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…

“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?

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 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/

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

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.

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

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.

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…

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).

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 …

Imagine a female Michelangelo, Einstein or Beethoven!!!

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.

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

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.

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”

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.

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/

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.

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

A Tale of Two Brains

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

When my I.Q. was low, I argued that
I.Q. didn’t matter. When it got high, I argued that it did.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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!

Is IQ still legal? Are our commisars sleeping on the job?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Ah, i answer your comments on Fred post….

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Women are morons at their core.

Are you a homo?

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

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

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

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

Oops! UR’s or my error: #101 and #103

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,

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It always takes me about two cups of coffee and five cigarettes to get through the Unz comments in the morning.

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.

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.

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.