)

    Read More
  101. @namae nanka
    I believe IQ scores have been gender neutralized since the start,

    Terman made efforts to correct item bias in the Stanford Binet so that as many girls as boys would be identified, and he went so far as to obscure the drop in girls' IQ scores between 11 and 17 by collapsing their means scores with the boys, yielding a nonsignificant decline in IQ for the entire group.
     
    And since girls have been doing better in schooling since the start, the IQ gap and gender gaps on tests like NAEP and SAT(SAT-V especially with the 50 point drop in a decade) should be even more male favoring than observed.

    Factor analysis should get around this problem to some degree and there are batteries available that have not been constructed to avoid sex differences (British Ability scales, GATB, only makes sense to compare the general factor for those). E.g. see Jensen’s conclusions in 1981

    “Some intelligence tests have been deliberately constructed to minimize or eliminate
    a sex difference in IQ by eliminating or balancing items that significantly favor either sex. Such tests, of course, cannot answer the question of sex differences in ability. However, examination of tests that were not constructed with reference to sex, along with factor analyses of test batteries that permit the comparison of males and females on factor scores, indicate that the sexes do not differ in g, the general intelligence factor. Sex differences on single items or on homogenous subtests are differences in item-specific characteristics or in group factors uncorrelated with g. But there is no evidence of a mean sex difference in g. However, there appears to be a true difference (of about 1 IQ point) in the standard deviation of IQ, with males showing the greater variability. This fact accounts for the generally observed greater frequencies of males in the extreme upper and lower ranges of the IQ distribution.2″

    Of course Lynn’s theory came around later and there are conflicting reports both for composite and latent variable studies among adults

    Read More
  102. @James Thompson
    On the potential manipulation of general knowledge tests, reasonable studies have been done to see what subjects, in which proportions, habitually show up in general knowledge tests. Then a representative test can be constructed to see if that shows sex differences. Those results show a male advantage.

    I’ve been sloppy. I forgot to mention and justify my chosen discount rate for assessing the relative utility of women as breeders as against women as scientists and CEOs. Some high minded greats have chosen 1 per cent or even zero. (It would be an interesting subject for a mini thesis to research the effect of age and number and age of issue on implicit discount rates. Does the 90 year old patriarch with multiple great-grandchildren and a prospect of his genes multiplying over 100 years decrease his discount rate compared with his 40 year old self? It may be that he does because he has had time to reflect that the only goods are the welfare of others and that his others, once the immediate nuclear family is no more, are his multigeneration tribe (not excluding collaterals).

    I seem to remember that (Lord) Nicholas Stern adopted a zero discount rate in asssessing what should be done now about AGW and, on Googling I am reminded that he cited my intellectual hero Frank Ramsey in support (Keynes quoted another as describing FR as one of the chief intellectual glories of Cambridge – who taught himself enough German in a few months to be able, at the age of 24, to supervise Wittgenstein’s PhD, and died at 31). What does psychology say about age related choice of discount rates?

    Read More
  103. @unpc downunder
    The interesting question isn't really overall brain size, but the relative size of different brain areas. Women are supposed to have a larger hippocampus, which gives them an advantage in some memory tasks. Men have larger parietal lobes which gives them an advantage in spatial intelligence. That leaves the frontal lobes - are the frontal lobes bigger in men, and if so does that give them an IQ advantage? So far, the evidence isn't very clear.

    Interesting. I hope you get an informed response. May I draw your attention to #103 and #105 if you have a few minutes.

    Read More
  104. @Useyourhead
    I'm not denying the science behind it, but even if IQ were granted to be 100% genetic (Which it almost certainly isn't), any comments about the IQs of women vs. men or black vs. white etc. cannot be logically extrapolated to say anything about the individual.

    If only that point could be easily ascertained by the greater population, none of this science would be controversial. By looking at a woman, you have no rational way of determining where she falls on the IQ spectrum in relation to all women, so even with the knowledge that women's IQs are generally a few points less than men, you can't say anything with surety about an individual woman's IQ.

    The implication of these studies should be that we should treat each person as an individual, not as a member of a collective group. Knowing the colour of my skin or my gender tells you nothing about me, simply because of the great variance that exists within populations. Only by admitting we are not born equal and we are not the same, can a true meritocracy be established where each person is treated as an individual. Studies like this should relegate identity politics and any sort of Marxist ideal into the tumble-drier of nonsense where it belongs.

    Unfortunately as we have seen with Charles Murray and others, the opposite has been, and will likely continue to be true.

    “By looking at a woman…..””. You speak as a mere man. The women I love could write a book (maybe a novel) about what they know when they have looked at a womsn….

    Read More
  105. I can’t wait to tell my wife I really did have it all figured out at age 5 — girls ARE dumb! Who knew… ???

    Read More
  106. @Commenting
    I don't know about the original Wechsler samples but the two point male advantage also shows up in modern US standardisations of the WAIS-IV. The same doesn't happen for other batteries which is why I think latent g might be preferable, at least for the sex differences question. Far as I know there is no reason to believe WAIS full scale IQ (showing sex differences) is more predictive than e.g. IQ as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson showing no difference.

    Latent g factor extracted from one battery correlates extremely well with latent g of another battery so that might be a better measure to compare the sexes on. Also I think it was Jensen who advocated comparing g factor scores and I greatly respect Jensen.

    I'm not up to date with the literature on general knowledge. Stumbled across a study on Twitter a while ago which showed that you can manipulate tests to favor either sex but that's not necessarily a convincing argument to disprove male advantage here. We would have to find out what "the best measure" of general knowledge looks like I assume

    If you have a few minutes you may find something of interest in #103 and/or #105. I am a bit sceptical about JT’s blithe apparent assumption that making the test of general knowledge “general” is easý enough.

    Read More
  107. @Daniel Chieh
    Didn't they also conclude due to "genetic similarity" that "male brains are far more similar to female brains than they are different?"

    With some apprehensive modesty I commend #101 and #103 to you for a very spare moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Interesting thoughts. I'll extend that in general, it feels like higher IQ is anti-fertility these days, both male and female - so we're likely to continue to see a dysgenic effect. In terms of R/K selection, the world actually may be R selected now such that populations that focus primarily on increasing themselves will not suffer much consequence for it.

    Sadly or otherwise, the most highly reproducing women these days that I personally know are women who have genuine learning disabilities(I know one who scored between 80 to 90 IQ). While their lives aren't great, nothing seems to prevent them from having oodles of children.

  108. @Wizard of Oz
    Interesting. I hope you get an informed response. May I draw your attention to #103 and #105 if you have a few minutes.

    Sorry #101 and #103 now.

    Read More
  109. @Commenting
    I don't know about the original Wechsler samples but the two point male advantage also shows up in modern US standardisations of the WAIS-IV. The same doesn't happen for other batteries which is why I think latent g might be preferable, at least for the sex differences question. Far as I know there is no reason to believe WAIS full scale IQ (showing sex differences) is more predictive than e.g. IQ as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson showing no difference.

    Latent g factor extracted from one battery correlates extremely well with latent g of another battery so that might be a better measure to compare the sexes on. Also I think it was Jensen who advocated comparing g factor scores and I greatly respect Jensen.

    I'm not up to date with the literature on general knowledge. Stumbled across a study on Twitter a while ago which showed that you can manipulate tests to favor either sex but that's not necessarily a convincing argument to disprove male advantage here. We would have to find out what "the best measure" of general knowledge looks like I assume

    Oops! UR’s or my error: #101 and #103

    Read More
  110. @res

    RES, the honest
     
    I'm just asking you to either:
    1. Stop calling me intellectually dishonest.
    OR
    2. Back it up with evidence.

    You are the one who seems obsessed with dishonesty. I tend to assume people are honest until they prove otherwise (this gets me in trouble sometimes, the perils of growing up in a high trust society which is quickly becoming lower trust).

    When he know it can’t refute me he give up.
     
    No. I have learned through bitter experience that refuting you is a waste of time. I have expended thousands of words doing so (literally, for a start see my link above) with little to no acknowledgment that anything I have said is either valid or useful (contrast that with I try to say complimentary things when I think Santoculto makes a good point, I just find it difficult to find examples of that).

    Basically I choose not to respond (aka give up) when I realize a given conversation has reached the point of uselessness (admittedly sometimes I am slow to recognize this). I also often choose not to respond to comments I do not find understandable--which is distressingly frequent.

    I still expecting your refutation of my comment, “intellectual humility is not intellectual lower self esteem”
     
    I don't refute that because I agree with it. They are different, but correlations exist. Perhaps it would help if I give the definition of arrogance I internalized at a very competitive college (arrogance was a frequent topic of conversation there).

    It's not arrogance if you can back it up.

    I know I have an ego (as you say, self esteem). The thing I find demoralizing is how frequently people find simple demonstrations of competence to be threatening, bragging, or arrogant.

    Santoculto, if you would spend more time demonstrating your excellence and humility and less time asserting them we would get along much better.

    P.S. To anyone who hasn't realized this yet, Santoculto's comments are much more fun if you read them with the assumption he is guilty of everything he accuses other people of. Projection is real...

    With due modesty I invite your attention in a relaxed and idle moment to #101 and #103…

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I'm not sure what specifically you are looking for, but some thoughts...

    Regarding smart women in general, I have been around my share between my family growing up, college, and later in work and hobbies (and I rather like smart women, but that's another topic). The problem I have is I have a bit of a math bias and am an engineer. I think it's hard to argue with men dominating the high end of math (or spatial) dominated professions--not that there are no exceptional women, they are just relatively rare. Regarding general knowledge I get more of a sense of men and women are different rather than better or worse. Men seem better at detailed knowledge of arcane facts, while women seem better at tracking relationships and fuzzier knowledge. As a thought experiment, think how those traits might be useful in studying something like history in different fashions.

    Regarding the relative contribution of motherhood and career, to my mind that is someone else's personal choice. I think someone who is unhappy in either role is going to have trouble maximizing her contribution. I wish our society could find a way to better integrate having a career and having children reasonably early for women who want to do both. I think a good approach would be to have a part time job varying in flexibility and hours as children grow up transitioning back into full time if desired as the nest empties. But at the end of the day, it's not really my call. From a purely utilitarian view, I suspect something like that would come close to maximizing societal utility for many/most smart women, but presumably some will do better following their work talents full force and some will do better focusing exclusively on being a mother and homemaker.

    One complicating factor is the societal issue of allocating scarce and expensive educational resources. Educating doctors, lawyers, etc. who never practice or only practice for a few years is a problem IMHO.

    One thing that I think gets underrated in conversations like this is the value of having a smart mother who has the time and inclination to stimulate and challenge her children.

    P.S. That was rambling and I'm not sure I got even close to what you are looking for. But I am interested if you have a response.
  111. @Santoculto
    Nope. IQism also as ideology. Ideology is when we choice a set of perspectives AND not all perspectives of certain particularity. Certain perspectives of intelligence are over emphasized by IQism distorting this reality just like a Mercator geographical projection.

    And as happen with all belief systems we still have a lot a unfactual beliefs for example that higher IQ people are TOTALLY or INVINCIBLY smart-er.

    All ideologies are understood by their followers as serious stuff from the most bizarre to the most scientific.

    Ideologies also need key replaced words or symbols. IQ is that symbol that replaces intelligence.

    That’s simply a caricature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I don't understand, you are agree with me or not*

    Whatever your point of views, it's good elaborate it, by now it's just your opinion, and without the intention to be impolite with you, ;)
  112. @dearieme
    Sorry, doc, I can't read that piece. Anyone who says "utilizing" when all he means is "using" is too precious or pompous or silly for me.

    As with “hopefully” and other linguistic tics, that’s probably a list cause.

    Read More
  113. @MBlanc46
    That's simply a caricature.

    I don’t understand, you are agree with me or not*

    Whatever your point of views, it’s good elaborate it, by now it’s just your opinion, and without the intention to be impolite with you, ;)

    Read More
  114. @Santoculto
    and

    no…

    Look, i hope i will not have anymore the ”pleasure” to ”debate” with such a intelectual as you…

    I can’t reach you, sorry!!

    I was agreeing and/or trusting you that you’re not a IQist but you did a great job to convince me the otherwise with your amateur capacity to manipulate other people.

    I was agreeing, seriously, believe in me!! and you destroy it.

    And in contrast, i don’t think your comments are derrogatively ”funny”, i think you’re very intelligent, but as always, when the instinct speak louder…

    And not again, i don’t want a ”friendly’ exchange of compliments, which I know will be false, especially coming from you.

    I can’t reach you, sorry!!

    I was agreeing and/or trusting you that you’re not a IQist but you did a great job to convince me the otherwise with your amateur capacity to manipulate other people.

    I was agreeing, seriously, believe in me!! and you destroy it.

    I just read your comment again. If you were agreeing with me I sincerely don’t see it. I see lots of sniping comments (which is fair enough, I haven’t exactly been nice to you in my last few comments) which I find hard to interpret. And then you follow up with “it’s what… grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr banzaaaaai” in a later comment.

    Perhaps it is my fault for not being able to understand your comments, but we seem to be talking past each other enough that I don’t think it is worth it for either of us to engage the other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I DON'T understand how hard is my english for you and seems most people here, i ALWAYS think my english is a sheetoos, extremely poor, easy to conclude, but minimalistic, without slang or other peculiarity, so...

    If i have a example on portuguese, maybe i would understand better and:

    - try to improve where i fail miserably [less grammar, it would mean: i need learn english, different than ''just improve something'']

    or

    - disappear for ever and ever from here.
  115. @reiner Tor
    I think that women on average are as smart as or smarter than men. They are only held back by the white male patriarchy. (Men of color are of course at least as intelligent as white women. Only racist sexists will want to break down people of color according to gender, which is a social construct anyway. We know since at least Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel that People of Color are smarter than dumb whites anyway.)

    This biased study also confirms that sexism is rampant in science. This is no way to accommodate women or people of color in science, so I propose that these scientists get sacked from whatever jobs they have. They should also engage in self-criticism sessions.

    Gosh, I’m surprised that you’re not president of Harvard yet.s

    Read More
  116. @Santoculto

    This study supports the minority position of Lynn and Irwing, that men are about 4 IQ points brighter than women, an across-the-board advantage, plus better spatial ability, and that part of this difference may be attributed to brain size
     
    I recommend that women play close attention to Episodic memory in which they have an advantage of 4 IQ points, giving women the upper hand when remembering male transgressions.

    Look little depreciate isn't sir*

    Women advantage on episodic memory seems less important than better spatial ability for Thompson, a wise man...

    As usual, a small difference in means has larger consequences at the extremes. If one assumes a 4 point difference straddling the mean, then women will be 98 to men’s 102. Keeping the standard deviations to 15 for both sexes, and setting the cutoff point at IQ 130 then 3.1% of men and 1.6% of women pass the threshold, meaning 65% of the brightest people will be men.
     
    Res**

    When will academic publishing catch up with the pace of modern research? In the meantime, the current suggestion is that the biggest study of brain scans supports a sex difference in intelligence of about 4 points, probably due to larger male brains.
     
    Again. We have two salient differences, but seems, male advantage matter and female advantage don't matter...

    Female advantage matters, otherwise the game would progress quickly to a position of clear male advantage. Which it hasn’t. Perhaps females lever their ad in remembering male transgressions to dampen or nullify male advantages in other areas. Or perhaps it is not simply a zero-sum male/female conflict, and there are opportunities for cooperation to attend other measures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Sir Thompson here with this part creates the idea that women is better to do things that are related to men while men are better to do things, period. Women as a moon and men as a planet earth, in its orbit.

    Similar to, dog is good to do things that are related to their owners...

    I don't understand that men who are heterossexual and hate or despise woman... It's just a sexual thing*

    Yes, i know men are on avg smarter than women in cognitive demanding areas, even where we expect women to excel for example in arts [literature] and philosophy, verbal ones, men still excel over women, even [2] in this areas women tend to be less ''butchered'', but there are some departments women excel men not just in the top but also on avg, one of the most important of all, in terms of interpersonal interactions: empathy.

    Thanks to the lower empathy, ALMOST men who invented sophisticated ways to eliminate white race from earth surface. Thanks to the lower empathy, the percent of violent behavior, specially irrational ones, are very disproportionally commited by men.

    In the emotional department, average men are dumber if compared with women, as well women are dumber to men in the logic department. And men still have the upper hand because MOST of human conflicts are forged by them and also because logic is obviously more efficient to understand the reality than emotion, even emotion is also very important in other aspects of the same fundamental task: understand reality.
  117. @Wizard of Oz
    With due modesty I invite your attention in a relaxed and idle moment to #101 and #103...

    I’m not sure what specifically you are looking for, but some thoughts…

    Regarding smart women in general, I have been around my share between my family growing up, college, and later in work and hobbies (and I rather like smart women, but that’s another topic). The problem I have is I have a bit of a math bias and am an engineer. I think it’s hard to argue with men dominating the high end of math (or spatial) dominated professions–not that there are no exceptional women, they are just relatively rare. Regarding general knowledge I get more of a sense of men and women are different rather than better or worse. Men seem better at detailed knowledge of arcane facts, while women seem better at tracking relationships and fuzzier knowledge. As a thought experiment, think how those traits might be useful in studying something like history in different fashions.

    Regarding the relative contribution of motherhood and career, to my mind that is someone else’s personal choice. I think someone who is unhappy in either role is going to have trouble maximizing her contribution. I wish our society could find a way to better integrate having a career and having children reasonably early for women who want to do both. I think a good approach would be to have a part time job varying in flexibility and hours as children grow up transitioning back into full time if desired as the nest empties. But at the end of the day, it’s not really my call. From a purely utilitarian view, I suspect something like that would come close to maximizing societal utility for many/most smart women, but presumably some will do better following their work talents full force and some will do better focusing exclusively on being a mother and homemaker.

    One complicating factor is the societal issue of allocating scarce and expensive educational resources. Educating doctors, lawyers, etc. who never practice or only practice for a few years is a problem IMHO.

    One thing that I think gets underrated in conversations like this is the value of having a smart mother who has the time and inclination to stimulate and challenge her children.

    P.S. That was rambling and I’m not sure I got even close to what you are looking for. But I am interested if you have a response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Wèll, on the run, no negative response. Difficult point about the public (including private university) resources being devoted to those who then hardly use the qualification, but a real one. I can't see a really good answer in practice.

    I add that I would like to ensure the tax system gave more help to professional and academic couples wanting to have 3 or more children despite hardly beginning to be high earners till they are 30 or so.
  118. @res

    I can’t reach you, sorry!!

    I was agreeing and/or trusting you that you’re not a IQist but you did a great job to convince me the otherwise with your amateur capacity to manipulate other people.

    I was agreeing, seriously, believe in me!! and you destroy it.
     
    I just read your comment again. If you were agreeing with me I sincerely don't see it. I see lots of sniping comments (which is fair enough, I haven't exactly been nice to you in my last few comments) which I find hard to interpret. And then you follow up with "it’s what… grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr banzaaaaai" in a later comment.

    Perhaps it is my fault for not being able to understand your comments, but we seem to be talking past each other enough that I don't think it is worth it for either of us to engage the other.

    I DON’T understand how hard is my english for you and seems most people here, i ALWAYS think my english is a sheetoos, extremely poor, easy to conclude, but minimalistic, without slang or other peculiarity, so…

    If i have a example on portuguese, maybe i would understand better and:

    - try to improve where i fail miserably [less grammar, it would mean: i need learn english, different than ''just improve something'']

    or

    - disappear for ever and ever from here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Some thoughts, but I don't claim to have good answers. I speak English only (well, enough French so the French don't mind speaking English so much after hearing a little, they don't like hearing their language butchered, sad on my part really, I am sincere when I compliment you on being able to make yourself understood at all in a foreign language, especially in such volume).

    I think using more simple declarative sentences (like in your last comment) might help. I get a sense you are trying to be creative in the way you express yourself in a way that confuses me. I have a similar habit in English which probably doesn't help your understanding of what I write either.

    Perhaps you could try an experiment and Google translate into Portuguese something by a native English speaker (say part of Dr. Thompson's article without technical jargon?) and a passage of yours in English and see how they differ? Alternatively, write something in both English and Portuguese and see how Google translate in each direction compares to your versions?

    Probably best would be to find someone fluent in English who knows enough Portuguese to give you feedback.
  119. @Neil Templeton
    Female advantage matters, otherwise the game would progress quickly to a position of clear male advantage. Which it hasn't. Perhaps females lever their ad in remembering male transgressions to dampen or nullify male advantages in other areas. Or perhaps it is not simply a zero-sum male/female conflict, and there are opportunities for cooperation to attend other measures.

    Sir Thompson here with this part creates the idea that women is better to do things that are related to men while men are better to do things, period. Women as a moon and men as a planet earth, in its orbit.

    Similar to, dog is good to do things that are related to their owners…

    I don’t understand that men who are heterossexual and hate or despise woman… It’s just a sexual thing*

    Yes, i know men are on avg smarter than women in cognitive demanding areas, even where we expect women to excel for example in arts [literature] and philosophy, verbal ones, men still excel over women, even [2] in this areas women tend to be less ”butchered”, but there are some departments women excel men not just in the top but also on avg, one of the most important of all, in terms of interpersonal interactions: empathy.

    Thanks to the lower empathy, ALMOST men who invented sophisticated ways to eliminate white race from earth surface. Thanks to the lower empathy, the percent of violent behavior, specially irrational ones, are very disproportionally commited by men.

    In the emotional department, average men are dumber if compared with women, as well women are dumber to men in the logic department. And men still have the upper hand because MOST of human conflicts are forged by them and also because logic is obviously more efficient to understand the reality than emotion, even emotion is also very important in other aspects of the same fundamental task: understand reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Men may have the upper hand (on average) in the relations that matter most to men. Likely women have the master hand in the relations that matter most to women. In the relations of lower priority for either sex, I suspect the hand of mastery is traded to and fro as circumstances permit or dictate. I'm not seeing clear mastery here under all conditions for either sex.
  120. Four IQ points sounds about right to me. For white people, that is.

    I’m pretty sure that whites are more sexually dimorphic intellectually speaking than Asians. Check the SAT scores by race and gender, then look at whites and orientals, and you’ll see that white women fall significantly behind oriental women whereas white men and oriental men are pretty close.

    A significant portion of the white/oriental achievement test gap can be accounted for by lower white female scores.

    Read More
  121. @CanSpeccy
    Re: Drugs that promote neurogenesis.

    That's interesting. Lithium, also, promote neurogenesis in some parts of the brain increasing, gray matter by as much as 15%. Wonder if they have bigger brains and higher IQ's in Texas where there is lithium in the water supply in many towns, e.g., San Antonio.

    I have no objections whatsoever to involuntary experiments run on unsuspecting populations, either. I was thinking more of the well-known negative effects such as lead, but also some mildly positive effects such as green tea.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666310000267

    Its a pretty interesting topic overall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    I have no objections whatsoever to involuntary experiments run on unsuspecting populations, either.
     
    Not sure what you are referring to. The lithium in the water supply in many parts of Texas has not been deliberately added like fluoride, neither is it a contaminant from old pipes, or whatever. The lithium occurs naturally in the ground water sources used in Texas.

    I can just about believe that tea stimulates the brain, as the paper your reference indicates, although the only thing that really worked for me was tobacco. Since I gave it up, almost 50 years ago, I've never felt quite normal. On the plus side, or so I am inclined to think, I'm still alive.

  122. @Santoculto
    I DON'T understand how hard is my english for you and seems most people here, i ALWAYS think my english is a sheetoos, extremely poor, easy to conclude, but minimalistic, without slang or other peculiarity, so...

    If i have a example on portuguese, maybe i would understand better and:

    - try to improve where i fail miserably [less grammar, it would mean: i need learn english, different than ''just improve something'']

    or

    - disappear for ever and ever from here.

    Some thoughts, but I don’t claim to have good answers. I speak English only (well, enough French so the French don’t mind speaking English so much after hearing a little, they don’t like hearing their language butchered, sad on my part really, I am sincere when I compliment you on being able to make yourself understood at all in a foreign language, especially in such volume).

    I think using more simple declarative sentences (like in your last comment) might help. I get a sense you are trying to be creative in the way you express yourself in a way that confuses me. I have a similar habit in English which probably doesn’t help your understanding of what I write either.

    Perhaps you could try an experiment and Google translate into Portuguese something by a native English speaker (say part of Dr. Thompson’s article without technical jargon?) and a passage of yours in English and see how they differ? Alternatively, write something in both English and Portuguese and see how Google translate in each direction compares to your versions?

    Probably best would be to find someone fluent in English who knows enough Portuguese to give you feedback.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I also think many people here create a straw man about my English. It's exactly what i try to do. I'm less "declarative" but no in predominant way. Maybe its my ideas usually via metaphoric language that it's not understandable. If it is the case...
  123. @Daniel Chieh
    I have no objections whatsoever to involuntary experiments run on unsuspecting populations, either. I was thinking more of the well-known negative effects such as lead, but also some mildly positive effects such as green tea.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666310000267

    Its a pretty interesting topic overall.

    I have no objections whatsoever to involuntary experiments run on unsuspecting populations, either.

    Not sure what you are referring to. The lithium in the water supply in many parts of Texas has not been deliberately added like fluoride, neither is it a contaminant from old pipes, or whatever. The lithium occurs naturally in the ground water sources used in Texas.

    I can just about believe that tea stimulates the brain, as the paper your reference indicates, although the only thing that really worked for me was tobacco. Since I gave it up, almost 50 years ago, I’ve never felt quite normal. On the plus side, or so I am inclined to think, I’m still alive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jim jones
    It always takes me about two cups of coffee and five cigarettes to get through the Unz comments in the morning.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I was being silly. And yes, it would seem like a possible vector for change.

    Definitely agree about tobacco - it does seem to have significant effects at clearing the mind, if only it didn't have other side effects. 6 IQ points as per your article, though! If that was consistently true, that would be drastic.

  124. @Santoculto
    Sir Thompson here with this part creates the idea that women is better to do things that are related to men while men are better to do things, period. Women as a moon and men as a planet earth, in its orbit.

    Similar to, dog is good to do things that are related to their owners...

    I don't understand that men who are heterossexual and hate or despise woman... It's just a sexual thing*

    Yes, i know men are on avg smarter than women in cognitive demanding areas, even where we expect women to excel for example in arts [literature] and philosophy, verbal ones, men still excel over women, even [2] in this areas women tend to be less ''butchered'', but there are some departments women excel men not just in the top but also on avg, one of the most important of all, in terms of interpersonal interactions: empathy.

    Thanks to the lower empathy, ALMOST men who invented sophisticated ways to eliminate white race from earth surface. Thanks to the lower empathy, the percent of violent behavior, specially irrational ones, are very disproportionally commited by men.

    In the emotional department, average men are dumber if compared with women, as well women are dumber to men in the logic department. And men still have the upper hand because MOST of human conflicts are forged by them and also because logic is obviously more efficient to understand the reality than emotion, even emotion is also very important in other aspects of the same fundamental task: understand reality.

    Men may have the upper hand (on average) in the relations that matter most to men. Likely women have the master hand in the relations that matter most to women. In the relations of lower priority for either sex, I suspect the hand of mastery is traded to and fro as circumstances permit or dictate. I’m not seeing clear mastery here under all conditions for either sex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I also think like that and it's explain partially why women seems lost to understand masculine conflicts. But also the logic differential (not rationality I believe men will perform better than women also in this task). The problem is that many people namely conservatives think it's fixed in the space and time while I believe it's a "selective confounding". Women has been selected to be less logically smart then men but also more empathetic.

    And the usual problem in psychometrics is that poverty of details, just analyzing this type of research without do it at individual levels, as usual believing that IQ IS intelligence and not IQ is a proxy for intelligence, without try to deep more in this findings. It's terra plana strategy. Looking from distant perspective earth planet seems have a straight surface. IQ is like looking for intelligence from distant perspective.
  125. @res
    I'm not sure what specifically you are looking for, but some thoughts...

    Regarding smart women in general, I have been around my share between my family growing up, college, and later in work and hobbies (and I rather like smart women, but that's another topic). The problem I have is I have a bit of a math bias and am an engineer. I think it's hard to argue with men dominating the high end of math (or spatial) dominated professions--not that there are no exceptional women, they are just relatively rare. Regarding general knowledge I get more of a sense of men and women are different rather than better or worse. Men seem better at detailed knowledge of arcane facts, while women seem better at tracking relationships and fuzzier knowledge. As a thought experiment, think how those traits might be useful in studying something like history in different fashions.

    Regarding the relative contribution of motherhood and career, to my mind that is someone else's personal choice. I think someone who is unhappy in either role is going to have trouble maximizing her contribution. I wish our society could find a way to better integrate having a career and having children reasonably early for women who want to do both. I think a good approach would be to have a part time job varying in flexibility and hours as children grow up transitioning back into full time if desired as the nest empties. But at the end of the day, it's not really my call. From a purely utilitarian view, I suspect something like that would come close to maximizing societal utility for many/most smart women, but presumably some will do better following their work talents full force and some will do better focusing exclusively on being a mother and homemaker.

    One complicating factor is the societal issue of allocating scarce and expensive educational resources. Educating doctors, lawyers, etc. who never practice or only practice for a few years is a problem IMHO.

    One thing that I think gets underrated in conversations like this is the value of having a smart mother who has the time and inclination to stimulate and challenge her children.

    P.S. That was rambling and I'm not sure I got even close to what you are looking for. But I am interested if you have a response.

    Wèll, on the run, no negative response. Difficult point about the public (including private university) resources being devoted to those who then hardly use the qualification, but a real one. I can’t see a really good answer in practice.

    I add that I would like to ensure the tax system gave more help to professional and academic couples wanting to have 3 or more children despite hardly beginning to be high earners till they are 30 or so.

    Read More
  126. Adam was talking to God in the Garden of Eden.

    “Why did you make Eve, God?” asked Adam.

    “So you wouldn’t be lonely, Adam”, God replied.

    “But why did you make her so pretty​?” asked Adam.

    “I made her pretty so that you would like her, Adam.”

    “But why did you make her so dumb?” asked Adam.

    “I made her dumb so that she would like you, Adam”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    what would ernest borgnine do said: Michelle, oh Michelle. You remind me of me .... but seriously - if you met a man remotely like Adam - the real Adam - you would immediately fall hopelessly in love before the clock ticked one more second. I wouldn't - but you would.
    Amor omnia vincit.
    Eve was not actually all that pretty - I could show you, in a half hour in a suburban mall, 20 or 30 more beautiful women ... but she was the most beautiful woman Adam had ever seen. I would have fallen hopelessly in love with her too. She probably looked like one of my high school girlfriends - to look at me now you would not believe it, but back in the day there were two beautiful young women who actually fought over me. I mean, not real fighting, but something close, I do not really know how to describe it. Well those days are long gone, but I still love both of them, and my heart aches that they are no longer in my life in the way that they used to be.
    It is nice to have memories like that, whether you are a man or a woman. And if you do not have memories like that, that is ok too: God created us for love; ---and --- If we have not been loved on this earth God knows why not, and in his infinite love God knows how to compensate for our sorrows. Words are rather pale things compared to paintings or songs or, much more, compared to real feelings of love between one person and another: but words are, for now, pale as they may be, the only unambiguous common language between God (who can, unlike us, speak in images, and in sounds, and in creation, and, yes, like us, in words, while we can only speak in words) and us. Even if we are relatively ugly (you are the one who mocked Adam's ugliness) male descendants of Adam and even if we are relatively ugly female descendants of Eve (not that you said anything implying she was ugly - but I have heard the gossip and I know that, probably, if you were at the same mirror at the prom as her and she (Eve) was some young woman you did not know well, you likely would have thought, thank God I do not have as much problems as her at getting my mascara to look, if not right, at least not wrong.... true that my friend?)
    and the only words I have to say to you are: Eve desperately loved Adam, Adam desperately loved Eve, and they are so sad that their descendants have not all had that level of love in their hearts. Well it is kind of their fault but that makes them even sadder! (Not that I would have done any better, of course....)
    Thanks for reading, Michelle. (I know that you probably will not read this. That is the world I live in. Sigh.) Galatians is good. Think about what the word "Galatians" means. You are after all named after one of the three great archangels of ancient and ever new friendship!
  127. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Women are morons at their core.
     
    Are you a homo?

    Absolutely not. Just because they’re morons doesn’t mean I have no use for women. But that you would out with a remark like that, I DO wonder about YOU.

    Read More
  128. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Michelle
    Adam was talking to God in the Garden of Eden.

    “Why did you make Eve, God?” asked Adam.

    “So you wouldn’t be lonely, Adam”, God replied.

    “But why did you make her so pretty​?” asked Adam.

    “I made her pretty so that you would like her, Adam.”

    “But why did you make her so dumb?” asked Adam.

    “I made her dumb so that she would like you, Adam”.

    what would ernest borgnine do said: Michelle, oh Michelle. You remind me of me …. but seriously – if you met a man remotely like Adam – the real Adam – you would immediately fall hopelessly in love before the clock ticked one more second. I wouldn’t – but you would.
    Amor omnia vincit.
    Eve was not actually all that pretty – I could show you, in a half hour in a suburban mall, 20 or 30 more beautiful women … but she was the most beautiful woman Adam had ever seen. I would have fallen hopelessly in love with her too. She probably looked like one of my high school girlfriends – to look at me now you would not believe it, but back in the day there were two beautiful young women who actually fought over me. I mean, not real fighting, but something close, I do not really know how to describe it. Well those days are long gone, but I still love both of them, and my heart aches that they are no longer in my life in the way that they used to be.
    It is nice to have memories like that, whether you are a man or a woman. And if you do not have memories like that, that is ok too: God created us for love; —and — If we have not been loved on this earth God knows why not, and in his infinite love God knows how to compensate for our sorrows. Words are rather pale things compared to paintings or songs or, much more, compared to real feelings of love between one person and another: but words are, for now, pale as they may be, the only unambiguous common language between God (who can, unlike us, speak in images, and in sounds, and in creation, and, yes, like us, in words, while we can only speak in words) and us. Even if we are relatively ugly (you are the one who mocked Adam’s ugliness) male descendants of Adam and even if we are relatively ugly female descendants of Eve (not that you said anything implying she was ugly – but I have heard the gossip and I know that, probably, if you were at the same mirror at the prom as her and she (Eve) was some young woman you did not know well, you likely would have thought, thank God I do not have as much problems as her at getting my mascara to look, if not right, at least not wrong…. true that my friend?)
    and the only words I have to say to you are: Eve desperately loved Adam, Adam desperately loved Eve, and they are so sad that their descendants have not all had that level of love in their hearts. Well it is kind of their fault but that makes them even sadder! (Not that I would have done any better, of course….)
    Thanks for reading, Michelle. (I know that you probably will not read this. That is the world I live in. Sigh.) Galatians is good. Think about what the word “Galatians” means. You are after all named after one of the three great archangels of ancient and ever new friendship!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Michelle
    I always, strangely, think of Eve as looking like Venus on the half shell. I know not why. But why did Adam and Eve love each other, other than the fact that each were the only game in town, the town being Eden. It was an arranged marriage, after all. I am very pro arranged marriage, just not for forced marriage.

    As for Eve wearing mascara to the prom, lashes seem to have been superfluous in the old timey days! Bald eyes seem to have been fashionable and considered beautiful. I do, however, believe that looks are really unimportant when it comes to great love. Think of Charles and Camilla!
  129. @CanSpeccy

    I have no objections whatsoever to involuntary experiments run on unsuspecting populations, either.
     
    Not sure what you are referring to. The lithium in the water supply in many parts of Texas has not been deliberately added like fluoride, neither is it a contaminant from old pipes, or whatever. The lithium occurs naturally in the ground water sources used in Texas.

    I can just about believe that tea stimulates the brain, as the paper your reference indicates, although the only thing that really worked for me was tobacco. Since I gave it up, almost 50 years ago, I've never felt quite normal. On the plus side, or so I am inclined to think, I'm still alive.

    It always takes me about two cups of coffee and five cigarettes to get through the Unz comments in the morning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Yes, quitting undoubtedly lowered my IQ. Even Einstein seems to have needed a shot of nicotine to get that space time business sorted out. Come to think of it, perhaps that's why women are dumber, they don't smoke as much.
  130. @res
    Some thoughts, but I don't claim to have good answers. I speak English only (well, enough French so the French don't mind speaking English so much after hearing a little, they don't like hearing their language butchered, sad on my part really, I am sincere when I compliment you on being able to make yourself understood at all in a foreign language, especially in such volume).

    I think using more simple declarative sentences (like in your last comment) might help. I get a sense you are trying to be creative in the way you express yourself in a way that confuses me. I have a similar habit in English which probably doesn't help your understanding of what I write either.

    Perhaps you could try an experiment and Google translate into Portuguese something by a native English speaker (say part of Dr. Thompson's article without technical jargon?) and a passage of yours in English and see how they differ? Alternatively, write something in both English and Portuguese and see how Google translate in each direction compares to your versions?

    Probably best would be to find someone fluent in English who knows enough Portuguese to give you feedback.

    I also think many people here create a straw man about my English. It’s exactly what i try to do. I’m less “declarative” but no in predominant way. Maybe its my ideas usually via metaphoric language that it’s not understandable. If it is the case…

    Read More
  131. @Neil Templeton
    Men may have the upper hand (on average) in the relations that matter most to men. Likely women have the master hand in the relations that matter most to women. In the relations of lower priority for either sex, I suspect the hand of mastery is traded to and fro as circumstances permit or dictate. I'm not seeing clear mastery here under all conditions for either sex.

    I also think like that and it’s explain partially why women seems lost to understand masculine conflicts. But also the logic differential (not rationality I believe men will perform better than women also in this task). The problem is that many people namely conservatives think it’s fixed in the space and time while I believe it’s a “selective confounding”. Women has been selected to be less logically smart then men but also more empathetic.

    And the usual problem in psychometrics is that poverty of details, just analyzing this type of research without do it at individual levels, as usual believing that IQ IS intelligence and not IQ is a proxy for intelligence, without try to deep more in this findings. It’s terra plana strategy. Looking from distant perspective earth planet seems have a straight surface. IQ is like looking for intelligence from distant perspective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    If knowledge is infinite, then we don't know an infinite amount more than we know. IQ is but a weak light on an infinity of uncertainty. Still, better than nothing!
  132. @jim jones
    It always takes me about two cups of coffee and five cigarettes to get through the Unz comments in the morning.

    Yes, quitting undoubtedly lowered my IQ. Even Einstein seems to have needed a shot of nicotine to get that space time business sorted out. Come to think of it, perhaps that’s why women are dumber, they don’t smoke as much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    A very fit medical friend said he is going to take up the pleaures of smoking at 75 (perhaps he would now add a few years) to add to the quality of life when on the downslope. Maybe at 80ish (90ish?) we should do it to sharpen us up. But could it be just the nicotine so we don'tneed to tar our lungs?
  133. @CanSpeccy

    I have no objections whatsoever to involuntary experiments run on unsuspecting populations, either.
     
    Not sure what you are referring to. The lithium in the water supply in many parts of Texas has not been deliberately added like fluoride, neither is it a contaminant from old pipes, or whatever. The lithium occurs naturally in the ground water sources used in Texas.

    I can just about believe that tea stimulates the brain, as the paper your reference indicates, although the only thing that really worked for me was tobacco. Since I gave it up, almost 50 years ago, I've never felt quite normal. On the plus side, or so I am inclined to think, I'm still alive.

    I was being silly. And yes, it would seem like a possible vector for change.

    Definitely agree about tobacco – it does seem to have significant effects at clearing the mind, if only it didn’t have other side effects. 6 IQ points as per your article, though! If that was consistently true, that would be drastic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    If either of you are interested, this is rather thorough: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
    , @anarchyst
    Tests on humans using nicotine have proven that using nicotine sharpens and quickens reaction time.
  134. @Wizard of Oz
    With some apprehensive modesty I commend #101 and #103 to you for a very spare moment.

    Interesting thoughts. I’ll extend that in general, it feels like higher IQ is anti-fertility these days, both male and female – so we’re likely to continue to see a dysgenic effect. In terms of R/K selection, the world actually may be R selected now such that populations that focus primarily on increasing themselves will not suffer much consequence for it.

    Sadly or otherwise, the most highly reproducing women these days that I personally know are women who have genuine learning disabilities(I know one who scored between 80 to 90 IQ). While their lives aren’t great, nothing seems to prevent them from having oodles of children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I excuse my dopiness on the ground that I have just woken at 2.45 am..... But R/K? Please elucidate. From my own words perhaps Ramsey/Keynes but that leaves it still just a bit too cryptic for me.
  135. @Daniel Chieh
    Interesting thoughts. I'll extend that in general, it feels like higher IQ is anti-fertility these days, both male and female - so we're likely to continue to see a dysgenic effect. In terms of R/K selection, the world actually may be R selected now such that populations that focus primarily on increasing themselves will not suffer much consequence for it.

    Sadly or otherwise, the most highly reproducing women these days that I personally know are women who have genuine learning disabilities(I know one who scored between 80 to 90 IQ). While their lives aren't great, nothing seems to prevent them from having oodles of children.

    I excuse my dopiness on the ground that I have just woken at 2.45 am….. But R/K? Please elucidate. From my own words perhaps Ramsey/Keynes but that leaves it still just a bit too cryptic for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Lower case r. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

    In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring.
     
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Basically, strategies for child-rearing. K-selected involves more time and involvement, R-selected involves large number of descendants. In a world where welfare takes care of everyone, the winning genetic strategy is just to pump them out, I suppose.

    http://www.unz.com/jman/its-not-the-cads-its-the-tramps/?highlight=r%2Fk-selection
    , @CanSpeccy
    Wow, a lot of info.Useful, surely, to anyone interested in the effects of tobacco and nicotine.
  136. @Daniel Chieh
    I was being silly. And yes, it would seem like a possible vector for change.

    Definitely agree about tobacco - it does seem to have significant effects at clearing the mind, if only it didn't have other side effects. 6 IQ points as per your article, though! If that was consistently true, that would be drastic.

    If either of you are interested, this is rather thorough: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

    Read More
  137. @CanSpeccy
    Yes, quitting undoubtedly lowered my IQ. Even Einstein seems to have needed a shot of nicotine to get that space time business sorted out. Come to think of it, perhaps that's why women are dumber, they don't smoke as much.

    A very fit medical friend said he is going to take up the pleaures of smoking at 75 (perhaps he would now add a few years) to add to the quality of life when on the downslope. Maybe at 80ish (90ish?) we should do it to sharpen us up. But could it be just the nicotine so we don’tneed to tar our lungs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Is he worried about Parkinsons or Alzheimers by any chance? (see gwern link above)
    , @CanSpeccy
    No, I'd never take it up again, although I enjoy the scent of fresh tobacco smoke on the spring breeze.

    Trouble with smoking is it amputates the emotions. When, first, I gave up a three-pack-a-day habit, elevator music would bring tears to my eyes. I've calmed down a bit since then, but I'm still more up for it if I need to be, and better able to to tune out when there's nothing I can usefully do. Or, to quote an old lady from Texas, "when I feel a worry coming on, I jus' close my eyes and sleep a while," which beats anxious chain smoking.

    I published a theory about this in Science Magazine (08 NOV 1985 : 607-608, requires a subscription): the idea being that emotion evokes a visceral physiological response, which then has a negative feedback effect on the perception of emotion. Nicotine, I proposed, by inducing a state of visceral physiological arousal, inhibits emotional arousal.

    Probably wrong, but it included a good line from P.G. Wodehouse, which I believe, is why they published it.

  138. Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    I don't know if you read my first comment in this comment thread?

    “The more metabolically active the brain is, the more blood it requires, so the supply arteries are larger. The holes in fossil skulls are accurate gauges of arterial size.”
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1847798

    Taller people have on average bigger/wider arteries, and thus on average better-blood-supplied brains, in my opinion:

    Small People, Small Arteries

    ''Smaller people have smaller arteries,'' she said. ''And the smaller the arteries, the less gunk it takes to clog them up and the less it takes to have a heart attack.'' Dr. Bush said that it does not matter whether the artery is in proportion to the size of the body. What counts is its absolute diameter.
     

    - http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/28/us/health-study-reports-that-short-women-have-higher-risk-of-heart-attacks.html

    You stated in your article:


    Big brains retain heat better in the cold whereas smaller heads cool better. That’s the reason for racial brain size differences, but climate and brain size in and of themselves do not CAUSE racial differences in IQ.
     
    The first point you made is Allen's Rule, I believe:

    Steegman said that the experimental results had similarities with the "Arctic Mongoloids", particularly the "Eskimo" and "Aleut," because these "Arctic Mongoloids" have similar features in accordance with Allen's rule: a narrow nasal passage, relatively large heads, long to round heads, large jaws, relatively large bodies, and short limbs.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule#In_humans

    But you forgot to factor in Bergmann's Rule in your analysis, which, in my opinion, would predict racial differences in IQ/intelligence caused by climate/temperature via bigger/wider arteries in taller/bigger human beings who live far away from the equator http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185 , which translates, as I stated above into ``better-blood-supplied brains,'' i.e., higher intelligence.

    Like you yourself stated in an earlier reply to one of my comments:

    I do agree with you that brain size doesn’t predict creativity, nor do IQ tests test for rationality or creativity.

    Cerebral blood flow during rest is associated with IQ and creativity.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025532
    [...]
    Nordicists are pretty funny.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/isteve-metrics/#comment-1827274

    In that regard Differential k theory has some similar predictive limitations as Bergmann’s Rule, however Bergmann’s Rule is generally still a very useful phenotypical predictor in the size/height of mammals, in my opinion.
    [...]
    Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
    [...]
    I always give the blue whale as an example of why Bergmann’s Rule is accurate, in my opinion, if there are no constraints and limits on resource/food availability.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1821795

    The size of another other body part, which is very important to men, is affected by Allen's Rule as well, in my opinion:


    I could be wrong, but this makes more sense to me than just the testosterone theory, even if androgen receptor sensitivity (lowest in Asians, highest in Africans), etc. is taken into account.

    This would also explain why northern Europeans despite their larger body size and taller stature (Bergmann’s Rule) don’t have the longest penises, because size/length is decreased due to Allen’s Rule?
    [...]
    Consistent and strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height, which ranged from r = 0.2 to 0.6.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1816830

    Some more on differences between men and women. I believe, that lower testosterone levels in women explains, why they are only slightly less intelligent than men on average, despite their on-average significantly shorter statures, etc. compared to men.


    Like I said in an earlier comment on this thread, the most visible/obvious and reliable indicator and predictor for intelligence seems to be height
    [...]
    Because the correlation between IQ and height is only 0.2, seven foot men would on average be 0.2(139) = 28 IQ points smarter than five foot men.
    [...]
    The other key point is that when men and women are the same height, the woman has an HQ that is 32 points higher (since these HQ scores are assigned relative to gender). Since men and women differ enormously in height but are virtually identical in IQ, and since height and IQ correlate 0.2 within both genders, when a man and woman are the same height, the woman have an IQ that is 0.2(32) = 6 points higher. – https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/height-iq/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1522194
  139. @Wizard of Oz
    A very fit medical friend said he is going to take up the pleaures of smoking at 75 (perhaps he would now add a few years) to add to the quality of life when on the downslope. Maybe at 80ish (90ish?) we should do it to sharpen us up. But could it be just the nicotine so we don'tneed to tar our lungs?

    Is he worried about Parkinsons or Alzheimers by any chance? (see gwern link above)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    This was a fea years ago when he had walked up Kilimanjaro in his late 60s and was about to retire as a surgeon in his early 70s. He simply made the point that after 75 (?80) now in Australia/Japan/New Zealand) quality of life/bodily functions declined so he would enjoy smoking without concern that he was shortening his life. It was at a family lunch so no medical specifics.
  140. @Wizard of Oz
    I excuse my dopiness on the ground that I have just woken at 2.45 am..... But R/K? Please elucidate. From my own words perhaps Ramsey/Keynes but that leaves it still just a bit too cryptic for me.

    Lower case r. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

    In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring.

    Read More
  141. @Daniel Chieh
    You are missing the point. Whether IQ completely and perfectly models "intelligence" as you define it isn't the important part, phil's point is that it does in fact have relevance to intelligence. For example, all other things relatively equal, larger muscles reflect greater strength.

    Now one can certainly argue that muscles are of different densities, that they might be placed slightly differently on the bone, and so on. And this might even affect the effective strength that the individual can apply to an object. Absolutely.

    But it doesn't change the general rule that larger muscles allow for more strength to be applied, and when this is also supported by various other studies, such as IQ being reflected with life outcomes and educational status, it means that it is an useful model.

    No model is perfect. But some models are more useful than others. Ultimately, the major practical goal of science is to find models which can be predictive and IQ is pretty predictive and useful.

    Men have, on average, 61 percent more total muscle mass than women, 75 percent more arm muscle mass, which translates approximately into a 90 percent greater upper body strength in men. 99.9 percent of females fall below the male mean, meaning that sex accounts for 70 percent of human variation in muscle mass and upper-body strength in humans (Lassek and Gaulin, 2009).

    http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.anth.d7/files/sitefiles/people/gaulin/Lassek%20%26%20Gaulin_muscle%20mass.pdf

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/muscular-strength-by-gender-and-race/

    Read More
  142. @Wizard of Oz
    I excuse my dopiness on the ground that I have just woken at 2.45 am..... But R/K? Please elucidate. From my own words perhaps Ramsey/Keynes but that leaves it still just a bit too cryptic for me.

    Basically, strategies for child-rearing. K-selected involves more time and involvement, R-selected involves large number of descendants. In a world where welfare takes care of everyone, the winning genetic strategy is just to pump them out, I suppose.

    http://www.unz.com/jman/its-not-the-cads-its-the-tramps/?highlight=r%2Fk-selection

    Read More
  143. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Does it mean that men need more brain volume compared to women to have similar level of IQ

    ?

    Does visuospatial IQ difference point to the primary roles of the males in more outdoor activities , involvement in catching prey in diverse terrain-oriented pursuits , involving more conflicts prone zones ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Interesting first question. As to second I've long regarded it as obvious that early evolution of hominids favoured that male visuo-spatial advantage as well as females better hearing and lower female sd for whatever intelligence kept them and their children alive and ready to reproduce. (No use having retarded mothers and no need for female Einsteins as mothers - whatever the palaeo version of Einstein might have been). Just So stories don't have to be silly.
  144. @Daniel Chieh
    I was being silly. And yes, it would seem like a possible vector for change.

    Definitely agree about tobacco - it does seem to have significant effects at clearing the mind, if only it didn't have other side effects. 6 IQ points as per your article, though! If that was consistently true, that would be drastic.

    Tests on humans using nicotine have proven that using nicotine sharpens and quickens reaction time.

    Read More
  145. @TG
    I'm not going to disagree with the results of this study - I am not familiar with it. But one thing to keep in mind:

    Certainly between different species of animals, larger brains generally means more intelligent (although primates have a neural 'hack' that gives them an even greater edge). However, within a species, the link is trickier.

    For example, there is a well defined area in the back of your brain called "primary visual cortex." It's pretty big, on average the size of a credit card (if unfolded) in each cerebral hemisphere. In otherwise normal subjects with no pathology, the relative size of this primary visual area varies by 2.5 to 1. And yet researchers have been trying for some time to see if people with bigger primary visual cortices have better visual abilities, and mostly failing.

    Consider also that any given female with an IQ of 120 almost certainly has a smaller brain than a standard male with an IQ of 80, even accounting for body size.

    So sure, statistically men may have an edge in many areas, and strict proportional affirmative action may well be a bad idea, but person by person brain size is not destiny.

    “Certainly between different species of animals, larger brains generally means more intelligent (although primates have a neural ‘hack’ that gives them an even greater edge). However, within a species, the link is trickier.”

    Wrong. You’re right that primates have the highest neuronal packing density (NPD) which is why we have the most cortical neurons of all mammalian species (and which explains our outstanding intelligence in comparison to other animals).

    In non-primates, total brain size predicts cognition better than EQ.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6321027_Overall_Brain_Size_and_Not_Encephalization_Quotient_Best_Predicts_Cognitive_Ability_across_Non-Human_Primates

    Along the same lines, we have recently suggested that the human brain is an isometrically enlarged version of a common primate plan (Herculano-Houzel et al., 2007). This finding raises the possibility that the human species derives its cognitive advantages over other primates from a very large number of excess brain neurons, rather than from being highly encephalized. This possibility is currently under investigation.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.20598/full

    Total neuronal count in the brain explains between species variation better than Jerison’s EQ. See also my article on brain size increasing for expertise capacity, not IQ.

    Read More
  146. @Commenting
    I agree with him in this case. The possibility that recruitment effects are distorting their results is already acknowledged by Rushton and Jackson and Hunt just further verifies it.

    Hunt also isn't a 100% environmentalist like Nisbett and has far as I know never done anything embarassing like attempting to disprove brain size/IQ correlation with an n = 36 study.

    Even assuming that the correlation between IQ and brain size is .5, that still leaves 75 percent of the variation to be explained. But the true correlation is what, .33? Then we still need to explain 89 percent of the variation in IQ. So robust…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    Unsure why you replied to me. I don't disagree. Nisbett cited the following paper to argue the brain size/IQ correlation doesn't exist when of course it does (as large meta analyses have proven)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18335/

    The current estimate for the correlation is actually .24 I believe (see Pietschnig et al 2015). The study we are discussing here affirms this estimate.
  147. @FKA Max
    Two fascinating papers:

    Why Are Most Drowning Victims Men? Sex Differences in Aquatic Skills and Behaviors
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380371/pdf/amjph00512-0095.pdf Howland et al. (1996)

    Male drowning rates peak between ages 1 and 2 years, decline thereafter until age 10, and then increase sharply to a maximum during the late teens. In contrast, female drowning rates peak by age 1 year and decline to a relatively low, consistent level. During late adolescence and early adulthood, the ratio of male to female drowning rates is about 10:1 (Figure 1).
    [...]
    In 1990, there were 4685 US drowning deaths; 3854 were men and 831 were women. [...]
    Evans has suggested that testosterone may con-tribute to the relatively high vehicular crash rates among young men. Testosterone may similarly contribute to the peak male drowning rates during the late teen and early adult years. Yet preadolescent males also have higher injury rates than young females for many injury categories.
     
    Effects of Castration on the Life Expectancy of Contemporary Men

    http://lesswrong.com/lw/lm4/effects_of_castration_on_the_life_expectancy_of/

    Conclusion and Motivation

    Orchiectomy should prolong the lifespans of modern males, especially if done before puberty. While the estimates of life expectancy gains from castration given in Figure 4 and Table 1 aren't perfect, they are my best guesses, and should be interpreted with the correspondingly appropriate level of credence.

    My original motivation for writing this post was that I was interested in learning about the different ways in which humans could extend their lifespans and life expectancies. So, while being castrated is one way for males to live longer, quitting smoking and improving one's diet and exercise regimen are better uses of time and energy for people who are just beginning to think about changing their lifestyles in order to live longer.
     
    Read More
  148. The male distribution of IQ has fat tails compared to a perfect Gaussian, so men end up outnumbering women by 8:1 at an IQ threshold of 145. And those super bright women will be much better at law and medicine than engineering. Conversely you will see more homeless male imbeciles on the street.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    the 8 : 1 estimate is from Nyborg's 2005 sample with just 62 participants. I don't believe it is correct. Men would have to have both a higher mean as well as substantially higher variance (moreso than commonly found)
  149. @RaceRealist88
    Even assuming that the correlation between IQ and brain size is .5, that still leaves 75 percent of the variation to be explained. But the true correlation is what, .33? Then we still need to explain 89 percent of the variation in IQ. So robust...

    Unsure why you replied to me. I don’t disagree. Nisbett cited the following paper to argue the brain size/IQ correlation doesn’t exist when of course it does (as large meta analyses have proven)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18335/

    The current estimate for the correlation is actually .24 I believe (see Pietschnig et al 2015). The study we are discussing here affirms this estimate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    I agree that that the correlation exists; but is it meaningful? No.

    So according to Petschnig et al 2015, the variation between brain size and IQ is 5 percent. . . Not robust at all! I don't see why the brain size/IQ correlation continuously gets cited as if it actually means anything.
  150. @JimB
    The male distribution of IQ has fat tails compared to a perfect Gaussian, so men end up outnumbering women by 8:1 at an IQ threshold of 145. And those super bright women will be much better at law and medicine than engineering. Conversely you will see more homeless male imbeciles on the street.

    the 8 : 1 estimate is from Nyborg’s 2005 sample with just 62 participants. I don’t believe it is correct. Men would have to have both a higher mean as well as substantially higher variance (moreso than commonly found)

    Read More
  151. Women are better than men at manipulating the opposite sex. Men are better at everything else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    And still heterossexual*

    Everything....

    exactly, for example, to begin third world war...

    stupiendous!!
  152. @Commenting
    Unsure why you replied to me. I don't disagree. Nisbett cited the following paper to argue the brain size/IQ correlation doesn't exist when of course it does (as large meta analyses have proven)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18335/

    The current estimate for the correlation is actually .24 I believe (see Pietschnig et al 2015). The study we are discussing here affirms this estimate.

    I agree that that the correlation exists; but is it meaningful? No.

    So according to Petschnig et al 2015, the variation between brain size and IQ is 5 percent. . . Not robust at all! I don’t see why the brain size/IQ correlation continuously gets cited as if it actually means anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    In the words of Pietschnig et al it is a "robust, but weak correlation".

    Presumably one reason it is often cited is the hereditarian hypothesis. It fits Rushton's model with Asians having larger brains (controlling for body size) than Europeans and those having larger brains than Africans. The brain size differences provide evidence that part of the difference found in IQ scores between these groups may be genetic
  153. @L Woods
    Women are better than men at manipulating the opposite sex. Men are better at everything else.

    And still heterossexual*

    Everything….

    exactly, for example, to begin third world war…

    stupiendous!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    He figures men are better at everything! What a strange unfolding of thoughts that leads to. They say the male ego is fragile but in reality it is as indestructable as kryptonite.
    Still, he is too demure in allowing that women are better at manipulating the opposite sex. Excluding the western world in the past century (for we of the west have indeed developed an unprecedented environment in which people are encouraged to still identify themselves as they were 200 years ago, while actually behaving as if they were in the 22nd century), one must grant superiority to men in that area as well. Right side of that bell curve for you.
  154. @RaceRealist88
    I agree that that the correlation exists; but is it meaningful? No.

    So according to Petschnig et al 2015, the variation between brain size and IQ is 5 percent. . . Not robust at all! I don't see why the brain size/IQ correlation continuously gets cited as if it actually means anything.

    In the words of Pietschnig et al it is a “robust, but weak correlation”.

    Presumably one reason it is often cited is the hereditarian hypothesis. It fits Rushton’s model with Asians having larger brains (controlling for body size) than Europeans and those having larger brains than Africans. The brain size differences provide evidence that part of the difference found in IQ scores between these groups may be genetic

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry to butt in with a stray thought prompted by "controlling for body size". Prima facie one would expect the increase in brain size of the larger person to be only related to what it takes to control or service the extra (organised) molecules of the larger body. And that increase would surely be v. small. So, if that is right, what does "controlling for body size" really mean or imply? Wouldn't more grey matter prima facie mean higher IQ tout court?
  155. @RaceRealist88
    Evolution increased brain size for expertise capacity, not IQ.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/

    Dr. Thompson, thoughts on this paper?

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000251

    I don’t know if you read my first comment in this comment thread?

    “The more metabolically active the brain is, the more blood it requires, so the supply arteries are larger. The holes in fossil skulls are accurate gauges of arterial size.”

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1847798

    Taller people have on average bigger/wider arteries, and thus on average better-blood-supplied brains, in my opinion:

    Small People, Small Arteries

    Smaller people have smaller arteries,” she said. ”And the smaller the arteries, the less gunk it takes to clog them up and the less it takes to have a heart attack.” Dr. Bush said that it does not matter whether the artery is in proportion to the size of the body. What counts is its absolute diameter.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/28/us/health-study-reports-that-short-women-have-higher-risk-of-heart-attacks.html

    You stated in your article:

    Big brains retain heat better in the cold whereas smaller heads cool better. That’s the reason for racial brain size differences, but climate and brain size in and of themselves do not CAUSE racial differences in IQ.

    The first point you made is Allen’s Rule, I believe:

    Steegman said that the experimental results had similarities with the “Arctic Mongoloids”, particularly the “Eskimo” and “Aleut,” because these “Arctic Mongoloids” have similar features in accordance with Allen’s rule: a narrow nasal passage, relatively large heads, long to round heads, large jaws, relatively large bodies, and short limbs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule#In_humans

    But you forgot to factor in Bergmann’s Rule in your analysis, which, in my opinion, would predict racial differences in IQ/intelligence caused by climate/temperature via bigger/wider arteries in taller/bigger human beings who live far away from the equator http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185 , which translates, as I stated above into “better-blood-supplied brains,” i.e., higher intelligence.

    Like you yourself stated in an earlier reply to one of my comments:

    I do agree with you that brain size doesn’t predict creativity, nor do IQ tests test for rationality or creativity.

    Cerebral blood flow during rest is associated with IQ and creativity.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025532

    [...]
    Nordicists are pretty funny.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/isteve-metrics/#comment-1827274

    In that regard Differential k theory has some similar predictive limitations as Bergmann’s Rule, however Bergmann’s Rule is generally still a very useful phenotypical predictor in the size/height of mammals, in my opinion.
    [...]
    Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
    [...]
    I always give the blue whale as an example of why Bergmann’s Rule is accurate, in my opinion, if there are no constraints and limits on resource/food availability.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1821795

    The size of another other body part, which is very important to men, is affected by Allen’s Rule as well, in my opinion:

    I could be wrong, but this makes more sense to me than just the testosterone theory, even if androgen receptor sensitivity (lowest in Asians, highest in Africans), etc. is taken into account.

    This would also explain why northern Europeans despite their larger body size and taller stature (Bergmann’s Rule) don’t have the longest penises, because size/length is decreased due to Allen’s Rule?
    [...]
    Consistent and strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height, which ranged from r = 0.2 to 0.6.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1816830

    Some more on differences between men and women. I believe, that lower testosterone levels in women explains, why they are only slightly less intelligent than men on average, despite their on-average significantly shorter statures, etc. compared to men.

    Like I said in an earlier comment on this thread, the most visible/obvious and reliable indicator and predictor for intelligence seems to be height
    [...]
    Because the correlation between IQ and height is only 0.2, seven foot men would on average be 0.2(139) = 28 IQ points smarter than five foot men.
    [...]
    The other key point is that when men and women are the same height, the woman has an HQ that is 32 points higher (since these HQ scores are assigned relative to gender). Since men and women differ enormously in height but are virtually identical in IQ, and since height and IQ correlate 0.2 within both genders, when a man and woman are the same height, the woman have an IQ that is 0.2(32) = 6 points higher.https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/height-iq/

    http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1522194

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    What about Ethiopians and balkanic people's??
    , @FKA Max
    The following is extremely interesting information to me, because I commented this back in August of 2016:

    There are so many factors to take into account when it comes to IQ, SAT, etc. test scores and test taking in general besides test prepping, inherited intelligence, etc.

    - Testosterone levels
    [...]
    To truly standardize testing, all tests would have to be taken in the same location during the same time of year, etc.
    [...]
    ...and ask them to take their tests only in the winter, would this lower their average test scores, even if all other controls/factors remain the same?
     

    - http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1522194

    I was not aware of this great research by Doreen Kimura -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doreen_Kimura -- on testosterone levels and cognitive performance before:

    Men's Test Scores Linked to Hormone
    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/14/us/men-s-test-scores-linked-to-hormone.html


    Men have better spatial ability when tested in spring than in autumn and the variation appears to be linked to seasonal fluctuations in male sex hormones, a scientist said today.
    [...]
    The findings conform with earlier, little-publicized research showing that men with low levels of testosterone perform better on tasks like mentally rotating a three dimensional object, which involve spatial reasoning skills that are critical in much of mathematics. Earlier research has also shown that men's testosterone levels tend to be lower in the spring.
    [...]
    For both sexes, she said, the differences are subtle and would not affect daily life. But she said that after puberty boys would do better on mathematics tests in spring than in fall. On the Scholastic Aptitude Test, she said, the difference might be up to 50 points.
    [...]
    Dr. Kimura relied on earlier research showing that testosterone levels for men were higher in fall and lower in spring. "So much for popular conceptions about a young man's fancy," she said.
    [...]
    It is not clear why men produce more testosterone in the fall, Dr. McEwen said. Perhaps there is an evolutionary advantage to having children born in the spring and summer when food is more plentiful, he said.

    "I doubt seriously that people will question men's ability to lead based on seasonal changes in their hormone levels," said Melodie Behan, president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. "The study should not be used to keep men from fulfilling their potential. But the same kinds of studies have been used to keep women from positions of power."

    Dr. Kimura said seasonal testosterone levels might affect other behavior, like crime and taking risks. She said it would be interesting to know if crime rates are higher in the fall.
     

    Sex Differences in the Brain by Doreen Kimura

    TESTOSTERONE LEVELS can affect performance on some tests [see boxes on opposite page for examples of tests]. Women with high levels of testosterone perform better on spatial tasks (top) than women with low levels do, but men with low levels outperform men with high levels. On a mathematical reasoning test (middle), low testosterone corresponds to better performance in men; in women there is no such relation. On a test of perceptual speed in which women usually excel (bottom), no relation is found between testosterone and performance.
     
    - see page 4 http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langimp/genderbrain.pdf
  156. @FKA Max
    I don't know if you read my first comment in this comment thread?

    “The more metabolically active the brain is, the more blood it requires, so the supply arteries are larger. The holes in fossil skulls are accurate gauges of arterial size.”
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1847798

    Taller people have on average bigger/wider arteries, and thus on average better-blood-supplied brains, in my opinion:

    Small People, Small Arteries

    ''Smaller people have smaller arteries,'' she said. ''And the smaller the arteries, the less gunk it takes to clog them up and the less it takes to have a heart attack.'' Dr. Bush said that it does not matter whether the artery is in proportion to the size of the body. What counts is its absolute diameter.
     

    - http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/28/us/health-study-reports-that-short-women-have-higher-risk-of-heart-attacks.html

    You stated in your article:


    Big brains retain heat better in the cold whereas smaller heads cool better. That’s the reason for racial brain size differences, but climate and brain size in and of themselves do not CAUSE racial differences in IQ.
     
    The first point you made is Allen's Rule, I believe:

    Steegman said that the experimental results had similarities with the "Arctic Mongoloids", particularly the "Eskimo" and "Aleut," because these "Arctic Mongoloids" have similar features in accordance with Allen's rule: a narrow nasal passage, relatively large heads, long to round heads, large jaws, relatively large bodies, and short limbs.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule#In_humans

    But you forgot to factor in Bergmann's Rule in your analysis, which, in my opinion, would predict racial differences in IQ/intelligence caused by climate/temperature via bigger/wider arteries in taller/bigger human beings who live far away from the equator http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185 , which translates, as I stated above into ``better-blood-supplied brains,'' i.e., higher intelligence.

    Like you yourself stated in an earlier reply to one of my comments:

    I do agree with you that brain size doesn’t predict creativity, nor do IQ tests test for rationality or creativity.

    Cerebral blood flow during rest is associated with IQ and creativity.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025532
    [...]
    Nordicists are pretty funny.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/isteve-metrics/#comment-1827274

    In that regard Differential k theory has some similar predictive limitations as Bergmann’s Rule, however Bergmann’s Rule is generally still a very useful phenotypical predictor in the size/height of mammals, in my opinion.
    [...]
    Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
    [...]
    I always give the blue whale as an example of why Bergmann’s Rule is accurate, in my opinion, if there are no constraints and limits on resource/food availability.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1821795

    The size of another other body part, which is very important to men, is affected by Allen's Rule as well, in my opinion:


    I could be wrong, but this makes more sense to me than just the testosterone theory, even if androgen receptor sensitivity (lowest in Asians, highest in Africans), etc. is taken into account.

    This would also explain why northern Europeans despite their larger body size and taller stature (Bergmann’s Rule) don’t have the longest penises, because size/length is decreased due to Allen’s Rule?
    [...]
    Consistent and strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height, which ranged from r = 0.2 to 0.6.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1816830

    Some more on differences between men and women. I believe, that lower testosterone levels in women explains, why they are only slightly less intelligent than men on average, despite their on-average significantly shorter statures, etc. compared to men.


    Like I said in an earlier comment on this thread, the most visible/obvious and reliable indicator and predictor for intelligence seems to be height
    [...]
    Because the correlation between IQ and height is only 0.2, seven foot men would on average be 0.2(139) = 28 IQ points smarter than five foot men.
    [...]
    The other key point is that when men and women are the same height, the woman has an HQ that is 32 points higher (since these HQ scores are assigned relative to gender). Since men and women differ enormously in height but are virtually identical in IQ, and since height and IQ correlate 0.2 within both genders, when a man and woman are the same height, the woman have an IQ that is 0.2(32) = 6 points higher. – https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/height-iq/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1522194

    What about Ethiopians and balkanic people’s??

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    You are correct people from Montenegro (population c. ~620,000) , Serbia ( ~7 million), and Croatia (~4.2 million) are an anomaly/outliers, and seem to be an exception to Bergmann's Rule. But considering the size of that population (~16 million including Bosnia) compared to Germany (~80 million), Netherlands (~17 million), Scandinavia/Baltics (~25 million), etc., I believe the rule still generally holds. Plus you have large non-native, shorter populations living in countries like Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, which probably suppress the overall height average. Also people from the Balkans likely have higher testosterone levels than Northern Europeans on average and are lightly eye-pigmented less often:

    my (simple) system/model that I have developed — to identify authentic geniuses;
    [...]
    These are the characteristics I am looking for: height and low testosterone as indicators/proxies for intelligence; “Nordic” phenotype (light eye pigmentation) as an indicator/proxy for creativity and curiosity.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/isteve-metrics/#comment-1823832

    Mapped: The world's tallest (and shortest) countries
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/the-tallest-and-shortest-countries-in-the-world/

    The world's 20 tallest countries [2016]

    Netherlands - 1.838m
    Montenegro - 1.832m
    Denmark - 1.826m
    Norway - 1.824m
    Serbia - 1.82m
    Germany - 1.81m
    Croatia - 1.805m
    Czech Republic - 1.8031m
    Slovenia - 1.803m
    Luxembourg - 1.799m

    Gents from Bosnia and Herzegovina might feel aggrieved to be left off that list. According to some sources they are a fraction taller even than the Dutch. The www.averageheight.co, which collects data from a variety of sources and whose statistics we used for our map, adds that Nilotic peoples that live in regions near the Nile Valley, the African Great Lakes, and southwestern Ethiopia, and are regarded to be among the tallest people on earth with an average male height is 6ft 3in (1.9m). Ethiopia, however, doesn't appear on its table of tallest countries.
     

    There are also differences between the heights of the different Nilotic peoples/tribes, plus the population of that group is not huge either; I am not exactly sure but I think it is maybe around 20 to 25 million(?), and again, their height is mostly due to their long limbs, so I am not sure their arteries would as big/wide as an equally tall, but bigger/heavier, Nordic person's ones; which would explain their on average lower intelligence compared to Northern Europeans, despite their tallness:

    Physically, Nilotes are noted for their typically very dark skin color and slender, tall bodies. They often possess exceptionally long limbs, particularly vis-a-vis the distal segments (forearms, calves). This characteristic is thought to be a climatic adaptation to allow their bodies to shed heat more efficiently.
    [...]
    Additionally, it has been remarked that the Nilotic groups presently inhabiting the African Great Lakes region are sometimes smaller in stature than those residing in the Sudan region. Campbell et al. (2006) recorded measurements of 172.0 cm/53.6 kg (67.7"/118.2 lbs) in a sample of agricultural Turkana in northern Kenya, and of 174.9 cm/53.0 kg (68.8"/116.8 lbs) in pastoral Turkana.[23]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples#Physiology

    I came across some interesting research, that might be relevant to this post, in explaining why there are differences in height and body size besides genetics and nutrition, namely due to temperature. Maybe this explains why Americans of Northern European descent, who have ”tall genes” and do not suffer from malnutrition (especially if they have lived in the warmer southern states for generations), might still be shorter than their northern cousins (this is speculation on my part, since I have not found any data on height differences between Americans of Northern European descent depending where they live in the United States). Maybe not all the slowdown in average American height compared to Northern Europeans, who live in colder climates/temperatures, is due to the increased immigration of short South Americans into the U.S.? I still believe though, that immigration of shorter people is the main driver of this trend/decline:

    Tests of ecogeographical relationships in a non-native species: what rules avian morphology?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26936361

    Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/#comment-1510316
  157. @res
    Is he worried about Parkinsons or Alzheimers by any chance? (see gwern link above)

    This was a fea years ago when he had walked up Kilimanjaro in his late 60s and was about to retire as a surgeon in his early 70s. He simply made the point that after 75 (?80) now in Australia/Japan/New Zealand) quality of life/bodily functions declined so he would enjoy smoking without concern that he was shortening his life. It was at a family lunch so no medical specifics.

    Read More
  158. @Commenting
    In the words of Pietschnig et al it is a "robust, but weak correlation".

    Presumably one reason it is often cited is the hereditarian hypothesis. It fits Rushton's model with Asians having larger brains (controlling for body size) than Europeans and those having larger brains than Africans. The brain size differences provide evidence that part of the difference found in IQ scores between these groups may be genetic

    Sorry to butt in with a stray thought prompted by “controlling for body size”. Prima facie one would expect the increase in brain size of the larger person to be only related to what it takes to control or service the extra (organised) molecules of the larger body. And that increase would surely be v. small. So, if that is right, what does “controlling for body size” really mean or imply? Wouldn’t more grey matter prima facie mean higher IQ tout court?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Commenting
    It was long believed that the encephalization quotient which is a measure of average brain size was the best predictor of cognitive ability. Partly because using the EQ meant humans and primates "came out on top" when compared with other species. Pietschnig et al argue in their meta analysis that absolute brain size outperforms the EQ as predictor of IQ so we can't be sure I guess.

    As far as I know East Asians have slightly smaller brains than Europeans but larger brains when controlling for body size.
  159. @Wizard of Oz
    I excuse my dopiness on the ground that I have just woken at 2.45 am..... But R/K? Please elucidate. From my own words perhaps Ramsey/Keynes but that leaves it still just a bit too cryptic for me.

    Wow, a lot of info.Useful, surely, to anyone interested in the effects of tobacco and nicotine.

    Read More
  160. @anon
    Does it mean that men need more brain volume compared to women to have similar level of IQ

    ?


    Does visuospatial IQ difference point to the primary roles of the males in more outdoor activities , involvement in catching prey in diverse terrain-oriented pursuits , involving more conflicts prone zones ?

    Interesting first question. As to second I’ve long regarded it as obvious that early evolution of hominids favoured that male visuo-spatial advantage as well as females better hearing and lower female sd for whatever intelligence kept them and their children alive and ready to reproduce. (No use having retarded mothers and no need for female Einsteins as mothers – whatever the palaeo version of Einstein might have been). Just So stories don’t have to be silly.

    Read More
  161. @Santoculto
    I also think like that and it's explain partially why women seems lost to understand masculine conflicts. But also the logic differential (not rationality I believe men will perform better than women also in this task). The problem is that many people namely conservatives think it's fixed in the space and time while I believe it's a "selective confounding". Women has been selected to be less logically smart then men but also more empathetic.

    And the usual problem in psychometrics is that poverty of details, just analyzing this type of research without do it at individual levels, as usual believing that IQ IS intelligence and not IQ is a proxy for intelligence, without try to deep more in this findings. It's terra plana strategy. Looking from distant perspective earth planet seems have a straight surface. IQ is like looking for intelligence from distant perspective.

    If knowledge is infinite, then we don’t know an infinite amount more than we know. IQ is but a weak light on an infinity of uncertainty. Still, better than nothing!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    That's the problematic mentality that reigns here.

    Finally most people here are capable to agree that IQ is incomplete (considerably incomplete: Only two of the most fundamental qualitative aspects of human abilities has not been accessed) but "still better than nothing". Yes I also can agree with this sentence but the problem is that, so if IQ is incomplete what is the logical thing to think??

    To solve this problem? To complete it? And starting from two black holes that make IQ very weak in some very important perspectives??

    Intelligence is not still that Rosetta stone you are suggesting. It's quite complex and diverse but there are very solid principles that should help us to start from less incomplete amount of specific knowledge.

    Just start from what I and other IQ skepticals (even I'm not exactly a skeptical) has talked, namely via genuine good points.
  162. @Wizard of Oz
    A very fit medical friend said he is going to take up the pleaures of smoking at 75 (perhaps he would now add a few years) to add to the quality of life when on the downslope. Maybe at 80ish (90ish?) we should do it to sharpen us up. But could it be just the nicotine so we don'tneed to tar our lungs?

    No, I’d never take it up again, although I enjoy the scent of fresh tobacco smoke on the spring breeze.

    Trouble with smoking is it amputates the emotions. When, first, I gave up a three-pack-a-day habit, elevator music would bring tears to my eyes. I’ve calmed down a bit since then, but I’m still more up for it if I need to be, and better able to to tune out when there’s nothing I can usefully do. Or, to quote an old lady from Texas, “when I feel a worry coming on, I jus’ close my eyes and sleep a while,” which beats anxious chain smoking.

    I published a theory about this in Science Magazine (08 NOV 1985 : 607-608, requires a subscription): the idea being that emotion evokes a visceral physiological response, which then has a negative feedback effect on the perception of emotion. Nicotine, I proposed, by inducing a state of visceral physiological arousal, inhibits emotional arousal.

    Probably wrong, but it included a good line from P.G. Wodehouse, which I believe, is why they published it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Preview (not including the relevant portion) at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/230/4726/607
    A searchable PDF is available at libgen using DOI 10.1126/science.4048950

    Not sure if my reading comprehension is poor, but I don't see a direct smoking/nicotine connection. You get points for getting this line in a scholarly journal though: "On the other hand amusement in the absence of risorius muscle contraction, for example at Wodehouse's line that it is never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine, is difficult but not impossible."

    Interesting point about smoking amputating emotions. I have heard it described as calming (often a good thing IMHO), but your account puts that in better perspective. Thanks.

    One thing I have noticed which I think is applicable to your observations over time is that in my experience humans are more sensitive to change than absolute levels. At one point I started a nutritional supplement that affected my ability to perceive color (I think I had been deficient for an extended period for that and other reasons). There was a period where I walked around in wonder because of all the subtle and bright colors. That sensation went away fairly quickly, but I am pretty sure my color sensitivity remained improved.

  163. @anonymous
    what would ernest borgnine do said: Michelle, oh Michelle. You remind me of me .... but seriously - if you met a man remotely like Adam - the real Adam - you would immediately fall hopelessly in love before the clock ticked one more second. I wouldn't - but you would.
    Amor omnia vincit.
    Eve was not actually all that pretty - I could show you, in a half hour in a suburban mall, 20 or 30 more beautiful women ... but she was the most beautiful woman Adam had ever seen. I would have fallen hopelessly in love with her too. She probably looked like one of my high school girlfriends - to look at me now you would not believe it, but back in the day there were two beautiful young women who actually fought over me. I mean, not real fighting, but something close, I do not really know how to describe it. Well those days are long gone, but I still love both of them, and my heart aches that they are no longer in my life in the way that they used to be.
    It is nice to have memories like that, whether you are a man or a woman. And if you do not have memories like that, that is ok too: God created us for love; ---and --- If we have not been loved on this earth God knows why not, and in his infinite love God knows how to compensate for our sorrows. Words are rather pale things compared to paintings or songs or, much more, compared to real feelings of love between one person and another: but words are, for now, pale as they may be, the only unambiguous common language between God (who can, unlike us, speak in images, and in sounds, and in creation, and, yes, like us, in words, while we can only speak in words) and us. Even if we are relatively ugly (you are the one who mocked Adam's ugliness) male descendants of Adam and even if we are relatively ugly female descendants of Eve (not that you said anything implying she was ugly - but I have heard the gossip and I know that, probably, if you were at the same mirror at the prom as her and she (Eve) was some young woman you did not know well, you likely would have thought, thank God I do not have as much problems as her at getting my mascara to look, if not right, at least not wrong.... true that my friend?)
    and the only words I have to say to you are: Eve desperately loved Adam, Adam desperately loved Eve, and they are so sad that their descendants have not all had that level of love in their hearts. Well it is kind of their fault but that makes them even sadder! (Not that I would have done any better, of course....)
    Thanks for reading, Michelle. (I know that you probably will not read this. That is the world I live in. Sigh.) Galatians is good. Think about what the word "Galatians" means. You are after all named after one of the three great archangels of ancient and ever new friendship!

    I always, strangely, think of Eve as looking like Venus on the half shell. I know not why. But why did Adam and Eve love each other, other than the fact that each were the only game in town, the town being Eden. It was an arranged marriage, after all. I am very pro arranged marriage, just not for forced marriage.

    As for Eve wearing mascara to the prom, lashes seem to have been superfluous in the old timey days! Bald eyes seem to have been fashionable and considered beautiful. I do, however, believe that looks are really unimportant when it comes to great love. Think of Charles and Camilla!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Well said, Michelle . For the record --- Diana was of course a beautiful and in many ways an admirable woman but, if you put me in a time machine and for some reason I had the option to ask a still unmarried Diana or a still unmarried Camilla on a date, with the hope that the first date would lead to a marriage, I would ask Camilla. True that.
  164. @FKA Max
    I don't know if you read my first comment in this comment thread?

    “The more metabolically active the brain is, the more blood it requires, so the supply arteries are larger. The holes in fossil skulls are accurate gauges of arterial size.”
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1847798

    Taller people have on average bigger/wider arteries, and thus on average better-blood-supplied brains, in my opinion:

    Small People, Small Arteries

    ''Smaller people have smaller arteries,'' she said. ''And the smaller the arteries, the less gunk it takes to clog them up and the less it takes to have a heart attack.'' Dr. Bush said that it does not matter whether the artery is in proportion to the size of the body. What counts is its absolute diameter.
     

    - http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/28/us/health-study-reports-that-short-women-have-higher-risk-of-heart-attacks.html

    You stated in your article:


    Big brains retain heat better in the cold whereas smaller heads cool better. That’s the reason for racial brain size differences, but climate and brain size in and of themselves do not CAUSE racial differences in IQ.
     
    The first point you made is Allen's Rule, I believe:

    Steegman said that the experimental results had similarities with the "Arctic Mongoloids", particularly the "Eskimo" and "Aleut," because these "Arctic Mongoloids" have similar features in accordance with Allen's rule: a narrow nasal passage, relatively large heads, long to round heads, large jaws, relatively large bodies, and short limbs.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule#In_humans

    But you forgot to factor in Bergmann's Rule in your analysis, which, in my opinion, would predict racial differences in IQ/intelligence caused by climate/temperature via bigger/wider arteries in taller/bigger human beings who live far away from the equator http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185 , which translates, as I stated above into ``better-blood-supplied brains,'' i.e., higher intelligence.

    Like you yourself stated in an earlier reply to one of my comments:

    I do agree with you that brain size doesn’t predict creativity, nor do IQ tests test for rationality or creativity.

    Cerebral blood flow during rest is associated with IQ and creativity.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025532
    [...]
    Nordicists are pretty funny.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/isteve-metrics/#comment-1827274

    In that regard Differential k theory has some similar predictive limitations as Bergmann’s Rule, however Bergmann’s Rule is generally still a very useful phenotypical predictor in the size/height of mammals, in my opinion.
    [...]
    Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
    [...]
    I always give the blue whale as an example of why Bergmann’s Rule is accurate, in my opinion, if there are no constraints and limits on resource/food availability.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1821795

    The size of another other body part, which is very important to men, is affected by Allen's Rule as well, in my opinion:


    I could be wrong, but this makes more sense to me than just the testosterone theory, even if androgen receptor sensitivity (lowest in Asians, highest in Africans), etc. is taken into account.

    This would also explain why northern Europeans despite their larger body size and taller stature (Bergmann’s Rule) don’t have the longest penises, because size/length is decreased due to Allen’s Rule?
    [...]
    Consistent and strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height, which ranged from r = 0.2 to 0.6.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1816830

    Some more on differences between men and women. I believe, that lower testosterone levels in women explains, why they are only slightly less intelligent than men on average, despite their on-average significantly shorter statures, etc. compared to men.


    Like I said in an earlier comment on this thread, the most visible/obvious and reliable indicator and predictor for intelligence seems to be height
    [...]
    Because the correlation between IQ and height is only 0.2, seven foot men would on average be 0.2(139) = 28 IQ points smarter than five foot men.
    [...]
    The other key point is that when men and women are the same height, the woman has an HQ that is 32 points higher (since these HQ scores are assigned relative to gender). Since men and women differ enormously in height but are virtually identical in IQ, and since height and IQ correlate 0.2 within both genders, when a man and woman are the same height, the woman have an IQ that is 0.2(32) = 6 points higher. – https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/height-iq/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1522194

    The following is extremely interesting information to me, because I commented this back in August of 2016:

    There are so many factors to take into account when it comes to IQ, SAT, etc. test scores and test taking in general besides test prepping, inherited intelligence, etc.

    - Testosterone levels
    [...]
    To truly standardize testing, all tests would have to be taken in the same location during the same time of year, etc.
    [...]
    …and ask them to take their tests only in the winter, would this lower their average test scores, even if all other controls/factors remain the same?

    http://www.unz.com/runz/when-viacom-ceo-philippe-dauman-still-had-an-iq-of-260/#comment-1522194

    I was not aware of this great research by Doreen Kimura — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doreen_Kimura — on testosterone levels and cognitive performance before:

    Men’s Test Scores Linked to Hormone

    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/14/us/men-s-test-scores-linked-to-hormone.html

    Men have better spatial ability when tested in spring than in autumn and the variation appears to be linked to seasonal fluctuations in male sex hormones, a scientist said today.
    [...]
    The findings conform with earlier, little-publicized research showing that men with low levels of testosterone perform better on tasks like mentally rotating a three dimensional object, which involve spatial reasoning skills that are critical in much of mathematics. Earlier research has also shown that men’s testosterone levels tend to be lower in the spring.
    [...]
    For both sexes, she said, the differences are subtle and would not affect daily life. But she said that after puberty boys would do better on mathematics tests in spring than in fall. On the Scholastic Aptitude Test, she said, the difference might be up to 50 points.
    [...]
    Dr. Kimura relied on earlier research showing that testosterone levels for men were higher in fall and lower in spring. “So much for popular conceptions about a young man’s fancy,” she said.
    [...]
    It is not clear why men produce more testosterone in the fall, Dr. McEwen said. Perhaps there is an evolutionary advantage to having children born in the spring and summer when food is more plentiful, he said.

    “I doubt seriously that people will question men’s ability to lead based on seasonal changes in their hormone levels,” said Melodie Behan, president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. “The study should not be used to keep men from fulfilling their potential. But the same kinds of studies have been used to keep women from positions of power.

    Dr. Kimura said seasonal testosterone levels might affect other behavior, like crime and taking risks. She said it would be interesting to know if crime rates are higher in the fall.

    Sex Differences in the Brain by Doreen Kimura

    TESTOSTERONE LEVELS can affect performance on some tests [see boxes on opposite page for examples of tests]. Women with high levels of testosterone perform better on spatial tasks (top) than women with low levels do, but men with low levels outperform men with high levels. On a mathematical reasoning test (middle), low testosterone corresponds to better performance in men; in women there is no such relation. On a test of perceptual speed in which women usually excel (bottom), no relation is found between testosterone and performance.

    – see page 4 http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langimp/genderbrain.pdf

    Read More
  165. @Neil Templeton
    If knowledge is infinite, then we don't know an infinite amount more than we know. IQ is but a weak light on an infinity of uncertainty. Still, better than nothing!

    That’s the problematic mentality that reigns here.

    Finally most people here are capable to agree that IQ is incomplete (considerably incomplete: Only two of the most fundamental qualitative aspects of human abilities has not been accessed) but “still better than nothing”. Yes I also can agree with this sentence but the problem is that, so if IQ is incomplete what is the logical thing to think??

    To solve this problem? To complete it? And starting from two black holes that make IQ very weak in some very important perspectives??

    Intelligence is not still that Rosetta stone you are suggesting. It’s quite complex and diverse but there are very solid principles that should help us to start from less incomplete amount of specific knowledge.

    Just start from what I and other IQ skepticals (even I’m not exactly a skeptical) has talked, namely via genuine good points.

    Read More
  166. Men and women ARE different.
    It is not brain size, but “wiring” that is different.
    Women are “detail oriented” (and will notice a speck on an otherwise flawlessly painted wall, whereas men look at the “big picture”–a job well done…
    Women are supposed to be the nurturers of the family unit…bringing empathy to the family while men are the providers, who “slay dragons” to protect the family unit. Men and women are (supposed to) complement each other, bringing the family unit to completion.
    Feminism destroyed much of that, attempting to make women into androgynous “human beings”, abandoning characteristics that bring value and stability to the family unit, while destroying much of women’s value to the family.

    Read More
  167. @CanSpeccy
    No, I'd never take it up again, although I enjoy the scent of fresh tobacco smoke on the spring breeze.

    Trouble with smoking is it amputates the emotions. When, first, I gave up a three-pack-a-day habit, elevator music would bring tears to my eyes. I've calmed down a bit since then, but I'm still more up for it if I need to be, and better able to to tune out when there's nothing I can usefully do. Or, to quote an old lady from Texas, "when I feel a worry coming on, I jus' close my eyes and sleep a while," which beats anxious chain smoking.

    I published a theory about this in Science Magazine (08 NOV 1985 : 607-608, requires a subscription): the idea being that emotion evokes a visceral physiological response, which then has a negative feedback effect on the perception of emotion. Nicotine, I proposed, by inducing a state of visceral physiological arousal, inhibits emotional arousal.

    Probably wrong, but it included a good line from P.G. Wodehouse, which I believe, is why they published it.

    Preview (not including the relevant portion) at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/230/4726/607
    A searchable PDF is available at libgen using DOI 10.1126/science.4048950

    Not sure if my reading comprehension is poor, but I don’t see a direct smoking/nicotine connection. You get points for getting this line in a scholarly journal though: “On the other hand amusement in the absence of risorius muscle contraction, for example at Wodehouse’s line that it is never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine, is difficult but not impossible.”

    Interesting point about smoking amputating emotions. I have heard it described as calming (often a good thing IMHO), but your account puts that in better perspective. Thanks.

    One thing I have noticed which I think is applicable to your observations over time is that in my experience humans are more sensitive to change than absolute levels. At one point I started a nutritional supplement that affected my ability to perceive color (I think I had been deficient for an extended period for that and other reasons). There was a period where I walked around in wonder because of all the subtle and bright colors. That sensation went away fairly quickly, but I am pretty sure my color sensitivity remained improved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    You get points for getting this line in a scholarly journal ...
     
    The lated Daniel Koshland, who had a sense of humor, was editor at the time.

    have heard it described as calming ...
     
    There is that: before I quit smoking I took a fairly mature attitude to drivers who cut me off in traffic.

    in my experience humans are more sensitive to change than absolute levels.
     
    The increase in emotional volatility that I experienced on quitting smoking was, in time, partly reversed, but I still get goose bumps on hearing a voice like this.

    a nutritional supplement that affected my ability to perceive color
     
    Interesting evidence for Pauling's theory about orthomolecular medicine and the mind.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I hadn't heard of LSD as a dietary supplement. Never too late to add something to my morning riituals anf look forward to a brighter day I suppose :-)
  168. @res
    Preview (not including the relevant portion) at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/230/4726/607
    A searchable PDF is available at libgen using DOI 10.1126/science.4048950

    Not sure if my reading comprehension is poor, but I don't see a direct smoking/nicotine connection. You get points for getting this line in a scholarly journal though: "On the other hand amusement in the absence of risorius muscle contraction, for example at Wodehouse's line that it is never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine, is difficult but not impossible."

    Interesting point about smoking amputating emotions. I have heard it described as calming (often a good thing IMHO), but your account puts that in better perspective. Thanks.

    One thing I have noticed which I think is applicable to your observations over time is that in my experience humans are more sensitive to change than absolute levels. At one point I started a nutritional supplement that affected my ability to perceive color (I think I had been deficient for an extended period for that and other reasons). There was a period where I walked around in wonder because of all the subtle and bright colors. That sensation went away fairly quickly, but I am pretty sure my color sensitivity remained improved.

    You get points for getting this line in a scholarly journal …

    The lated Daniel Koshland, who had a sense of humor, was editor at the time.

    have heard it described as calming …

    There is that: before I quit smoking I took a fairly mature attitude to drivers who cut me off in traffic.

    in my experience humans are more sensitive to change than absolute levels.

    The increase in emotional volatility that I experienced on quitting smoking was, in time, partly reversed, but I still get goose bumps on hearing a voice like this.

    a nutritional supplement that affected my ability to perceive color

    Interesting evidence for Pauling’s theory about orthomolecular medicine and the mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Interesting evidence for Pauling’s theory about orthomolecular medicine and the mind.
     
    Agreed. I am a fan of that work. I hope Pauling's work in that area is rehabilitated someday. Two unshared Nobel prizes in different areas is impressive enough, but adding significant work in a third unrelated area would be even more impressive.
  169. @Santoculto
    What about Ethiopians and balkanic people's??

    You are correct people from Montenegro (population c. ~620,000) , Serbia ( ~7 million), and Croatia (~4.2 million) are an anomaly/outliers, and seem to be an exception to Bergmann’s Rule. But considering the size of that population (~16 million including Bosnia) compared to Germany (~80 million), Netherlands (~17 million), Scandinavia/Baltics (~25 million), etc., I believe the rule still generally holds. Plus you have large non-native, shorter populations living in countries like Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, which probably suppress the overall height average. Also people from the Balkans likely have higher testosterone levels than Northern Europeans on average and are lightly eye-pigmented less often:

    my (simple) system/model that I have developed — to identify authentic geniuses;
    [...]
    These are the characteristics I am looking for: height and low testosterone as indicators/proxies for intelligence; “Nordic” phenotype (light eye pigmentation) as an indicator/proxy for creativity and curiosity.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/isteve-metrics/#comment-1823832

    Mapped: The world’s tallest (and shortest) countries

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/the-tallest-and-shortest-countries-in-the-world/

    The world’s 20 tallest countries [2016]

    Netherlands – 1.838m
    Montenegro – 1.832m
    Denmark – 1.826m
    Norway – 1.824m
    Serbia – 1.82m
    Germany – 1.81m
    Croatia – 1.805m
    Czech Republic – 1.8031m
    Slovenia – 1.803m
    Luxembourg – 1.799m

    Gents from Bosnia and Herzegovina might feel aggrieved to be left off that list. According to some sources they are a fraction taller even than the Dutch. The http://www.averageheight.co, which collects data from a variety of sources and whose statistics we used for our map, adds that Nilotic peoples that live in regions near the Nile Valley, the African Great Lakes, and southwestern Ethiopia, and are regarded to be among the tallest people on earth with an average male height is 6ft 3in (1.9m). Ethiopia, however, doesn’t appear on its table of tallest countries.

    There are also differences between the heights of the different Nilotic peoples/tribes, plus the population of that group is not huge either; I am not exactly sure but I think it is maybe around 20 to 25 million(?), and again, their height is mostly due to their long limbs, so I am not sure their arteries would as big/wide as an equally tall, but bigger/heavier, Nordic person’s ones; which would explain their on average lower intelligence compared to Northern Europeans, despite their tallness:

    Physically, Nilotes are noted for their typically very dark skin color and slender, tall bodies. They often possess exceptionally long limbs, particularly vis-a-vis the distal segments (forearms, calves). This characteristic is thought to be a climatic adaptation to allow their bodies to shed heat more efficiently.
    [...]
    Additionally, it has been remarked that the Nilotic groups presently inhabiting the African Great Lakes region are sometimes smaller in stature than those residing in the Sudan region. Campbell et al. (2006) recorded measurements of 172.0 cm/53.6 kg (67.7″/118.2 lbs) in a sample of agricultural Turkana in northern Kenya, and of 174.9 cm/53.0 kg (68.8″/116.8 lbs) in pastoral Turkana.[23]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples#Physiology

    I came across some interesting research, that might be relevant to this post, in explaining why there are differences in height and body size besides genetics and nutrition, namely due to temperature. Maybe this explains why Americans of Northern European descent, who have ”tall genes” and do not suffer from malnutrition (especially if they have lived in the warmer southern states for generations), might still be shorter than their northern cousins (this is speculation on my part, since I have not found any data on height differences between Americans of Northern European descent depending where they live in the United States). Maybe not all the slowdown in average American height compared to Northern Europeans, who live in colder climates/temperatures, is due to the increased immigration of short South Americans into the U.S.? I still believe though, that immigration of shorter people is the main driver of this trend/decline:

    Tests of ecogeographical relationships in a non-native species: what rules avian morphology?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26936361

    Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/#comment-1510316

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Bergmann's rule is an ecogeographical rule that states that within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer regions
     
    I don't think Bergman rule is talking about intelligence and height causality.

    And also we have east asians, ashkenazis trends to be shorter, at least if compared with northern europeans, as well inuits and other ''natives' who tend to be shorter and have colder habitats.

    That rule is purely correlational. Maybe this rule is better applied to tempered to cold [not exactly polar] climates if extreme conditions tend to cut physiological exuberance as higher stature.
  170. @FKA Max
    You are correct people from Montenegro (population c. ~620,000) , Serbia ( ~7 million), and Croatia (~4.2 million) are an anomaly/outliers, and seem to be an exception to Bergmann's Rule. But considering the size of that population (~16 million including Bosnia) compared to Germany (~80 million), Netherlands (~17 million), Scandinavia/Baltics (~25 million), etc., I believe the rule still generally holds. Plus you have large non-native, shorter populations living in countries like Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, which probably suppress the overall height average. Also people from the Balkans likely have higher testosterone levels than Northern Europeans on average and are lightly eye-pigmented less often:

    my (simple) system/model that I have developed — to identify authentic geniuses;
    [...]
    These are the characteristics I am looking for: height and low testosterone as indicators/proxies for intelligence; “Nordic” phenotype (light eye pigmentation) as an indicator/proxy for creativity and curiosity.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/isteve-metrics/#comment-1823832

    Mapped: The world's tallest (and shortest) countries
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/the-tallest-and-shortest-countries-in-the-world/

    The world's 20 tallest countries [2016]

    Netherlands - 1.838m
    Montenegro - 1.832m
    Denmark - 1.826m
    Norway - 1.824m
    Serbia - 1.82m
    Germany - 1.81m
    Croatia - 1.805m
    Czech Republic - 1.8031m
    Slovenia - 1.803m
    Luxembourg - 1.799m

    Gents from Bosnia and Herzegovina might feel aggrieved to be left off that list. According to some sources they are a fraction taller even than the Dutch. The www.averageheight.co, which collects data from a variety of sources and whose statistics we used for our map, adds that Nilotic peoples that live in regions near the Nile Valley, the African Great Lakes, and southwestern Ethiopia, and are regarded to be among the tallest people on earth with an average male height is 6ft 3in (1.9m). Ethiopia, however, doesn't appear on its table of tallest countries.
     

    There are also differences between the heights of the different Nilotic peoples/tribes, plus the population of that group is not huge either; I am not exactly sure but I think it is maybe around 20 to 25 million(?), and again, their height is mostly due to their long limbs, so I am not sure their arteries would as big/wide as an equally tall, but bigger/heavier, Nordic person's ones; which would explain their on average lower intelligence compared to Northern Europeans, despite their tallness:

    Physically, Nilotes are noted for their typically very dark skin color and slender, tall bodies. They often possess exceptionally long limbs, particularly vis-a-vis the distal segments (forearms, calves). This characteristic is thought to be a climatic adaptation to allow their bodies to shed heat more efficiently.
    [...]
    Additionally, it has been remarked that the Nilotic groups presently inhabiting the African Great Lakes region are sometimes smaller in stature than those residing in the Sudan region. Campbell et al. (2006) recorded measurements of 172.0 cm/53.6 kg (67.7"/118.2 lbs) in a sample of agricultural Turkana in northern Kenya, and of 174.9 cm/53.0 kg (68.8"/116.8 lbs) in pastoral Turkana.[23]
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples#Physiology

    I came across some interesting research, that might be relevant to this post, in explaining why there are differences in height and body size besides genetics and nutrition, namely due to temperature. Maybe this explains why Americans of Northern European descent, who have ”tall genes” and do not suffer from malnutrition (especially if they have lived in the warmer southern states for generations), might still be shorter than their northern cousins (this is speculation on my part, since I have not found any data on height differences between Americans of Northern European descent depending where they live in the United States). Maybe not all the slowdown in average American height compared to Northern Europeans, who live in colder climates/temperatures, is due to the increased immigration of short South Americans into the U.S.? I still believe though, that immigration of shorter people is the main driver of this trend/decline:

    Tests of ecogeographical relationships in a non-native species: what rules avian morphology?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26936361

    Patterns of variation in body mass and bill surface area were consistent with Bergmann’s and Allen’s rules, respectively (small body size and larger bill size in warmer climates), with maximum summer temperature being a strongly weighted predictor of both variables.
     

    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/#comment-1510316

    Bergmann’s rule is an ecogeographical rule that states that within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer regions

    I don’t think Bergman rule is talking about intelligence and height causality.

    And also we have east asians, ashkenazis trends to be shorter, at least if compared with northern europeans, as well inuits and other ”natives’ who tend to be shorter and have colder habitats.

    That rule is purely correlational. Maybe this rule is better applied to tempered to cold [not exactly polar] climates if extreme conditions tend to cut physiological exuberance as higher stature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    And also we have east asians, ashkenazis trends to be shorter, at least if compared with northern europeans, as well inuits and other ”natives’ who tend to be shorter and have colder habitats.
    That rule is purely correlational. Maybe this rule is better applied to tempered to cold [not exactly polar] climates if extreme conditions tend to cut physiological exuberance as higher stature.
     
    I think what causes people, who inhabit cold(er) climates/habitats, to be short(er) is usually resource scarcity/limitations:

    Resource availability is a major constraint on the overall success of many organisms. Resource scarcity can limit the total number of organisms in a habitat, and over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size. Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule#Criticism

    With Ashkenazi Jews for example, they mostly settled in the ``Pale of Settlement'' region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement which is cold, but also mostly pretty far inland, plus they are/were highly endogamous, which probably suppressed their height, intelligence, etc.

    I had a brief exchange with you on this topic before on ``Hallstatt Nordics'' vs. ``Hanseatic Nordics'':


    Hanseatic Nordics are probably on average smarter and taller than Hallstatt Nordics, because they have easier access to the ocean, i.e., saltwater fish are higher in iodine content generally, with some exceptions; and Hanseatic Nordics’ diet generally is probably higher in seafood due to them, as I said, living close(r) to the sea.
    [...]
    Saltwater fish and shellfish contain considerably more iodine than do freshwater species, and saltwater shellfish are the most iodine-rich of all seafood.

    Giving a very rough estimate, or average, saltwater fish has 330 micrograms of iodine per 100 grams of body weight, whereas freshwater fish has 66 mcg/g.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1833942

    In my opinion and according to my research, selection for blue/light eyes (low melanin levels in the iris) in/among Northern Europeans has to do with melatonin secretion suppression by light, which, as lighter skin (low melanin levels in the skin) allows for increased Vitamin D production, is evolutionaryily advantageous in cloudy latitudes far away from the equator.
    This melatonin secretion suppression by light leads to insomnia and hyperactivity (good for non-stop foraging during the short summers in Northern Europe) during the light summer months, and ensures one does not become lethargic, unproductive, and depressed ( e.g., seasonal affective disorder (SAD)) during the dark winter months in extreme northern or southern latitudes.
    [...]
    This is why Asians and Southern Europeans have light skin, but generally do not have/need or select for blue/light eyes, in my opinion, because they rarely inhabit areas beyond the 49th parallel north or south.

    NN above is correct, in my opinion, on why Northern Europeans also select for height/size:

    Could the selection for height be related to Bergmann’s rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

    All the selections are made to adapt as well as possible to the colder and darker climate of Northern Europe.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185

    This excerpt might interest you as well:

    Rushton hypothesizes that Mongoloids are intellectually superior to Whites because they evolved in a colder climate, as evidenced by their slight builds and the epicanthic folds of the eyes. However the epicanthic folds are usually regarded as an adaptation to dusty environments. Cold climates favour larger, stronger builds such as Nordic Whites. Pale skin is an adaptation to the cold, maximising vitamin D production. The light eyes of the Nordic are more of an adaptation to cold[/dark] climates than the dark eyes of the Mongoloid. Eskimos have successfully lived in very cold environments such as Greenland – but so too have Nordics. It does not follow from such an Eskimo presence that they are physiologically better adapted to the cold than Nordics. The Viking settlement in Greenland died out because of cultural factors affecting adaptation during an unusually harsh climatic period, rather than racial factors: J. Diamond “Collapse” (Allan Lane, London 2005). Interestingly enough the Eskimo, a Mongoloid, arrived in the Arctic about 10,000 years ago, probably too late for major physiological changes to occur. Their mean IQ is 91 and they have a visual-spatial score of 90 – yet in the field have superior spatial-visual abilities. It is likely that the IQ tests are flawed because they could not have survived in such a harsh environment without peak spatial-visual skills.
    It has not even been established that the challenges of a cold environment causes high intelligence to evolve. It could very well mean the reverse: that natural selection ensures that only intelligent people survive in cold environments. It may be a fact that high intelligence races are found in cold environments because they were highly intelligent to start with; Rushton commits an “after, therefore because of” fallacy in his reasoning. Nor should the challenges of desert environments be underestimated, where droughts and other challenges existed.
     
    - The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White https://thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacy

    It seems that very harsh and “Social Darwinist” environments and cultures do not necessarily select for intelligence exclusively, or maybe not even predominately, but that they mostly select for risk taking, aggressiveness, ruthlessness, i.e., psychopathic and rather anti-social traits.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1836006

    In China the explanation is likely this (the same selection pressures could have applied to the Jewish community/population). Article by Mr. Unz:

    How Social Darwinism Made Modern China
    A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/

    Winnowed by ages of grim elimination in a land populated to the uttermost limits of subsistence, the Chinese race is selected as no other for survival under the fiercest conditions of economic stress. At home the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.[6]
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1835586
  171. @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry to butt in with a stray thought prompted by "controlling for body size". Prima facie one would expect the increase in brain size of the larger person to be only related to what it takes to control or service the extra (organised) molecules of the larger body. And that increase would surely be v. small. So, if that is right, what does "controlling for body size" really mean or imply? Wouldn't more grey matter prima facie mean higher IQ tout court?

    It was long believed that the encephalization quotient which is a measure of average brain size was the best predictor of cognitive ability. Partly because using the EQ meant humans and primates “came out on top” when compared with other species. Pietschnig et al argue in their meta analysis that absolute brain size outperforms the EQ as predictor of IQ so we can’t be sure I guess.

    As far as I know East Asians have slightly smaller brains than Europeans but larger brains when controlling for body size.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    It was long believed that the encephalization quotient which is a measure of average brain size was the best predictor of cognitive ability. Partly because using the EQ meant humans and primates “came out on top” when compared with other species.
     
    In fact, birds come out way ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew. In such a small noddle, nerve impulses must flash from point to point almost instantaneously, which means that a shrew thinks about a million times faster than did Isaac Newton.

    Pietschnig et al argue in their meta analysis that absolute brain size outperforms the EQ as predictor of IQ.
     
    But are human brains really the largest?

    Definitely not: a sperm whale's brain, at around 7 kg, is six times the mass of a human brain (1.2 kg). And an African elephant has a brain four times the size of a man's†.

    Source

    In fact, humans are smart because they have the gift of speech, which enables them to share experience, both by word of mouth and in writing, thus making the knowledge of the species as a whole the property of anyone with the determination to acquire it.

    , @res

    As far as I know East Asians have slightly smaller brains than Europeans but larger brains when controlling for body size.

     

    Some studies find differently: http://nextshark.com/why-asians-have-bigger-brains-than-europeans-africans-kunming-institute-study/

    It is possible that the year the study was done and the age of participants matters. I think East Asian nutrition has improved dramatically over the last 70 years. For example, see changes in height: http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/07/27/487391773/americans-are-shrinking-while-chinese-and-koreans-sprout-up
  172. @Commenting
    It was long believed that the encephalization quotient which is a measure of average brain size was the best predictor of cognitive ability. Partly because using the EQ meant humans and primates "came out on top" when compared with other species. Pietschnig et al argue in their meta analysis that absolute brain size outperforms the EQ as predictor of IQ so we can't be sure I guess.

    As far as I know East Asians have slightly smaller brains than Europeans but larger brains when controlling for body size.

    It was long believed that the encephalization quotient which is a measure of average brain size was the best predictor of cognitive ability. Partly because using the EQ meant humans and primates “came out on top” when compared with other species.

    In fact, birds come out way ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew. In such a small noddle, nerve impulses must flash from point to point almost instantaneously, which means that a shrew thinks about a million times faster than did Isaac Newton.

    Pietschnig et al argue in their meta analysis that absolute brain size outperforms the EQ as predictor of IQ.

    But are human brains really the largest?

    Definitely not: a sperm whale’s brain, at around 7 kg, is six times the mass of a human brain (1.2 kg). And an African elephant has a brain four times the size of a man’s†.

    Source

    In fact, humans are smart because they have the gift of speech, which enables them to share experience, both by word of mouth and in writing, thus making the knowledge of the species as a whole the property of anyone with the determination to acquire it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Humans are smart because they have the gift of speech, which enables them to share experience, both by word of mouth and in writing, thus making the knowledge of the species as a whole the property of anyone with the determination to acquire it.

    Excellent. So now we need to explain why humans, and not birds, have the "gift" of speech.
    , @Commenting

    In fact, birds come out way ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew.
     
    Those are the ratios simply dividing brain weight by body weight. The EQ is calculated differently

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient#Brain-body_size_relationship


    But are human brains really the largest?
     
    They are not. So there must be another reason for why humans tend to be smarter than either birds or elephants
  173. @CanSpeccy

    You get points for getting this line in a scholarly journal ...
     
    The lated Daniel Koshland, who had a sense of humor, was editor at the time.

    have heard it described as calming ...
     
    There is that: before I quit smoking I took a fairly mature attitude to drivers who cut me off in traffic.

    in my experience humans are more sensitive to change than absolute levels.
     
    The increase in emotional volatility that I experienced on quitting smoking was, in time, partly reversed, but I still get goose bumps on hearing a voice like this.

    a nutritional supplement that affected my ability to perceive color
     
    Interesting evidence for Pauling's theory about orthomolecular medicine and the mind.

    Interesting evidence for Pauling’s theory about orthomolecular medicine and the mind.

    Agreed. I am a fan of that work. I hope Pauling’s work in that area is rehabilitated someday. Two unshared Nobel prizes in different areas is impressive enough, but adding significant work in a third unrelated area would be even more impressive.

    Read More
  174. @Commenting
    It was long believed that the encephalization quotient which is a measure of average brain size was the best predictor of cognitive ability. Partly because using the EQ meant humans and primates "came out on top" when compared with other species. Pietschnig et al argue in their meta analysis that absolute brain size outperforms the EQ as predictor of IQ so we can't be sure I guess.

    As far as I know East Asians have slightly smaller brains than Europeans but larger brains when controlling for body size.

    As far as I know East Asians have slightly smaller brains than Europeans but larger brains when controlling for body size.

    Some studies find differently: http://nextshark.com/why-asians-have-bigger-brains-than-europeans-africans-kunming-institute-study/

    It is possible that the year the study was done and the age of participants matters. I think East Asian nutrition has improved dramatically over the last 70 years. For example, see changes in height: http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/07/27/487391773/americans-are-shrinking-while-chinese-and-koreans-sprout-up

    Read More
  175. @Santoculto

    Bergmann's rule is an ecogeographical rule that states that within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer regions
     
    I don't think Bergman rule is talking about intelligence and height causality.

    And also we have east asians, ashkenazis trends to be shorter, at least if compared with northern europeans, as well inuits and other ''natives' who tend to be shorter and have colder habitats.

    That rule is purely correlational. Maybe this rule is better applied to tempered to cold [not exactly polar] climates if extreme conditions tend to cut physiological exuberance as higher stature.

    And also we have east asians, ashkenazis trends to be shorter, at least if compared with northern europeans, as well inuits and other ”natives’ who tend to be shorter and have colder habitats.
    That rule is purely correlational. Maybe this rule is better applied to tempered to cold [not exactly polar] climates if extreme conditions tend to cut physiological exuberance as higher stature.

    I think what causes people, who inhabit cold(er) climates/habitats, to be short(er) is usually resource scarcity/limitations:

    Resource availability is a major constraint on the overall success of many organisms. Resource scarcity can limit the total number of organisms in a habitat, and over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size. Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann’s_rule#Criticism

    With Ashkenazi Jews for example, they mostly settled in the “Pale of Settlement” region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement which is cold, but also mostly pretty far inland, plus they are/were highly endogamous, which probably suppressed their height, intelligence, etc.

    I had a brief exchange with you on this topic before on “Hallstatt Nordics” vs. “Hanseatic Nordics”:

    Hanseatic Nordics are probably on average smarter and taller than Hallstatt Nordics, because they have easier access to the ocean, i.e., saltwater fish are higher in iodine content generally, with some exceptions; and Hanseatic Nordics’ diet generally is probably higher in seafood due to them, as I said, living close(r) to the sea.
    [...]
    Saltwater fish and shellfish contain considerably more iodine than do freshwater species, and saltwater shellfish are the most iodine-rich of all seafood.

    Giving a very rough estimate, or average, saltwater fish has 330 micrograms of iodine per 100 grams of body weight, whereas freshwater fish has 66 mcg/g.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1833942

    In my opinion and according to my research, selection for blue/light eyes (low melanin levels in the iris) in/among Northern Europeans has to do with melatonin secretion suppression by light, which, as lighter skin (low melanin levels in the skin) allows for increased Vitamin D production, is evolutionaryily advantageous in cloudy latitudes far away from the equator.
    This melatonin secretion suppression by light leads to insomnia and hyperactivity (good for non-stop foraging during the short summers in Northern Europe) during the light summer months, and ensures one does not become lethargic, unproductive, and depressed ( e.g., seasonal affective disorder (SAD)) during the dark winter months in extreme northern or southern latitudes.
    [...]
    This is why Asians and Southern Europeans have light skin, but generally do not have/need or select for blue/light eyes, in my opinion, because they rarely inhabit areas beyond the 49th parallel north or south.

    NN above is correct, in my opinion, on why Northern Europeans also select for height/size:

    Could the selection for height be related to Bergmann’s rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

    All the selections are made to adapt as well as possible to the colder and darker climate of Northern Europe.

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185

    This excerpt might interest you as well:

    Rushton hypothesizes that Mongoloids are intellectually superior to Whites because they evolved in a colder climate, as evidenced by their slight builds and the epicanthic folds of the eyes. However the epicanthic folds are usually regarded as an adaptation to dusty environments. Cold climates favour larger, stronger builds such as Nordic Whites. Pale skin is an adaptation to the cold, maximising vitamin D production. The light eyes of the Nordic are more of an adaptation to cold[/dark] climates than the dark eyes of the Mongoloid. Eskimos have successfully lived in very cold environments such as Greenland – but so too have Nordics. It does not follow from such an Eskimo presence that they are physiologically better adapted to the cold than Nordics. The Viking settlement in Greenland died out because of cultural factors affecting adaptation during an unusually harsh climatic period, rather than racial factors: J. Diamond “Collapse” (Allan Lane, London 2005). Interestingly enough the Eskimo, a Mongoloid, arrived in the Arctic about 10,000 years ago, probably too late for major physiological changes to occur. Their mean IQ is 91 and they have a visual-spatial score of 90 – yet in the field have superior spatial-visual abilities. It is likely that the IQ tests are flawed because they could not have survived in such a harsh environment without peak spatial-visual skills.
    It has not even been established that the challenges of a cold environment causes high intelligence to evolve. It could very well mean the reverse: that natural selection ensures that only intelligent people survive in cold environments. It may be a fact that high intelligence races are found in cold environments because they were highly intelligent to start with; Rushton commits an “after, therefore because of” fallacy in his reasoning. Nor should the challenges of desert environments be underestimated, where droughts and other challenges existed.

    – The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White https://thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacy

    It seems that very harsh and “Social Darwinist” environments and cultures do not necessarily select for intelligence exclusively, or maybe not even predominately, but that they mostly select for risk taking, aggressiveness, ruthlessness, i.e., psychopathic and rather anti-social traits.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1836006

    In China the explanation is likely this (the same selection pressures could have applied to the Jewish community/population). Article by Mr. Unz:

    How Social Darwinism Made Modern China
    A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/

    Winnowed by ages of grim elimination in a land populated to the uttermost limits of subsistence, the Chinese race is selected as no other for survival under the fiercest conditions of economic stress. At home the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.[6]

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1835586

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Resource availability is a major constraint on the overall success of many organisms. Resource scarcity can limit the total number of organisms in a habitat, and over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size. Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
     
    Or because smaller organism are less expensive or also because smaller organism = smaller dimension =smaller food required.
    , @Santoculto

    With Ashkenazi Jews for example, they mostly settled in the “Pale of Settlement” region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement which is cold, but also mostly pretty far inland, plus they are/were highly endogamous, which probably suppressed their height, intelligence, etc.
     
    Very unlikely.

    Ashkenazis are predominantly alpine, med and armenoid types, specially alpine and med, are known to have comparative shorter stature. And this don't explain the differences in height with the poles and other non-jews in the same area.

    Ashkenazis, despise their very evil and irrational side, are far to be ''less smart''.

    What make jewish intelligence more polemic for nordicist as you is that they tend to have pretty smart in psychological aspects and usually this mean: capacity to manipulate people in malign way.
    , @Santoculto

    Hanseatic Nordics are probably on average smarter and taller than Hallstatt Nordics, because they have easier access to the ocean, i.e., saltwater fish are higher in iodine content generally, with some exceptions; and Hanseatic Nordics’ diet generally is probably higher in seafood due to them, as I said, living close(r) to the sea.
    [...]
    Saltwater fish and shellfish contain considerably more iodine than do freshwater species, and saltwater shellfish are the most iodine-rich of all seafood.

    Giving a very rough estimate, or average, saltwater fish has 330 micrograms of iodine per 100 grams of body weight, whereas freshwater fish has 66 mcg/g.
     
    Nutritious conjectures.
  176. […] But this relative parity vanishes after puberty. By age 22, males have an average IQ a minimum of several points higher than adult females. And at the higher levels–three, four, five standard deviations to the […]

    Read More
  177. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Michelle
    I always, strangely, think of Eve as looking like Venus on the half shell. I know not why. But why did Adam and Eve love each other, other than the fact that each were the only game in town, the town being Eden. It was an arranged marriage, after all. I am very pro arranged marriage, just not for forced marriage.

    As for Eve wearing mascara to the prom, lashes seem to have been superfluous in the old timey days! Bald eyes seem to have been fashionable and considered beautiful. I do, however, believe that looks are really unimportant when it comes to great love. Think of Charles and Camilla!

    Well said, Michelle . For the record — Diana was of course a beautiful and in many ways an admirable woman but, if you put me in a time machine and for some reason I had the option to ask a still unmarried Diana or a still unmarried Camilla on a date, with the hope that the first date would lead to a marriage, I would ask Camilla. True that.

    Read More
  178. @CanSpeccy

    It was long believed that the encephalization quotient which is a measure of average brain size was the best predictor of cognitive ability. Partly because using the EQ meant humans and primates “came out on top” when compared with other species.
     
    In fact, birds come out way ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew. In such a small noddle, nerve impulses must flash from point to point almost instantaneously, which means that a shrew thinks about a million times faster than did Isaac Newton.

    Pietschnig et al argue in their meta analysis that absolute brain size outperforms the EQ as predictor of IQ.
     
    But are human brains really the largest?

    Definitely not: a sperm whale's brain, at around 7 kg, is six times the mass of a human brain (1.2 kg). And an African elephant has a brain four times the size of a man's†.

    Source

    In fact, humans are smart because they have the gift of speech, which enables them to share experience, both by word of mouth and in writing, thus making the knowledge of the species as a whole the property of anyone with the determination to acquire it.

    Humans are smart because they have the gift of speech, which enables them to share experience, both by word of mouth and in writing, thus making the knowledge of the species as a whole the property of anyone with the determination to acquire it.

    Excellent. So now we need to explain why humans, and not birds, have the “gift” of speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Humans are smarter because they ''have'', invariably speaking:

    capacity to re-think their actions in many ways and other gifts = self consciousness

    and

    because their larger capacity to memorize, i called ''bigger or expansive instinct''.

    Humans can expand their instincts while most living beings have little potential or virtually no-potential to do it.

    Complex, symbolic and materialized language or communication system don't explain why humans are smarter, in this important aspects, but how they/we can be, because complex communication system, namely for humans, is a deliberated and achieved effect of this larger capacity and not the cause.

    Humans are smarter because they ''have'', invariably speaking:

    capacity to re-think their actions in many ways and other gifts = self consciousness

    and

    because their larger capacity to memorize, i call ''bigger or expansive instinct''.

    Humans can expand their instincts via memory while most living beings have little potential or virtually no-potential to do it.

    Complex, symbolic and materialized language or communication system don't explain why humans are smarter, in this important aspects, but how they/we can be, because complex communication system, namely for humans, is a deliberated and achieved effect of this larger capacity and not the cause.

    We don't become smarter when we started to express in associative-conceptual-symbolical but when ''we'' become apt to give shape for our thoughts or to invent complex language.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Excellent. So now we need to explain why humans, and not birds, have the “gift” of speech.
     
    Michelangelo, gave us the answer.

    Anyway, who said birds can't talk?
    , @CanSpeccy
    More seriously, humans presumably evolved from something like a chimp, but they have a brain almost three times the mass, with much of the additional volume due to expansion of the cerebrum.

    So it appears that the acquisition of speech depended on huge expansion of some part or parts of the brain, a process presumably driven by a large group selective advantage for those that most rapidly advanced in communication skills.

    Why language takes up so much brain space is an interesting question on which I have a theory, but not space enough here to explain!

  179. @CanSpeccy

    It was long believed that the encephalization quotient which is a measure of average brain size was the best predictor of cognitive ability. Partly because using the EQ meant humans and primates “came out on top” when compared with other species.
     
    In fact, birds come out way ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew. In such a small noddle, nerve impulses must flash from point to point almost instantaneously, which means that a shrew thinks about a million times faster than did Isaac Newton.

    Pietschnig et al argue in their meta analysis that absolute brain size outperforms the EQ as predictor of IQ.
     
    But are human brains really the largest?

    Definitely not: a sperm whale's brain, at around 7 kg, is six times the mass of a human brain (1.2 kg). And an African elephant has a brain four times the size of a man's†.

    Source

    In fact, humans are smart because they have the gift of speech, which enables them to share experience, both by word of mouth and in writing, thus making the knowledge of the species as a whole the property of anyone with the determination to acquire it.

    In fact, birds come out way ahead of humans with an ER of 1:12 — so much for bird brains. But the creature with the highest brain to body weight ratio of all, at around 1:10, is the tiny-brained shrew.

    Those are the ratios simply dividing brain weight by body weight. The EQ is calculated differently

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient#Brain-body_size_relationship

    But are human brains really the largest?

    They are not. So there must be another reason for why humans tend to be smarter than either birds or elephants

    Read More
  180. @FKA Max

    And also we have east asians, ashkenazis trends to be shorter, at least if compared with northern europeans, as well inuits and other ”natives’ who tend to be shorter and have colder habitats.
    That rule is purely correlational. Maybe this rule is better applied to tempered to cold [not exactly polar] climates if extreme conditions tend to cut physiological exuberance as higher stature.
     
    I think what causes people, who inhabit cold(er) climates/habitats, to be short(er) is usually resource scarcity/limitations:

    Resource availability is a major constraint on the overall success of many organisms. Resource scarcity can limit the total number of organisms in a habitat, and over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size. Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule#Criticism

    With Ashkenazi Jews for example, they mostly settled in the ``Pale of Settlement'' region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement which is cold, but also mostly pretty far inland, plus they are/were highly endogamous, which probably suppressed their height, intelligence, etc.

    I had a brief exchange with you on this topic before on ``Hallstatt Nordics'' vs. ``Hanseatic Nordics'':


    Hanseatic Nordics are probably on average smarter and taller than Hallstatt Nordics, because they have easier access to the ocean, i.e., saltwater fish are higher in iodine content generally, with some exceptions; and Hanseatic Nordics’ diet generally is probably higher in seafood due to them, as I said, living close(r) to the sea.
    [...]
    Saltwater fish and shellfish contain considerably more iodine than do freshwater species, and saltwater shellfish are the most iodine-rich of all seafood.

    Giving a very rough estimate, or average, saltwater fish has 330 micrograms of iodine per 100 grams of body weight, whereas freshwater fish has 66 mcg/g.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1833942

    In my opinion and according to my research, selection for blue/light eyes (low melanin levels in the iris) in/among Northern Europeans has to do with melatonin secretion suppression by light, which, as lighter skin (low melanin levels in the skin) allows for increased Vitamin D production, is evolutionaryily advantageous in cloudy latitudes far away from the equator.
    This melatonin secretion suppression by light leads to insomnia and hyperactivity (good for non-stop foraging during the short summers in Northern Europe) during the light summer months, and ensures one does not become lethargic, unproductive, and depressed ( e.g., seasonal affective disorder (SAD)) during the dark winter months in extreme northern or southern latitudes.
    [...]
    This is why Asians and Southern Europeans have light skin, but generally do not have/need or select for blue/light eyes, in my opinion, because they rarely inhabit areas beyond the 49th parallel north or south.

    NN above is correct, in my opinion, on why Northern Europeans also select for height/size:

    Could the selection for height be related to Bergmann’s rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

    All the selections are made to adapt as well as possible to the colder and darker climate of Northern Europe.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185

    This excerpt might interest you as well:

    Rushton hypothesizes that Mongoloids are intellectually superior to Whites because they evolved in a colder climate, as evidenced by their slight builds and the epicanthic folds of the eyes. However the epicanthic folds are usually regarded as an adaptation to dusty environments. Cold climates favour larger, stronger builds such as Nordic Whites. Pale skin is an adaptation to the cold, maximising vitamin D production. The light eyes of the Nordic are more of an adaptation to cold[/dark] climates than the dark eyes of the Mongoloid. Eskimos have successfully lived in very cold environments such as Greenland – but so too have Nordics. It does not follow from such an Eskimo presence that they are physiologically better adapted to the cold than Nordics. The Viking settlement in Greenland died out because of cultural factors affecting adaptation during an unusually harsh climatic period, rather than racial factors: J. Diamond “Collapse” (Allan Lane, London 2005). Interestingly enough the Eskimo, a Mongoloid, arrived in the Arctic about 10,000 years ago, probably too late for major physiological changes to occur. Their mean IQ is 91 and they have a visual-spatial score of 90 – yet in the field have superior spatial-visual abilities. It is likely that the IQ tests are flawed because they could not have survived in such a harsh environment without peak spatial-visual skills.
    It has not even been established that the challenges of a cold environment causes high intelligence to evolve. It could very well mean the reverse: that natural selection ensures that only intelligent people survive in cold environments. It may be a fact that high intelligence races are found in cold environments because they were highly intelligent to start with; Rushton commits an “after, therefore because of” fallacy in his reasoning. Nor should the challenges of desert environments be underestimated, where droughts and other challenges existed.
     
    - The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White https://thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacy

    It seems that very harsh and “Social Darwinist” environments and cultures do not necessarily select for intelligence exclusively, or maybe not even predominately, but that they mostly select for risk taking, aggressiveness, ruthlessness, i.e., psychopathic and rather anti-social traits.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1836006

    In China the explanation is likely this (the same selection pressures could have applied to the Jewish community/population). Article by Mr. Unz:

    How Social Darwinism Made Modern China
    A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/

    Winnowed by ages of grim elimination in a land populated to the uttermost limits of subsistence, the Chinese race is selected as no other for survival under the fiercest conditions of economic stress. At home the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.[6]
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1835586

    Resource availability is a major constraint on the overall success of many organisms. Resource scarcity can limit the total number of organisms in a habitat, and over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size. Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.

    Or because smaller organism are less expensive or also because smaller organism = smaller dimension =smaller food required.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    And not just in cold--er environments but also in extreme places, for example in extremely hot or desertic places.
  181. @FKA Max

    And also we have east asians, ashkenazis trends to be shorter, at least if compared with northern europeans, as well inuits and other ”natives’ who tend to be shorter and have colder habitats.
    That rule is purely correlational. Maybe this rule is better applied to tempered to cold [not exactly polar] climates if extreme conditions tend to cut physiological exuberance as higher stature.
     
    I think what causes people, who inhabit cold(er) climates/habitats, to be short(er) is usually resource scarcity/limitations:

    Resource availability is a major constraint on the overall success of many organisms. Resource scarcity can limit the total number of organisms in a habitat, and over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size. Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule#Criticism

    With Ashkenazi Jews for example, they mostly settled in the ``Pale of Settlement'' region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement which is cold, but also mostly pretty far inland, plus they are/were highly endogamous, which probably suppressed their height, intelligence, etc.

    I had a brief exchange with you on this topic before on ``Hallstatt Nordics'' vs. ``Hanseatic Nordics'':


    Hanseatic Nordics are probably on average smarter and taller than Hallstatt Nordics, because they have easier access to the ocean, i.e., saltwater fish are higher in iodine content generally, with some exceptions; and Hanseatic Nordics’ diet generally is probably higher in seafood due to them, as I said, living close(r) to the sea.
    [...]
    Saltwater fish and shellfish contain considerably more iodine than do freshwater species, and saltwater shellfish are the most iodine-rich of all seafood.

    Giving a very rough estimate, or average, saltwater fish has 330 micrograms of iodine per 100 grams of body weight, whereas freshwater fish has 66 mcg/g.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1833942

    In my opinion and according to my research, selection for blue/light eyes (low melanin levels in the iris) in/among Northern Europeans has to do with melatonin secretion suppression by light, which, as lighter skin (low melanin levels in the skin) allows for increased Vitamin D production, is evolutionaryily advantageous in cloudy latitudes far away from the equator.
    This melatonin secretion suppression by light leads to insomnia and hyperactivity (good for non-stop foraging during the short summers in Northern Europe) during the light summer months, and ensures one does not become lethargic, unproductive, and depressed ( e.g., seasonal affective disorder (SAD)) during the dark winter months in extreme northern or southern latitudes.
    [...]
    This is why Asians and Southern Europeans have light skin, but generally do not have/need or select for blue/light eyes, in my opinion, because they rarely inhabit areas beyond the 49th parallel north or south.

    NN above is correct, in my opinion, on why Northern Europeans also select for height/size:

    Could the selection for height be related to Bergmann’s rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

    All the selections are made to adapt as well as possible to the colder and darker climate of Northern Europe.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185

    This excerpt might interest you as well:

    Rushton hypothesizes that Mongoloids are intellectually superior to Whites because they evolved in a colder climate, as evidenced by their slight builds and the epicanthic folds of the eyes. However the epicanthic folds are usually regarded as an adaptation to dusty environments. Cold climates favour larger, stronger builds such as Nordic Whites. Pale skin is an adaptation to the cold, maximising vitamin D production. The light eyes of the Nordic are more of an adaptation to cold[/dark] climates than the dark eyes of the Mongoloid. Eskimos have successfully lived in very cold environments such as Greenland – but so too have Nordics. It does not follow from such an Eskimo presence that they are physiologically better adapted to the cold than Nordics. The Viking settlement in Greenland died out because of cultural factors affecting adaptation during an unusually harsh climatic period, rather than racial factors: J. Diamond “Collapse” (Allan Lane, London 2005). Interestingly enough the Eskimo, a Mongoloid, arrived in the Arctic about 10,000 years ago, probably too late for major physiological changes to occur. Their mean IQ is 91 and they have a visual-spatial score of 90 – yet in the field have superior spatial-visual abilities. It is likely that the IQ tests are flawed because they could not have survived in such a harsh environment without peak spatial-visual skills.
    It has not even been established that the challenges of a cold environment causes high intelligence to evolve. It could very well mean the reverse: that natural selection ensures that only intelligent people survive in cold environments. It may be a fact that high intelligence races are found in cold environments because they were highly intelligent to start with; Rushton commits an “after, therefore because of” fallacy in his reasoning. Nor should the challenges of desert environments be underestimated, where droughts and other challenges existed.
     
    - The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White https://thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacy

    It seems that very harsh and “Social Darwinist” environments and cultures do not necessarily select for intelligence exclusively, or maybe not even predominately, but that they mostly select for risk taking, aggressiveness, ruthlessness, i.e., psychopathic and rather anti-social traits.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1836006

    In China the explanation is likely this (the same selection pressures could have applied to the Jewish community/population). Article by Mr. Unz:

    How Social Darwinism Made Modern China
    A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/

    Winnowed by ages of grim elimination in a land populated to the uttermost limits of subsistence, the Chinese race is selected as no other for survival under the fiercest conditions of economic stress. At home the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.[6]
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1835586

    With Ashkenazi Jews for example, they mostly settled in the “Pale of Settlement” region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement which is cold, but also mostly pretty far inland, plus they are/were highly endogamous, which probably suppressed their height, intelligence, etc.

    Very unlikely.

    Ashkenazis are predominantly alpine, med and armenoid types, specially alpine and med, are known to have comparative shorter stature. And this don’t explain the differences in height with the poles and other non-jews in the same area.

    Ashkenazis, despise their very evil and irrational side, are far to be ”less smart”.

    What make jewish intelligence more polemic for nordicist as you is that they tend to have pretty smart in psychological aspects and usually this mean: capacity to manipulate people in malign way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    James Petras just recently wrote a most excellent article on this topic. Highly recommended:
    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/judeo-centrism-myths-and-mania/

    Naturally, I commented on the article:


    It is interesting to note that although Jews have a significant number of genes in common, resulting in a general resemblance between Jews of any kind, Ashkenazi Jews have a substantial number of Nordic genes, captured from Nordics during the Jews’ stay in Aryan society. Right across Europe, and also here in the United Sates, it is common to see successful Ashkenazi Jew with fair hair and blue eyes, the George Soros type. [26] The Nordicization of the Ashkenazi Jew though, methodologically invalidates claims of Jewish intellectual superiority because the superiority could well be a product of the Nordic genes which these Jews have captured.
    – JEWISH INTELLECTUAL SUPREMACISM: A REFUTATION
    by Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/judeo-centrism-myths-and-mania/#comment-1846450

    As to Jewish endogamy and consanguinity. Eastern Ashkenazi Jews likely had much higher rates of inbreeding than their Western, more ``nordicized'' and Western culture culturally-assimilated cousins, which very likely suppressed the average overall intelligence and height of that specific population, which by the way had a very high birth rate:


    Because of the harsh conditions of day-to-day life in the Pale, some two million Jews emigrated from there between 1881 and 1914, mainly to the United States.[8] However, this exodus did not affect the stability of the Jewish population of the Pale, which remained at 5 million people due to its high birthrate.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement#Jewish_life_in_the_Pale

    western ashkenazi jews have, i think, avoided close cousin marriage since the medieval period almost to the same degree as the rest of western europeans. eastern ashkenazi jews — the ones in poland/russia — did not. again, i’m not at all sure about this — this is just what i’ve gleaned from my readings so far.
     
    - https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/historic-mating-patterns-of-ashkenazi-jews/

    There is a connection between cousin marriage and schizophrenia
    [...]
    an israeli water engineer also writes: “Consanguinity certainly increases defectous individuals but provides social stability and a sense of security.”
     
    - http://www.unz.com/forum/jewish-center-bomb-threat-suspect-is-arrested-in-israel/#comment-1811687

    If one is less imposing and threatening physically, one has to come up with ways to protect oneself and get one's way in non-physically aggressive ways; in that regard Jews and women have something in common. What they lack in physical strength they compensate for in psychological scheming, schmoozing, etc., i.e., passive-aggressive or psychologically/verbally aggressive/manipulative behavior:


    both groups always seemed very/the most pushy and competitive, which you kind of confirm again in this thread, with the Asians also being extremely “macho” (these Asians were mostly on Western diets, no green tea, etc.; see my other comment for the potentially significant role high green tea consumption plays in blocking DHT/testosterone --
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1813320 ). The Jews were not very athletic, but still very aggressive intellectually/verbally, if that makes any sense.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1813698

    17. Males are more likely to exhibit aggression physically while females are more likely to exhibit aggression verbally
    This difference has been well documented in almost all other mammals. (Harris, Judith Rich. “The Nurture Assumption” 222) We used to blame it on testosterone, but we now know it's because we've evolved to process anger differently.

    – A male's aggression pathways are more directly connected to brain areas for physical action.
    [...]
    These brain differences exist because they've helped our survival.

    Females are generally smaller than males so being violent towards someone stronger than you is a good way to put an end to your genetic legacy.
    [...]
    But aggression isn't necessarily bad. Males are also the valiant defenders of their tribe, their land and their family; these things all need physical acts of violence.
    [...]
    If you’re still unconvinced, look to the modern jungle: high school. Boys fight with fists, girls fight with gossip.
     

    - http://bravetheworld.com/2016/08/09/50-real-differences-men-women/

    One of the most destructive Jewish manipulations/seductions of the last century for Western civilization, in my opinion, was probably the promotion of neo-liberal ``Chicago School''-style economics, also known as ``Freshwater'' economics, promoted by Milton Friedman (5 feet short; his fellow Eastern Ashkenazi Jewish Western mind seducer and manipulator, ``Objectivist'' Ayn Rand, was actually taller than him at 5 feet and 2 inches), which attacked and to a large degree replaced Keynesian economics aka ``Saltwater'' economics, promoted/founded by John Maynard Keynes (6 feet 6 inches tall):

    Saltwater and freshwater economics
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_and_freshwater_economics


    In the American experience, increased financialization occurred concomitant with the rise of neoliberalism and the free-market doctrines of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics in the late Twentieth Century. Various academic economists of that period worked out ideological and theoretical rationalizations and analytical approaches to facilitate the increased deregulation of financial systems and banking.
    [...]
    Jewish people stood out in a third trajectory in which people invest early in life in high-risk, high-return assets such as stocks and bonds and build wealth quickly while putting less emphasis on homeownership. About one-third of Jews followed this path, compared to no conservative Protestants, 7 percent of mainline Protestants and 4 percent of Catholics.

     

    - http://www.unz.com/mhudson/bloombergs-hit-job-on-venezuela-and-me/#comment-1824152

    This is what is important to understand — which many (White/Northern European) people in my experience still fail to realize — and what distinguishes lower IQ (Africans, etc.) from higher IQ (mostly East Asians and Jews) high-frequency low-activity MAOA carrier populations/groups: Higher IQ low-activity MAOA carriers can much better gauge and “calculate” risk than lower IQ low-activity MAOA carriers can, and therefore engage in very different types of crimes, and they do so often undetected and much more successfully than their fellow lower IQ low-activity MAOA carriers.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1821930

    According to one hypothesis, some traits associated with psychopathy may be socially adaptive, and psychopathy may be a frequency-dependent, socially parasitic strategy, which may work as long as there is a large population of altruistic and trusting individuals, relative to the population of psychopathic individuals, to be exploited.[81][86] It is also suggested that some traits associated with psychopathy such as early, promiscuous, adulterous, and coercive sexuality may increase reproductive success.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1836006
  182. @FKA Max

    And also we have east asians, ashkenazis trends to be shorter, at least if compared with northern europeans, as well inuits and other ”natives’ who tend to be shorter and have colder habitats.
    That rule is purely correlational. Maybe this rule is better applied to tempered to cold [not exactly polar] climates if extreme conditions tend to cut physiological exuberance as higher stature.
     
    I think what causes people, who inhabit cold(er) climates/habitats, to be short(er) is usually resource scarcity/limitations:

    Resource availability is a major constraint on the overall success of many organisms. Resource scarcity can limit the total number of organisms in a habitat, and over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size. Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule#Criticism

    With Ashkenazi Jews for example, they mostly settled in the ``Pale of Settlement'' region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement which is cold, but also mostly pretty far inland, plus they are/were highly endogamous, which probably suppressed their height, intelligence, etc.

    I had a brief exchange with you on this topic before on ``Hallstatt Nordics'' vs. ``Hanseatic Nordics'':


    Hanseatic Nordics are probably on average smarter and taller than Hallstatt Nordics, because they have easier access to the ocean, i.e., saltwater fish are higher in iodine content generally, with some exceptions; and Hanseatic Nordics’ diet generally is probably higher in seafood due to them, as I said, living close(r) to the sea.
    [...]
    Saltwater fish and shellfish contain considerably more iodine than do freshwater species, and saltwater shellfish are the most iodine-rich of all seafood.

    Giving a very rough estimate, or average, saltwater fish has 330 micrograms of iodine per 100 grams of body weight, whereas freshwater fish has 66 mcg/g.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1833942

    In my opinion and according to my research, selection for blue/light eyes (low melanin levels in the iris) in/among Northern Europeans has to do with melatonin secretion suppression by light, which, as lighter skin (low melanin levels in the skin) allows for increased Vitamin D production, is evolutionaryily advantageous in cloudy latitudes far away from the equator.
    This melatonin secretion suppression by light leads to insomnia and hyperactivity (good for non-stop foraging during the short summers in Northern Europe) during the light summer months, and ensures one does not become lethargic, unproductive, and depressed ( e.g., seasonal affective disorder (SAD)) during the dark winter months in extreme northern or southern latitudes.
    [...]
    This is why Asians and Southern Europeans have light skin, but generally do not have/need or select for blue/light eyes, in my opinion, because they rarely inhabit areas beyond the 49th parallel north or south.

    NN above is correct, in my opinion, on why Northern Europeans also select for height/size:

    Could the selection for height be related to Bergmann’s rule? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

    All the selections are made to adapt as well as possible to the colder and darker climate of Northern Europe.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-2000-year-selection-of-the-british/#comment-1415185

    This excerpt might interest you as well:

    Rushton hypothesizes that Mongoloids are intellectually superior to Whites because they evolved in a colder climate, as evidenced by their slight builds and the epicanthic folds of the eyes. However the epicanthic folds are usually regarded as an adaptation to dusty environments. Cold climates favour larger, stronger builds such as Nordic Whites. Pale skin is an adaptation to the cold, maximising vitamin D production. The light eyes of the Nordic are more of an adaptation to cold[/dark] climates than the dark eyes of the Mongoloid. Eskimos have successfully lived in very cold environments such as Greenland – but so too have Nordics. It does not follow from such an Eskimo presence that they are physiologically better adapted to the cold than Nordics. The Viking settlement in Greenland died out because of cultural factors affecting adaptation during an unusually harsh climatic period, rather than racial factors: J. Diamond “Collapse” (Allan Lane, London 2005). Interestingly enough the Eskimo, a Mongoloid, arrived in the Arctic about 10,000 years ago, probably too late for major physiological changes to occur. Their mean IQ is 91 and they have a visual-spatial score of 90 – yet in the field have superior spatial-visual abilities. It is likely that the IQ tests are flawed because they could not have survived in such a harsh environment without peak spatial-visual skills.
    It has not even been established that the challenges of a cold environment causes high intelligence to evolve. It could very well mean the reverse: that natural selection ensures that only intelligent people survive in cold environments. It may be a fact that high intelligence races are found in cold environments because they were highly intelligent to start with; Rushton commits an “after, therefore because of” fallacy in his reasoning. Nor should the challenges of desert environments be underestimated, where droughts and other challenges existed.
     
    - The Myth of East Asian Intellectual Supremacy by Peter J. White https://thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/25-the-myth-of-east-asian-intellectual-supremacy

    It seems that very harsh and “Social Darwinist” environments and cultures do not necessarily select for intelligence exclusively, or maybe not even predominately, but that they mostly select for risk taking, aggressiveness, ruthlessness, i.e., psychopathic and rather anti-social traits.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1836006

    In China the explanation is likely this (the same selection pressures could have applied to the Jewish community/population). Article by Mr. Unz:

    How Social Darwinism Made Modern China
    A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/

    Winnowed by ages of grim elimination in a land populated to the uttermost limits of subsistence, the Chinese race is selected as no other for survival under the fiercest conditions of economic stress. At home the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.[6]
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1835586

    Hanseatic Nordics are probably on average smarter and taller than Hallstatt Nordics, because they have easier access to the ocean, i.e., saltwater fish are higher in iodine content generally, with some exceptions; and Hanseatic Nordics’ diet generally is probably higher in seafood due to them, as I said, living close(r) to the sea.
    [...]
    Saltwater fish and shellfish contain considerably more iodine than do freshwater species, and saltwater shellfish are the most iodine-rich of all seafood.

    Giving a very rough estimate, or average, saltwater fish has 330 micrograms of iodine per 100 grams of body weight, whereas freshwater fish has 66 mcg/g.

    Nutritious conjectures.

    Read More
  183. @James Thompson
    Humans are smart because they have the gift of speech, which enables them to share experience, both by word of mouth and in writing, thus making the knowledge of the species as a whole the property of anyone with the determination to acquire it.

    Excellent. So now we need to explain why humans, and not birds, have the "gift" of speech.

    Humans are smarter because they ”have”, invariably speaking:

    capacity to re-think their actions in many ways and other gifts = self consciousness

    and

    because their larger capacity to memorize, i called ”bigger or expansive instinct”.

    Humans can expand their instincts while most living beings have little potential or virtually no-potential to do it.

    Complex, symbolic and materialized language or communication system don’t explain why humans are smarter, in this important aspects, but how they/we can be, because complex communication system, namely for humans, is a deliberated and achieved effect of this larger capacity and not the cause.

    Humans are smarter because they ”have”, invariably speaking:

    capacity to re-think their actions in many ways and other gifts = self consciousness

    and

    because their larger capacity to memorize, i call ”bigger or expansive instinct”.

    Humans can expand their instincts via memory while most living beings have little potential or virtually no-potential to do it.

    Complex, symbolic and materialized language or communication system don’t explain why humans are smarter, in this important aspects, but how they/we can be, because complex communication system, namely for humans, is a deliberated and achieved effect of this larger capacity and not the cause.

    We don’t become smarter when we started to express in associative-conceptual-symbolical but when ”we” become apt to give shape for our thoughts or to invent complex language.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ''echo of self-doctrination''

    https://sc02.alicdn.com/kf/HTB17QONMVXXXXasXVXX760XFXXXC/New-Fashion-Funny-Emoji-Facial-Head-Mask.png
  184. @Santoculto

    Resource availability is a major constraint on the overall success of many organisms. Resource scarcity can limit the total number of organisms in a habitat, and over time can also cause organisms to adapt by becoming smaller in body size. Resource availability thus becomes a modifying restraint on Bergmann’s Rule.
     
    Or because smaller organism are less expensive or also because smaller organism = smaller dimension =smaller food required.

    And not just in cold–er environments but also in extreme places, for example in extremely hot or desertic places.

    Read More
  185. @Santoculto
    Humans are smarter because they ''have'', invariably speaking:

    capacity to re-think their actions in many ways and other gifts = self consciousness

    and

    because their larger capacity to memorize, i called ''bigger or expansive instinct''.

    Humans can expand their instincts while most living beings have little potential or virtually no-potential to do it.

    Complex, symbolic and materialized language or communication system don't explain why humans are smarter, in this important aspects, but how they/we can be, because complex communication system, namely for humans, is a deliberated and achieved effect of this larger capacity and not the cause.

    Humans are smarter because they ''have'', invariably speaking:

    capacity to re-think their actions in many ways and other gifts = self consciousness

    and

    because their larger capacity to memorize, i call ''bigger or expansive instinct''.

    Humans can expand their instincts via memory while most living beings have little potential or virtually no-potential to do it.

    Complex, symbolic and materialized language or communication system don't explain why humans are smarter, in this important aspects, but how they/we can be, because complex communication system, namely for humans, is a deliberated and achieved effect of this larger capacity and not the cause.

    We don't become smarter when we started to express in associative-conceptual-symbolical but when ''we'' become apt to give shape for our thoughts or to invent complex language.
    Read More
  186. @Santoculto

    With Ashkenazi Jews for example, they mostly settled in the “Pale of Settlement” region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement which is cold, but also mostly pretty far inland, plus they are/were highly endogamous, which probably suppressed their height, intelligence, etc.
     
    Very unlikely.

    Ashkenazis are predominantly alpine, med and armenoid types, specially alpine and med, are known to have comparative shorter stature. And this don't explain the differences in height with the poles and other non-jews in the same area.

    Ashkenazis, despise their very evil and irrational side, are far to be ''less smart''.

    What make jewish intelligence more polemic for nordicist as you is that they tend to have pretty smart in psychological aspects and usually this mean: capacity to manipulate people in malign way.

    James Petras just recently wrote a most excellent article on this topic. Highly recommended:

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/judeo-centrism-myths-and-mania/

    Naturally, I commented on the article:

    It is interesting to note that although Jews have a significant number of genes in common, resulting in a general resemblance between Jews of any kind, Ashkenazi Jews have a substantial number of Nordic genes, captured from Nordics during the Jews’ stay in Aryan society. Right across Europe, and also here in the United Sates, it is common to see successful Ashkenazi Jew with fair hair and blue eyes, the George Soros type. [26] The Nordicization of the Ashkenazi Jew though, methodologically invalidates claims of Jewish intellectual superiority because the superiority could well be a product of the Nordic genes which these Jews have captured.
    – JEWISH INTELLECTUAL SUPREMACISM: A REFUTATION
    by Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf

    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/judeo-centrism-myths-and-mania/#comment-1846450

    As to Jewish endogamy and consanguinity. Eastern Ashkenazi Jews likely had much higher rates of inbreeding than their Western, more “nordicized” and Western culture culturally-assimilated cousins, which very likely suppressed the average overall intelligence and height of that specific population, which by the way had a very high birth rate:

    Because of the harsh conditions of day-to-day life in the Pale, some two million Jews emigrated from there between 1881 and 1914, mainly to the United States.[8] However, this exodus did not affect the stability of the Jewish population of the Pale, which remained at 5 million people due to its high birthrate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement#Jewish_life_in_the_Pale

    western ashkenazi jews have, i think, avoided close cousin marriage since the medieval period almost to the same degree as the rest of western europeans. eastern ashkenazi jews — the ones in poland/russia — did not. again, i’m not at all sure about this — this is just what i’ve gleaned from my readings so far.

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/historic-mating-patterns-of-ashkenazi-jews/

    There is a connection between cousin marriage and schizophrenia
    [...]
    an israeli water engineer also writes: “Consanguinity certainly increases defectous individuals but provides social stability and a sense of security.”

    http://www.unz.com/forum/jewish-center-bomb-threat-suspect-is-arrested-in-israel/#comment-1811687

    If one is less imposing and threatening physically, one has to come up with ways to protect oneself and get one’s way in non-physically aggressive ways; in that regard Jews and women have something in common. What they lack in physical strength they compensate for in psychological scheming, schmoozing, etc., i.e., passive-aggressive or psychologically/verbally aggressive/manipulative behavior:

    both groups always seemed very/the most pushy and competitive, which you kind of confirm again in this thread, with the Asians also being extremely “macho” (these Asians were mostly on Western diets, no green tea, etc.; see my other comment for the potentially significant role high green tea consumption plays in blocking DHT/testosterone —
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1813320 ). The Jews were not very athletic, but still very aggressive intellectually/verbally, if that makes any sense.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1813698

    17. Males are more likely to exhibit aggression physically while females are more likely to exhibit aggression verbally
    This difference has been well documented in almost all other mammals. (Harris, Judith Rich. “The Nurture Assumption” 222) We used to blame it on testosterone, but we now know it’s because we’ve evolved to process anger differently.

    – A male’s aggression pathways are more directly connected to brain areas for physical action.
    [...]
    These brain differences exist because they’ve helped our survival.

    Females are generally smaller than males so being violent towards someone stronger than you is a good way to put an end to your genetic legacy.
    [...]
    But aggression isn’t necessarily bad. Males are also the valiant defenders of their tribe, their land and their family; these things all need physical acts of violence.
    [...]
    If you’re still unconvinced, look to the modern jungle: high school. Boys fight with fists, girls fight with gossip.

    http://bravetheworld.com/2016/08/09/50-real-differences-men-women/

    One of the most destructive Jewish manipulations/seductions of the last century for Western civilization, in my opinion, was probably the promotion of neo-liberal “Chicago School”-style economics, also known as “Freshwater” economics, promoted by Milton Friedman (5 feet short; his fellow Eastern Ashkenazi Jewish Western mind seducer and manipulator, “Objectivist” Ayn Rand, was actually taller than him at 5 feet and 2 inches), which attacked and to a large degree replaced Keynesian economics aka “Saltwater” economics, promoted/founded by John Maynard Keynes (6 feet 6 inches tall):

    Saltwater and freshwater economics

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_and_freshwater_economics

    In the American experience, increased financialization occurred concomitant with the rise of neoliberalism and the free-market doctrines of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics in the late Twentieth Century. Various academic economists of that period worked out ideological and theoretical rationalizations and analytical approaches to facilitate the increased deregulation of financial systems and banking.
    [...]
    Jewish people stood out in a third trajectory in which people invest early in life in high-risk, high-return assets such as stocks and bonds and build wealth quickly while putting less emphasis on homeownership. About one-third of Jews followed this path, compared to no conservative Protestants, 7 percent of mainline Protestants and 4 percent of Catholics.

    http://www.unz.com/mhudson/bloombergs-hit-job-on-venezuela-and-me/#comment-1824152

    This is what is important to understand — which many (White/Northern European) people in my experience still fail to realize — and what distinguishes lower IQ (Africans, etc.) from higher IQ (mostly East Asians and Jews) high-frequency low-activity MAOA carrier populations/groups: Higher IQ low-activity MAOA carriers can much better gauge and “calculate” risk than lower IQ low-activity MAOA carriers can, and therefore engage in very different types of crimes, and they do so often undetected and much more successfully than their fellow lower IQ low-activity MAOA carriers.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1821930

    According to one hypothesis, some traits associated with psychopathy may be socially adaptive, and psychopathy may be a frequency-dependent, socially parasitic strategy, which may work as long as there is a large population of altruistic and trusting individuals, relative to the population of psychopathic individuals, to be exploited.[81][86] It is also suggested that some traits associated with psychopathy such as early, promiscuous, adulterous, and coercive sexuality may increase reproductive success.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1836006

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max

    Milton Friedman (5 feet short; his fellow Eastern Ashkenazi Jewish Western mind seducer and manipulator, “Objectivist” Ayn Rand, was actually taller than him at 5 feet and 2 inches), which attacked and to a large degree replaced Keynesian economics aka “Saltwater” economics, promoted/founded by John Maynard Keynes (6 feet 6 inches tall)
     
    Just to put this in perspective; if we go by the simple formula I shared in my earlier comment:

    Because the correlation between IQ and height is only 0.2, seven foot men would on average be 0.2(139) = 28 IQ points smarter than five foot men.
    [...]
    [ Height could be measured on the same relative scale as IQ is, as Jensen once noted, we just don’t bother because we have an absolute scale to measure height on (feet and inches). But if we did measure height on this relative scale, we would call the scores HQ’s (height quotients). The height distribution of young white American men has a mean of 5’10.4″ and a standard deviation of 2.58 inches, so equating these values with 100 and 15 respectively allows us to assign men the following HQ’s based on their heights (if you’re older than 40 or younger than 20, you may want to add an age bonus to your HQ; if you’re a woman, add about 32 points to your HQ, so a 7 foot tall woman would have an HQ of about 211 instead of 179) ]
    – https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/height-iq/
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains/#comment-1850648

    This would put John Maynard Keynes at a circa 20 IQ point advantage to Milton Friedman, just on their height difference.

    Who would you trust with and want to put in charge of designing and managing your economy, Milton Friedman or John Maynard Keynes?

    By the way, this is another most excellent piece/summary on the subject matter:

    Differences between the Eastern European immigrant community in the US and the older German-Jewish establishment — and their commonalities
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/04/differences-between-the-eastern-european-immigrant-community-in-the-us-and-the-older-german-jewish-establishment-and-their-commonalities/

    The interesting thing about this phenomenon is that this Eastern European population had overshot its ecological niche, so that poverty was widespread. But despite this, they continued to have very high fertility, which I theorize was due to their intense collectivism and ethnocentrism rooted in the religious fundamentalism that typified this population prior to their attraction to political radicalism and Zionism). (On the other hand, individualists typical of Western societies tend to delay marriage and have fewer children during times of economic hardship [e.g., the depression of the 1930s].)
    [...]
    (For example, Albert Lindemann notes the effects of the influx of a number of Russian Jews to Atlanta in the early twentieth century — often described as “barbaric and ignorant” by the established German Jewish community. These Jews often owned saloons and were accused of selling liquor to Blacks, thus contributing to public disorder. After the race riot of 1906, the liquor licenses of several Jewish-owned saloons were revoked” [from my review).
    [...]
    In short, I agree with Paul Gottfried. The distinction between the Jews deriving from Eastern Europe and the previously existing Jewish community are often important. As noted above, in the absence of the very large number of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, the transformative effects of Jewish activism on the US would not have occurred. The German-Jewish elite did indeed have influence far beyond their numbers, but their tiny numbers and relatively conservative attitudes would have prevented them from having the transformative effects that their much more numerous—and much more radical—Eastern European cousins had.
     
    , @hyperbola
    Why interpret this:

    """In the American experience, increased financialization occurred concomitant with the rise of neoliberalism and the free-market doctrines of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics in the late Twentieth Century. Various academic economists of that period worked out ideological and theoretical rationalizations and analytical approaches to facilitate the increased deregulation of financial systems and banking.
    [...]
    Jewish people stood out in a third trajectory in which people invest early in life in high-risk, high-return assets such as stocks and bonds and build wealth quickly while putting less emphasis on homeownership. About one-third of Jews followed this path, compared to no conservative Protestants, 7 percent of mainline Protestants and 4 percent of Catholics.""

    in terms of IQ?? Might make more sense to interpret it in terms of mafia corruption. If a "successful" mafia exists, sects that have privileged access are more likely to participate in the mafia activities (be it Italian or the much bigger jewish mafias).

    As for Friedmann and the jews, this is an interesting comment.

    Gilad Atzmon: Milton Friedman’s ‘Capitalism and the Jews’ Revisited
    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-milton-friedmans-capitalism-and-the-jews-revisi.html
  187. @James Thompson
    Humans are smart because they have the gift of speech, which enables them to share experience, both by word of mouth and in writing, thus making the knowledge of the species as a whole the property of anyone with the determination to acquire it.

    Excellent. So now we need to explain why humans, and not birds, have the "gift" of speech.

    Excellent. So now we need to explain why humans, and not birds, have the “gift” of speech.

    Michelangelo, gave us the answer.

    Anyway, who said birds can’t talk?

    Read More
  188. @James Thompson
    Humans are smart because they have the gift of speech, which enables them to share experience, both by word of mouth and in writing, thus making the knowledge of the species as a whole the property of anyone with the determination to acquire it.

    Excellent. So now we need to explain why humans, and not birds, have the "gift" of speech.

    More seriously, humans presumably evolved from something like a chimp, but they have a brain almost three times the mass, with much of the additional volume due to expansion of the cerebrum.

    So it appears that the acquisition of speech depended on huge expansion of some part or parts of the brain, a process presumably driven by a large group selective advantage for those that most rapidly advanced in communication skills.

    Why language takes up so much brain space is an interesting question on which I have a theory, but not space enough here to explain!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    CanSpeccy: Why like a chimp? Chimps seem fairly impulsive, to a remarkably inhuman degree. Of all the primates, they seem least like the rest of us primates (monkeys and proto-monkeys aside).
  189. @FKA Max
    James Petras just recently wrote a most excellent article on this topic. Highly recommended:
    http://www.unz.com/jpetras/judeo-centrism-myths-and-mania/

    Naturally, I commented on the article:


    It is interesting to note that although Jews have a significant number of genes in common, resulting in a general resemblance between Jews of any kind, Ashkenazi Jews have a substantial number of Nordic genes, captured from Nordics during the Jews’ stay in Aryan society. Right across Europe, and also here in the United Sates, it is common to see successful Ashkenazi Jew with fair hair and blue eyes, the George Soros type. [26] The Nordicization of the Ashkenazi Jew though, methodologically invalidates claims of Jewish intellectual superiority because the superiority could well be a product of the Nordic genes which these Jews have captured.
    – JEWISH INTELLECTUAL SUPREMACISM: A REFUTATION
    by Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/refutation.pdf
     
    - http://www.unz.com/jpetras/judeo-centrism-myths-and-mania/#comment-1846450

    As to Jewish endogamy and consanguinity. Eastern Ashkenazi Jews likely had much higher rates of inbreeding than their Western, more ``nordicized'' and Western culture culturally-assimilated cousins, which very likely suppressed the average overall intelligence and height of that specific population, which by the way had a very high birth rate:


    Because of the harsh conditions of day-to-day life in the Pale, some two million Jews emigrated from there between 1881 and 1914, mainly to the United States.[8] However, this exodus did not affect the stability of the Jewish population of the Pale, which remained at 5 million people due to its high birthrate.
     
    - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement#Jewish_life_in_the_Pale

    western ashkenazi jews have, i think, avoided close cousin marriage since the medieval period almost to the same degree as the rest of western europeans. eastern ashkenazi jews — the ones in poland/russia — did not. again, i’m not at all sure about this — this is just what i’ve gleaned from my readings so far.
     
    - https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/historic-mating-patterns-of-ashkenazi-jews/

    There is a connection between cousin marriage and schizophrenia
    [...]
    an israeli water engineer also writes: “Consanguinity certainly increases defectous individuals but provides social stability and a sense of security.”
     
    - http://www.unz.com/forum/jewish-center-bomb-threat-suspect-is-arrested-in-israel/#comment-1811687

    If one is less imposing and threatening physically, one has to come up with ways to protect oneself and get one's way in non-physically aggressive ways; in that regard Jews and women have something in common. What they lack in physical strength they compensate for in psychological scheming, schmoozing, etc., i.e., passive-aggressive or psychologically/verbally aggressive/manipulative behavior:


    both groups always seemed very/the most pushy and competitive, which you kind of confirm again in this thread, with the Asians also being extremely “macho” (these Asians were mostly on Western diets, no green tea, etc.; see my other comment for the potentially significant role high green tea consumption plays in blocking DHT/testosterone --
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1813320 ). The Jews were not very athletic, but still very aggressive intellectually/verbally, if that makes any sense.
     
    - http://www.unz.com/isteve/reforming-stuyvesant-hs-admissions-should-blacks-whites-team-up-against-asian-grinds/#comment-1813698

    17. Males are more likely to exhibit aggression physically while females are more likely to exhibit aggression verbally
    This difference has been well documented in almost all other mammals. (Harris, Judith Rich. “The Nurture Assumption” 222) We used to blame it on testosterone, but we now know it's because we've evolved to process anger differently.

    – A male's aggression pathways are more directly connected to brain areas for physical action.
    [...]
    These brain differences exist because they've helped our survival.

    Females are generally smaller than males so being violent towards someone stronger than you is a good way to put an end to your genetic legacy.
    [...]
    But aggression isn't necessarily bad. Males are also the valiant defenders of their tribe, their land and their family; these things all need physical acts of violence.
    [...]
    If you’re still unconvinced, look to the modern jungle: high school. Boys fight with fists, girls fight with gossip.
     

    - http://bravetheworld.com/2016/08/09/50-real-differences-men-women/

    One of the most destructive Jewish manipulations/seductions of the last century for Western civilization, in my opinion, was probably the promotion of neo-liberal ``Chicago School''-style economics, also known as ``Freshwater'' economics, promoted by Milton Friedman (5 feet short; his fellow Eastern Ashkenazi Jewish Western mind seducer and manipulator, ``Objectivist'' Ayn Rand, was actually taller than him at 5 feet and 2 inches), which attacked and to a large degree replaced Keynesian economics aka ``Saltwater'' economics, promoted/founded by John Maynard Keynes (6 feet 6 inches tall):

    Saltwater and freshwater economics
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_and_freshwater_economics


    In the American experience, increased financialization occurred concomitant with the rise of neoliberalism and the free-market doctrines of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics in the late Twentieth Century. Various academic economists of that period worked out ideological and theoretical rationalizations and analytical approaches to facilitate the increased deregulation of financial systems and banking.
    [...]
    Jewish people stood out in a third trajectory in which people invest early in life in high-risk, high-return assets such as stocks and bonds and build wealth quickly while putting less emphasis on homeownership. About one-third of Jews followed this path, compared to no conservative Protestants, 7 percent of mainline Protestants and 4 percent of Catholics.

     

    - http://www.unz.com/mhudson/bloombergs-hit-job-on-venezuela-and-me/#comment-1824152

    This is what is important to understand — which many (White/Northern European) people in my experience still fail to realize — and what distinguishes lower IQ (Africans, etc.) from higher IQ (mostly East Asians and Jews) high-frequency low-activity