The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 F. Roger Devlin Archive
How and Why Men and Women Differ in Intelligence
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Richard Lynn, Sex Differences in Intelligence: The Developmental Theory, Arktos Media, Ltd., 2021, 131 pp., \$14.95 paper, \$4.99 Kindle

Before the 20th century, it was commonly asserted that men are more intelligent than women. Besides the relative lack of high achievement by women historically, this view seemed supported by biology. For example, in 1887, an Oxford professor of medicine reported that the average male brain was five ounces heavier than that of the average female.

Shortly after the first intelligence tests were developed by Binet and Simon in 1905, however, researchers began reporting that the difference in average intelligence between the sexes was zero or very small. Richard Lynn cites no fewer than 40 testimonies to this effect between 1910 and 2021; most date from 2000 and later. They often refer to “overwhelming” evidence or to a “general consensus” that has been “convincingly established.”

Yet the male brain is on average 12 percent larger than the female brain, in both newborns and adults. Recent studies using in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indicate that brain size has a correlation of between .31 and .43 with intelligence. The identical or near-identical IQ averages by sex were therefore a puzzle.

Arthur Jensen hypothesized that men and women might have the same number of neurons, with those of women more densely packed. However, subsequent research has shown that the male advantage in neurons is even greater than in brain weight: 16 percent, or the equivalent of four billion neurons.

The solution to the puzzle is to control for age. Most mental testing is done on school-age children, and Prof. Lynn’s research confirms that sex differences in this group are slight. However, neurological studies show that white matter in the brain continues to grow more in males than in females after mid-adolescence. Beginning at about age 16, boys have a small IQ advantage over girls, and this gradually grows to four points or more as adults.

Author Richard Lynn
Author Richard Lynn

There are intelligence tests designed for use with very young children, and these show a distinct female advantage. This is especially clear in verbal ability. Girls on average have a larger vocabulary than boys, and the difference peaks between ages two and three, when girls have an average vocabulary 50 percent greater than that of boys.

The common factor in these results is that girls develop more rapidly than boys, but stop developing sooner. Between the ages of about five and 15, the effects of more rapid brain development are gradually cancelled out by the male advantage in brain size, so measured differences in intelligence disappear. In mid-adolescence, the female brain has become fully mature while the male brain continues to develop for several more years.

Prof. Lynn first sketched out this “developmental theory of sex differences,” as he calls it, in a series of papers in the 1990s, and his results have been supported by the research of Helmuth Nyborg and others. Standard textbooks nevertheless continue to assure psychology students that there is no significant sex difference in intelligence.

Helmuth Nyborg
Helmuth Nyborg

The relatively equal outcomes by sex on most intelligence tests are in part a relic of test design. As one researcher put it: “from the very beginning test developers of the best-known intelligence scales took great care to counterbalance or eliminate from their final scale any items or sub-tests which empirically were found to result in a higher score for one sex over the other.” For example, Wechsler tests deemphasize spatial-relations tasks because they show a male advantage. Therefore, Prof. Lynn’s final estimate of a four-IQ-point difference between adult men and women — which is the average of results from Wechsler, Raven’s Progressive Matrices, and several other tests — may be low.

As for the evolutionary causes of higher intelligence in males, Prof. Lynn writes: “In all mammalian group-living species, males compete for territory or high status in dominance hierarchies to secure access to females and reproduction. A further probably evolutionary explanation lies in sexual selection.” He notes that there can be sexual selection for intelligence regardless of whether women are attracted to intelligence per se or only to the things it helps men get, such as resources and status.

“The likely evolutionary explanation of earlier maturation of girls,” Prof. Lynn writes, “is that it is advantageous for them to begin reproducing in early puberty when they are sufficiently mature to have babies and look after them.” (Contemporary consternation over “teen sex,” with its implication that girls should never reproduce until at least in their 20s, would have mystified early hominids.)

Sex differences in intelligence vary by race. Gerhard Meisenburg is among those who have found a male advantage among whites of over 35 percent of a standard deviation (written 0.35 d, and equivalent to 5 IQ points), compared to only 0.10 d (1.5 points) among blacks. This is consistent with J. P. Rushton’s finding that brain mass differences by sex are smaller, both absolutely and relatively, among blacks than whites. Prof. Lynn comments:

The likely evolutionary explanation is that in the tropical and sub-tropical evolutionary environment of sub-Saharan Africa, black males had only a weak need for greater intelligence than females because plant and insect foods were available throughout the year and females could collect these for themselves and their children without the support of males. When early humans migrated into Europe, they found that plant and insect foods were not available in the winter and spring, and males had to hunt large animals to obtain food for themselves and their females and children. Hunting large animals is more cognitively demanding than gathering plant and insect foods.

In keeping with the usual three-way racial pattern analyzed by Rushton, we would expect to find even larger sex differences in average intelligence among Northeast Asians. This expectation is confirmed by comparisons of 45 sets of Wechsler Full IQ test scores: “Eight of these samples were North East Asians in whom the median male advantage was 0.31 d. The other 37 were Europeans in whom the median male advantage was 0.21 d.”

J. Philippe Rushton
J. Philippe Rushton

Mainstream scientists have been more candid about recognizing sex differences in specific abilities than in overall intelligence, or the general factor g. Even laymen notice that boys tend to do better at math than girls, while girls do better on verbal tests. Formal research supports this.

Adult men have an advantage of 0.29 d, or 4.35 IQ points, over women in nonverbal reasoning. In verbal reasoning, their advantage is smaller: 0.16 d in comprehension. Males have a greater mathematical problem-solving ability of 0.29 d in high school, which increases to 0.32 d in college. The average male advantage on the SAT math test has declined, but boys consistently do better than girls, especially at the highest levels.

The largest male advantages are found not in mathematics, however, but in spatial abilities. A 2019 meta-analysis found male advantages of 0.23 d in visualization, 0.48 d in spatial perception, and 0.66 d in “mental rotation,” meaning the ability to visualize how an object will look when rotated so as to be seen from another angle. This last figure is the largest sex difference of any kind that has been identified, and Wechsler tests are designed to exclude it entirely. In spatial ability overall, men have an advantage of .46 d, equivalent to around seven IQ points. These differences correlate with hormone levels; women exposed to higher levels of pre-natal testosterone have better spatial abilities than other women. Male superiority in spatial abilities is probably an evolutionary adaptation to hunting.

Men have an advantage over women in general knowledge. A 2002 study by Richard Lynn and two colleagues measured the difference as 0.51 d. The difference is largest in the categories of Current Affairs, Physical Health and Recreation, Arts, and Sciences. Women score higher than males in the category of Family.

Men have faster reaction times than women, and it will come as a surprise to no one that men throw more accurately than women, whether at stationary or moving targets. The difference shows up by age four, and is independent of male superiority in spatial abilities. The evolutionary advantage for hunting should be obvious.

Girls have an advantage in verbal abilities, which persists through the end of high school but is lost in adulthood. However, their advantage in verbal fluency — defined as “the ability to produce a larger number of words in a particular category (e.g., birds, dogs, etc.)” — persists throughout life. Girls do better than boys at tests of reading ability, reading comprehension, and writing ability. These advantages are probably part of their greater verbal ability in youth.

Girls and women also enjoy an advantage in learning second languages. This is probably because, in early humans as among the great apes, females were exogamous: They moved to join the group to which their mates belonged, while males stayed put. In cases of conquest as well, females became the prey of the victors, and their chances of survival and successful motherhood were better if they were good at picking up foreign speech.

Women enjoy an advantage in visual memory and remembering where things are located. These appear to be adaptations to foraging and gathering plant food, just as men’s spatial and throwing abilities are adaptations to hunting. A female advantage in spelling is probably a consequence of better visual memory.

Women are faster at perception and processing in tasks involving “the ability to make rapid comparisons among a number of designs (letters, numbers or pictures).” Female infants display better hand-eye coordination than male infants.

Episodic memory is the ability to remember past experiences, such as what one was doing yesterday. Women are better at this for verbal data as well as “things which cannot easily be placed along the verbal-spatial continuum, such as faces, odour, taste and colour.” Men have better episodic memory for spatial tasks.

ORDER IT NOW

Finally, females have better social cognition, meaning an ability to decode non-verbal cues and infer what other people are thinking. Prof. Lynn finds no evolutionary explanation for this, but I have heard it speculated that it may be an adaption to caring for children too young to speak or because they have to deal with men, who are stronger and more violent than they are.

One of the best attested sex differences in intelligence is the wider distribution of male intelligence, with more men than women at both the high and low ends of the bell curve. Although the cover illustration of Prof. Lynn’s book appears to be based on this difference, he refers to this only in the final paragraph! This difference may go at least as far towards explaining high male achievement as an average IQ difference of four points.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Feminism, Gender, IQ 
Hide 174 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Vinnie O says:

    “Girls have an advantage in verbal abilities, which persists through the end of high school but is lost in adulthood. However, their advantage in verbal fluency — defined as “the ability to produce a larger number of words in a particular category (e.g., birds, dogs, etc.)” — persists throughout life. ”

    OK, so why are males SO MUCH MORE active as Writers? And after 1st Grade or so, boys are clearly the more active, forward-pressing students.

    So girls have some great talent that they HIDE or IGNORE? What is the survival advantage of THAT?

    But ignoring your factoids, I spent any number of years as an Editor and Technical Writer of government documents. Practically ALL of the OTHER Editors and Technical Writers were ALSO males. So to what USE do these smart females apply this linguistic talent? Certainly not as writers in anything other than Wimmen’s magazines, where there is not a lot of competition from MALE writers.

    And can anyone name the 3 most influential female SPEAKERS in America? Um, nope. They would miss their Soaps.

  2. From memory, I remember reading a paper that stated this amazing thesis: Black American WOMEN are, on average, smarter than Black American MEN!
    (Naturally, for White Americans/Hispanics/Asians, it is the OPPOSITE of that: Men are, on average, smarter than women.)

  3. Anonymous[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinnie O

    So girls have some great talent that they HIDE or IGNORE? What is the survival advantage of THAT?

    Mature girls (women) have the ability to care for and raise children up to the age of about 5, after which the children tend to be more influenced by their social group than by their parents.

    Institution’s and men lack this ability, which causes high mortality among infants left in institutional care.

    Women also have the ability to convince men to pay for the women’s care and the care of any children she may have. The man generally insists on spending years of his life paying, and other men will actually force him to do that if he does not. That’s quite an ability. Note that male homosexual male domestic partners generally lack this ability.

    Language is used to demonstrate cognitive ability to men, and to compete with other women for status, also an ability that men completely lack.

    All and all, such abilities are far more useful and inexplicable to the parties involved than the ability to edit publications, or for that matter the standard set of comic superhero abilities.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
  4. mijj says:

    > “Recent studies using in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indicate that brain size has a correlation of between .31 and .43 with intelligence.”

    so .. not good correlation then. Looks like your argument is subverted.

    • LOL: Bill
    • Replies: @Alrenous
  5. @Vergissmeinnicht

    It is a bit surprising that higher prenatal testosterone should convey
    better spatial abilities to women as samesaid prenatal testosterone
    (more exactly the tolerance it imparts) has been blamed for stoopid keedz
    (i.e. it affects brain development).
    Everything points to women being intermediate hosts in the reproductive
    cycle of humans and any sex differences serving the same function as
    e.g. fetal hemoglobin.

    • Replies: @Red Pill Angel
  6. Finally, females have better social cognition, meaning an ability to decode non-verbal cues and infer what other people are thinking.

    This probably sheds light on the TERF phenomenon. Male transgender fetishists fall into the Uncanny Valley, and their behavior gives real women the creeps, even if these women agree in principle with the demand from progressive utopians that they have to accept these defectives as allies in the uprising of the oppressed against a functional white society.

  7. Rosie says:

    In mid-adolescence, the female brain has become fully mature while the male brain continues to develop for several more years.

    False.

    He notes that there can be sexual selection for intelligence regardless of whether women are attracted to intelligence per se or only to the things it helps men get, such as resources and status.

    Any chance to take a dig at women amirite? Because surely the grasping, semireptilian female of the species would never value intelligence for its own sake in a companion.

    “The likely evolutionary explanation of earlier maturation of girls,” Prof. Lynn writes, “is that it is advantageous for them to begin reproducing in early puberty when they are sufficiently mature to have babies and look after them.” (Contemporary consternation over “teen sex,” with its implication that girls should never reproduce until at least in their 20s, would have mystified early hominids.)

    Lol my achin’ sides. I see even the most dedicated free speech absolutist on the internet, Ron Unz, couldn’t stomach Devlin’s original formulation from amren.com. Too funny. Anyway, as far as having babies in “early puberty” goes, I like to think “early hominids” were more enlightened than that, even if only as a matter of survival.

    https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/articles/fistula-a-silent-tragedy-for-child-brides/

    Anyway, girls should definitely never reproduce until their early 20s at least, bearing in mind, of course, that accidents happen. (I was one myself.) There is no reason whatsoever to court disaster in that fashion. Marriage before the mid-20s, let alone having children, is associated with an elevated risk of divorce. This is to be expected, because the prefrontal cortex isn’t complete until the mid-20s. It may be significantly younger for women, but I have been able to find nothing to the effect that this happens before 20, let alone the mid-teens. If you have children before your prefrontal cortex is fully baked, that is going to negatively impact your children, especially if there is no extended family support system. Indeed, traumatic stress during childhood can negatively affect their brain development.

    • Disagree: Reaper
    • Thanks: Sarah
    • LOL: Vinnyvette
    • Troll: R.G. Camara
  8. @Vinnie O

    Poor Vinnie feels threatened. Quietly, he knows many women in his sphere that he suspects are smarter than he is. So, he feels the need to denigrate women, in general.

    BUSTED…..

    Meanwhile, what is the actual constructive point of research and articles like this? The author didn’t articulate one, let alone three.

    It reeks of more intent to suppress by those who feel threatened. Lame….

    • Agree: Herald
    • Troll: Vinnyvette, Fr. John, Reaper
  9. JimDandy says:
    @Vinnie O

    OK, so why are males SO MUCH MORE active as Writers?

    Are they? Still?

  10. Rosie says:
    @Vinnie O

    So to what USE do these smart females apply this linguistic talent? Certainly not as writers in anything other than Wimmen’s magazines, where there is not a lot of competition from MALE writers.

    The other day, I was thinking about all the women physicists in the Muslim world and all the crap they’re in for from the reactionaries among their men folk, who will no doubt start banging on about how unfeminine, competitive, careerist, etc. they are. They definitely won’t take notice of their intelligence and celebrate their achievements, that’s for sure.

    Reactionary men seem to follow this rule: If you can’t think of anything vicious to say, don’t say anything at all. When we compete, we’re unfeminine, self-hating women who really want to be men. When we don’t compete, well that just goes to show that we’re either incapable or lazy or something.

    https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/33

  11. @Rosie

    Agree with your comments.

    And the child brides, horrible fistula and other reproductive problems experienced by young girls are likely utterly unknown by the males reading here or most anywhere. Why should they care about such barbarism towards a child? So, they don’t give flip. Adult men marrying 9 year old girls, like in the link you posted? How sick is that, I don’t care what country you live in.

    Dudes are semi-obsessed with measuring things: sport scores, golf handicaps, dick size, sales achievement numbers, anything with a ruler or tape measure or that has number scoring. LOL, they’re always measuring shit.

    I think it’s the very narrow ‘win or lose’ mentality they have. Kind of like this useless research and article – only done to try to prove some winning superiority. Yawn, it’s so very archaic and dull.

  12. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    False.

    See? Without any kind of arguments or evidences or whatever, it is just “false”. Typical female argument style. If you decisively asserts that something is “false”, it becomes false somehow. lmfao

    As you can see in this very comment section, the feminist brainwashing is the most powerful, the most deeply implanted dogma of all modern dogmas. Of all kinds of articles, the ones which go against feminist dogma always meet the most large number of opposition. Yet, at the same time the opposition arguments are the weakest of all topics, as it is literally always either 1) just another emotional tantrum or 2) already proven to be false in the material they are attacking.

    The fact is, considering the current feminist-dominated social circumstances and much more, men-women intelligence difference is very likely far wider than currently observed. 4 points? No way, lmao.

    • Thanks: Reaper
    • Replies: @Redman
    , @Rosie
  13. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vinnie O

    It can be partially explained by the fact that the all supposed female “advantages”, ALL of them are totally cancelled and reversed by the greater male variance in the right end of bell curve, without any exception.

    There are many more, however, and I’m not sure even the stated average advantages are true or not. After all, modern academia can be perfectly defined by just two words, Jewish and feminist.

  14. Toza says:

    I don’t really understand how evolution can transfer abilities based on sex. If men only beget men and women women, that would be obvious, but children inherit genes from both parents. I don’t know how prof. Lynn would explain that. Many scientists just assume evolutionary theory is correct, but, as many writers on this site have pointed out, it is only an incorrect belief.

  15. Clive says:
    @Rosie

    Yeah wait until youre 35 to get married after sleeping with 100 partners. No wonder the west is doomed

    • Agree: Vinnyvette
  16. Great article but I would have liked some references, particularly for this bit:

    “Recent studies using in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) indicate that brain size has a correlation of between .31 and .43 with intelligence.”

  17. @Rosie

    “Marriage before the mid-20s, let alone having children, is associated with an elevated risk of divorce.”

    This is only because people genetically inclined towards a ‘fast life-history strategy’ are more likely to marry and breed early, and more likely to break up due to lower pair bonding. So the association is not causal, rather they are both results of FLHS.

  18. @Rosie

    In mid-adolescence, the female brain has become fully mature while the male brain continues to develop for several more years.

    Indeed, the British of a bygone era were well aware of this phenomenon – as is evident from this educational film that was distributed throughout secondary schools in Britain and was a core component of the curriculum.
    It is titled ‘Women: Know Your Limits !’ (2 mins):

    • LOL: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @gotmituns
  19. @Rosie

    lol.

    Shut up, dumbass, and make me some pie.

  20. ariadna says:

    None of this is new and by now only a determined politicized stance can argue with the main thesis.
    I found the only detail new to me rather depressing:
    “Women enjoy an advantage in visual memory and remembering where things are located.”
    It means that even among women I am seriously deficient and in the extreme left of the curve.
    When I get out of a store in a shopping mall I stop and ask myself which way do I really want to turn: left or tight. Then I turn in the opposite direction because I am sure that my instinct, based on my spatial orientation is wrong! Where did I leave my glasses? Forget it.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  21. On the more macroscopic level there is the fact that females do not bond with other females in the same way as males bond with other males starting at an early age. This could possibly explain a good lot of things from the scientific to the social to IQ if the brain develops until age 25.

    Also as can be seen in sit-coms of a generation ago as well as in real life that women ‘husband hunt’ at the nubile stage while men would be more interested in ‘punani’ hunting. “She landed him” or “what a catch” were terms that women themselves commonly used before a big hush was induced by the incomprehensible (to me) term of ‘toxic masculinity”.

    Differences are supplied by Mother Nature, no matter how scientists look for explanations. There can be strong arguments made that Ma Nature didn’t support the social construct of marriage, endorsed, regulated and ultimately arbitrated by the system if unsuccessful.

    “I have certainly seen more men destroyed by the desire to have a wife and child and keep
    then in comfort than I have seen destroyed by drink and harlots”.

    William Butler Yeats

    Cheers-

  22. Hmmm… I have a number of highly intelligent daughters and granddaughters (university degrees, careers, all that). Outliers, no doubt. Mind you, the son and grandsons are pretty bright too.

  23. gotmituns says:

    I think t’s obvious men are smarter than women. It’s also obvious that when women aren’t conditioned to be lunatics, they want men to lead them. We all love our wives, mothers, sisters, aunts and all women because of their unconditional love. But many of them are not very loveable today.
    —————————————————————————————–
    On another note, trannies beat women regularly in sports. Now a piss ant tranny has become the top “female” money winner on the game show Jeopardy.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  24. @ariadna

    I’ve told my wife on numerous occasions that if her brain is telling her to go in a particular direction, definitely go the other way. She is wrong almost 100% of the time. My dad and I joked about my Mom’s directional abilities. We swore that if we spun her around in her own kitchen, she would get lost. My sister navigates her car strictly via GPS and instructions because she’s completely incapable of using a map.

    • Replies: @The Real World
  25. Men are naturally smarter but women are so emotionally arrogant and filled with the spirit of their daddy Satan that they think they’re smarter than we (MEN) who’re created in God’s image.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  26. Anonymous[600] • Disclaimer says:

    Male superiority in spatial abilities is probably an evolutionary adaptation to hunting.

    Or, linked to our propensity to visualise female bodies from every conceivable angle. I’m only half-joking. That’s why it correlates with testosterone so well.

    One of the best attested sex differences in intelligence is the wider distribution of male intelligence, with more men than women at both the high and low ends of the bell curve. Although the cover illustration of Prof. Lynn’s book appears to be based on this difference, he refers to this only in the final paragraph! This difference may go at least as far towards explaining high male achievement as an average IQ difference of four points.

    The problem here is that you’ve already noted that the tests are often distorted, for PC reasons, by deemphasizing or outright removing components which favour males. That’s really disappointing.

  27. Anonymous[147] • Disclaimer says:

    Barefoot and pregnant is the best solution to keep them in check. Lol!

    • Replies: @sp
  28. @Rosie

    When we compete, we’re unfeminine, self-hating women who really want to be men. When we don’t compete, well that just goes to show that we’re either incapable or lazy or something.

    When the Chinese compete, they become “a threat”, the “neo-colonialists” who lay “debt-traps”. When the Chinese don’t compete, well that just confirms the whiteman-assigned racial hierarchy that they are laundrymen, or coolies, who should be content with being in their proper place.

    Funny, this is not just the view of Western white-men but also Western white women of the same political class. In fact only those men and women who wear COLOURLESS political glasses see it differently. The latter men and women probably only constitute a minority in the West of today.

    So, the Chinese ask:

    [MORE]

    What Do You Want From Us?
    Revised Version by Bevin Chu

    When we were the Sick Man of Asia, you called us the Yellow Peril.
    When we are billed the Next Superpower, you call us the China Threat.
    When we closed our doors, you demanded we open them so you could import your drugs.
    When we embrace free trade, you blame us for taking away your jobs.
    When we were falling apart, you marched in your troops and demanded your share of the booty.
    When we try to put the pieces back together, you scream “Free Tibet! Invasion!”
    When we tried Communism, you hated us for being Communists.
    When we embrace capitalism, you hate us for being capitalists.
    When our population reached one billion people, you said we were destroying the planet.
    When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we were abusing human rights.
    When we were poor, you thought we were dogs.
    When we loan you money, you blame us for your national debt.
    When we build our industries, you call us polluters.
    When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.
    When we buy oil, you call it genocide.
    When you go to war for oil, you call it liberation.
    When we were in chaos, you demanded the rule of law.
    When we uphold law and order, you call it violating human rights.
    When we were silent, you said you wanted us to enjoy free speech.
    When we are silent no more, you call us brainwashed xenophobes.
    Why do you hate us so much, we asked.
    No, you answered, we don’t hate you.
    Well, we don’t hate you either. But do you understand us?
    Of course we do, you said, we have AFP, BBC, and CNN
    What do you want from us? Really?
    Think hard before you answer, because you only get so many chances.
    Enough is Enough. Enough hypocrisy is enough.
    We want One World and Peace on Earth.
    This Big Blue Marble is big enough for all of us.

    I think Bevin Chu is being too polite. I would prefer Retaliation in Kind!

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  29. “Contemporary consternation over “teen sex,” with its implication that girls should never reproduce until at least in their 20s, would have mystified early hominids.”

    This teenage wives crap is one of the more annoying moronicities to come out of the manosphere — which is saying a huge deal, all things considered. A cursory knowledge of history should tell anyone that women becoming mothers in their 20s was the norm in the Anglo-Saxon world for at least half a millennium. Call me insane, but I’m pretty sure we’re closer genetically to people who lived 500 years ago than 50.000.

    Reminds one of that paleo diet fallacious toss. As if somehow we didn’t adapt to a different diet over the last 50.000 or so years. And the same piss-brains that imagine modern man is best suited to eating raw mammoth would acknowledge race differences without even spotting the blatant contradiction in holding both views.

    • Thanks: Rosie
  30. anon[209] • Disclaimer says:

    Black males often outsmart White women. Jewish and Asian women are far to smart to fall for a BMs BS. White baby boys are typically twice as intelligent as adult Black men according to standard IQ tests.

    • Replies: @Joe Paluka
  31. @gotmituns

    I think t’s obvious men are smarter than women. It’s also obvious that when women aren’t conditioned to be lunatics, they want men to lead them. We all love our wives, mothers, sisters, aunts and all women because of their unconditional love. But many of them are not very loveable today.

    Many white-men also think its obvious that white-men are smarter than the Chinaman (IQ100 is smarter than IQ105). It’s also obvious to them that the Chinaman should be conditioned to become sweating slave workers, and want white-men to dictate to them. They all love Chinese laundrymen and coolies because of they were cheap and meek labourers. But they are no longer backward and meek today. It is, therefore, time to hate the Chinaman!

  32. @Deep Thought

    Weak response, completely irrelevant and incorrect. Only neocoons, (((neo nazis))), MIGApedes and shitlibs believe that. Sane Europeans and our less defective mutt-spawns have already admitted to contemporary Oriental superiority, if only to humble ourselves and hopefully not repeat the mistakes in future generations.

    I hope you didn’t actually let the State Dept shills here get to your head. If so, disappointing. And beside, young girls over here are increasingly into K-pop/drama and weebshit. Not good, but certainly more wholesome and less harmful than nigger culcha/ trailer park villages.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  33. Outspoken says:
    @parasite enthusiast

    Marriage is a societal and cultural institution, not an evolutionary one. Humans are not monogamous and they are not designed like penguins to stay together for life. Therefore the divorce objection is useless.

  34. Redman says:
    @Anonymous

    One could extrapolate the tendency you describe to the 2 political parties in America. The Dems are clearly more the party of females, while the GOP aligns more with males.

    Today’s Dems (and Dem supporters) consistently make arguments with flawed or absent logical reasoning and evidence. They’re also more concerned with group identity issues rather than individual freedom. It’s the party of emotion and chaos. The GOP has many flaws itself, but generally speaking tends to hew more to a Constitutional framework, and prefers order and individual rights.

    • Agree: Drapetomaniac
  35. The headline of this article mentions “intelligence,’ then F. Roger Devlin goes on to discuss brain size, IQ, and evolutionary pseudoscience. These things are not in the same class. The dusty materialism evident in this way of thinking should have been expunged by serious thinkers decades ago. As is his wont, F. Roger Devlin plies his trade by mindlessly repeating the cliches of a bygone era. At one time, such breezy statements might have had intellectual currency, but that was because they were articulated within a context where they were known to be only hints, signs, and indications of a more fundamental reality that was not really in question. When someone like Devlin forgets the main theme and then holds out the cliches as reasons, he makes himself ridiculous.

    Men and women are different. This is simply a reality and not, as Devlin and others here like to qualify it, a “biological reality.” Whatever biological differences exist between men and women (or between humans and dogs, or any other creatures you’d care to compare) are a result of these essential differences and not a cause of them. The differences are soul-deep, as it were.

    The term “biological reality” is nonsensical when you try to parse it. There is no such thing as biological reality because biology is not a thing, it is a loose term for the study and classification of living organisms. Biology is not the arbiter of what’s real and what isn’t—it must receive reality as it is given us, just like any other field of study. Declaring something to be a biological reality does not make it more real than it would be if we dropped any talk of biology and simply called it “reality.”

    In order to illustrate the absurdity of this, we can point out that we could, with equal justification, construct any number of awkward phrases that add nothing to the understanding. We are not in the habit of calling the blue sky an “optical reality” or the solubility of salt a “chemical reality.” The natural prudence and economy of language rebels against such flourishes. Biology alone is granted an exception, because we live in an age when this science’s uniquely impertinent intrusion upon metaphysics has been given a pass by Godless men who wish to use it to obscure our spiritual nature.

    This needs to stop.

  36. james ha says:

    whether my wife is smarter than you or not, she most certainly can kick your punk-ass into left field.

  37. Women enjoy an advantage in visual memory and remembering where things are located.

    I can assure you this is wrong. After remodeling the kitchen, it took me two years to find where I put the wall clock. When I did find it, I was looking for the plant food to feed my houseplants. Needless to say I had to buy the poor plants some fertilizer.

    Obviously I am no expert, but it seems like math skills, and eventually how to use them, is where the smarts are. Math is the necessary skill to build everything and anything. Screw IQ tests, just make someone do long math equations while merely using what is inside their head. Needless to say my math skills are with the missing indoor plant food.

  38. Look at the picture. Men may be more intelligent but it is women who rule the classroom that forces males to sit quietly at their desks and act like little girls if they seek good grades and praise.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  39. @Outspoken

    Nope. Marriage is from God – it is a religious institution – it s not evolutionary, it is not from frogs whales or apes

    • Agree: Rosie
  40. Blodgie says:

    True.

    If marriage is from god, then ghey marriage must be too.

    Because he don’t make mistakes right?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  41. Rosie says:
    @Jeffrey A Freeman

    Men are naturally smarter but women are so emotionally arrogant and filled with the spirit of their daddy Satan that they think they’re smarter than we (MEN) who’re created in God’s image.

    Oh dear.

    So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201%3A27&version=NIV

    • Replies: @Jeffrey A Freeman
  42. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    See? Without any kind of arguments or evidences or whatever, it is just “false”. Typical female argument style. If you decisively asserts that something is “false”, it becomes false somehow. lmfao

    Where is the evidence that girls’ brains complete development by the mid-teens? When misogynists feel at liberty to make unsubstantiated assertions like that, I likewise take the liberty to contradict them without argument.

    The fact is, considering the current feminist-dominated social circumstances and much more, men-women intelligence difference is very likely far wider than currently observed. 4 points? No way, lmao.

    I see you have no use for empirical evidence that doesn’t suit your agenda. Nonetheless, facts don’t care about your feelings nor your arrogant hunches. I hear it’s tough to bullshit your way through organic chemistry.

    https://www.ama-assn.org/education/medical-school-diversity/women-medical-schools-dig-latest-record-breaking-numbers

    • Replies: @cylindrical crown
  43. Like the successful drive to eliminate intelligence differences between Blacks and Whites, this is another screw-up by nature that modern man must fix.

  44. I will use my students as examples. I taught undergrads in the 1990s, left academia, returned recently (2016) and so once again over the last few years have been teaching the 18-30 range (predominantly). I will soon be teaching grad students. I have taught, and do so now, in the disciplines of philosophy and political science.

    -In the 18-30 age group of undergrads my most brilliant students are always males. Always. The best writers, the most intuitive, the most devoted, the most ambitious. They are respectful, polite, and really love to learn. They have ideas, they can see all angles of an idea or issue. They are complex. I am happy to know that I have been an influence at the start of some impressive academic careers and legal careers.

    -The perfectly mediocre and well behaved and extremely respectful and polite middle tier is almost all female with a strong contingent of polite yet arrogant males. This is where the best female minds seem to land and those males that are not brilliant yet think they are. It is odd how these males are so arrogant, but they always are, and they are shocked when they come up short or fail in comparison to the more intelligent yet humble males. The females are wonderful and you can see they come from good traditional two parent father dominated families. The females are indeed a joy and compliment the more intellectually brilliant males while they are in stark contrast to the males in this category.

    -The large bottom tier is mostly male, with quite a few females though. This large mass is all over the place in behavior and ability and manners. Two interesting points about this group: there is a very real phenomena of males who seem lacking intellectually and on the verge of criminality, yet with some guidance and concern they join the brilliant top tier. Underneath their sadness and lack of faith in themselves and scorn from society, is a powerful mind. The second point is that this is where, from the females, you see, if attractive, the females who become whores, or now “insta-thots,” as well as females who become feminists and sjw types. There is a lot of anger here.

    This is a very broad generalization but I hope it give an idea of what I have experienced.

  45. Rosie says:
    @mick jagger gathers no mosque

    Look at the picture. Men may be more intelligent but it is women who rule the classroom that forces males to sit quietly at their desks and act like little girls if they seek good grades and praise.

    WTF do you expect them to do? Do boys who go to all-boys’ schools with all-male faculties not have to sit their asses down and study if they expect to learn anything in depth? I’m sorry but making a chicken mummy and other such “hands-on learning” is not education but play, albeit somewhat enriching play.

    Because of demographic change and declining achievement, schools are squeezing out recess time, PE, art, etc. in an effort to remedy this. No doubt that is harder or boys than girls, but that’s not women’s fault. I assure you, they would rather not have to try to keep over a dozen little boys still for hours on end when an hour in the playground would surely make their jobs a great deal easier. As I mentioned in another thread, men run everything, even the schools.

    https://hechingerreport.org/column-education-needs-more-ambitious-women/

    • Replies: @Shpalone
  46. gotmituns says:
    @Deep Thought

    I’ve got nothing against chinks. The point of this malarkey about IQ is the original idea always comes from a White, Nordic male. Then the Asiatic can work off that, but the original concept always comes from the White man.

  47. Women are certainly more intelligent than men after drinking “the Kool Aid.” Trust “the science.”

    All measures of differences between the sexes; intelligence, athleticism, social skills etc. will be empirically proven by manipulation of “the science,” that women are better men than men are.
    I don’t think men need tests or empirical studies to know that women score much higher in IQ as related to Machiavellianism than men do!

  48. Richard B says:
    @Vinnie O

    Great question. In one way it’s the question. Another way of putting it might be to ask What is the survival value of our thoughts and actions?

    Since what the article and the comments are talking about is various aspects of human behavior, the ultimate question about any kind of human behavior is Why do we do it? In other words, What is human behavior’s function in biological adaptation?

    The advantage of that question is that there would then be a physiological basis for human behavior – all of it – but especially the most important behavior – the kind that makes biological adaptation possible. Why do you think the Arts & Sciences have been so important to the men (and to some extent the women) of the geographical areas of Western Europe and North America (ie; the land of whiteness :)?

    Because it satisfies a physiological, biological need. Obviously. Otherwise why would we keep doing it? Leaving that deadly question aside, the point is this: None of these tests really direct attention to the heart of the matter – species adaptation! Or, how is our intelligence used to improve adaptability? Or, more bluntly, Is the obvious drop in human intelligence fast rendering us a biologically maladaptive species?

    What would be the advantage of asking and answering these questions?

    The advantage of asking a question like What is the function of our behavior in biological adaptation? is that it would allow us to gain more scientific control over our theories of human behavior.

    After all, such theories would subsume any test one might use to measure human intelligence. And isn’t that what it’s all about? Measuring intelligence in relation to biological adaptation? And wouldn’t a detailed study of the value of the Arts & Sciences help us in that regard, or at least point us in the right direction?

  49. Gdjjr says:

    A lot of anecdotal evidence bandied about- so, I’ll post some more of it.

    I recall, in the late 90’s (1990’s not 1890’s) a documentary on HBO, if me male memory serves, called,
    Brain Sex- infrared imaging showed women brains to be more active asleep than male brains engaged in a task-

  50. @HeebHunter

    Sane Europeans and our less defective mutt-spawns have already admitted to contemporary Oriental superiority,

    I am not into this superiority/inferiority crap. I think attitude to work matters a lot more to life’s success than IQ. I have seen many people who performed less well than I at school actually became more successful in life than I. EQ matters far more than IQ.

    • Replies: @Bill
  51. Rosie says:
    @parasite enthusiast

    This is only because people genetically inclined towards a ‘fast life-history strategy’ are more likely to marry and breed early, and more likely to break up due to lower pair bonding. So the association is not causal, rather they are both results of FLHS.

    How do you know that?

    I repeat, there is no compelling reason for a woman to have a child before her early 20s. Indeed, she almost certainly wouldn’t be able to find a mate willing to give her a child at that age unless she is willing to marry a man ten years older than her. Large age gaps are themselves a major risk factor for divorce. Even if the marriage is “successful,” she will almost certainly spend 15-20 years alone at the end of her life, since women live longer than men anyway.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-bigger-the-age-gap-the-shorter-the-marriage-2014-11-11

    A woman who has her first child at 25 can have her third at thirty. How many children do you think women should have in the absence of infant mortality? Do you think 30 is too old to have children? If so, what do you think women should do with themselves when they’re 35, have no small children, and are still 30 years away from conventional retirement age?

    But let’s get to the point: You don’t think women are entitled to have any adventures in their early adulthood, because we’re not actually fully-fledged human beings who grow and change and gain wisdom from experience. We disagree.

  52. @Rosie

    You were created in the image of man, not God.

    The weaker vessel.

    Better to deal honestly with it than deny it.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Red Pill Angel
  53. @Blodgie

    Your logic is impeccable. Please visit a euthanasia toilet and flush twice, you piece of shit.

    • LOL: Blodgie
  54. Anon7 says:

    …boys tend to do better at math than girls, while girls do better on verbal tests. Formal research supports this.
    Since 1972, SAT verbal scores for boys are consistently a few points higher than the scores for girls.

    The average male advantage on the SAT math test has declined…
    Remind me to tell you the story of how my son was graded a “C” student in math by female middle school teachers, and yet is now pursuing a PhD in math at one of the world’s premier universities

    • Replies: @Rosie
  55. The issue with females is that they ovulate, which causes psychological spatial distortion, like a man being drunk, every 29 days for 3-4 days females minds are psychologically spatially distorted and also super horny(dripping), like a man walking around with a hard-on and drunk at the same time. Which also means they can’t meditate on a subject clearly for longer than a few days at a time.

    Up until the time females start to ovulate, they are able to think and learn, once ovulation starts this capacity is severly limited. Pharmaceutical companies falsely attribute women’s attitude changes to menstration, as usual this is another pharmaceutical industry falsehood, the ovulation causes female psychological spatial distortion, which is also why they are terrible drivers, though the insurance industry lies about this as usual, joos lie and have no sympathy for any other culture.

    Ovulation causing psychological spatial distortion in females minds is why it is easy to program females through propaganda to turn them against their own families, cultures and best interests, like robbing a drunk man, or taking candy from a baby.

    And now you have learned something real, have a great day men!

    • Agree: Blodgie
    • LOL: Rosie
  56. gotmituns says:
    @Truth Vigilante

    My favorite part of this is the showing of how education effects the male and female brain. That’s about it as far as the female idea of logic.

  57. Shpalone says:
    @Vinnie O

    Well, he was explaining the averages. Women are ON AVERAGE better at those things mentioned.

    However, when it comes to choosing the best of the best people for a certain task(any task really), you most likely end up with a man as the best, or men represent 9 out of 10 of the best people. Even though on average women might be better at it.

  58. Rosie says:
    @Jeffrey A Freeman

    You were created in the image of man, not God.

    The weaker vessel.

    Better to deal honestly with it than deny it.

    Oh look, here we have one who can’t read plain English going on about how superior he is.

    • Replies: @Ruckus
    , @Colin Wright
  59. Exile says:
    @Rosie

    Shorter Rosie: REEEEEEEE !!!!!

    “All the women physicists from the Muslim world” don’t add any more value to physics than even 10% of Muslim men.

    When you consider that the “Muslim world” includes Africans as well as Arabs, sub-continentals like dot-Indians and actual (non-UK NewSpeak) Asians, Rosie’s statement is even more absurd.

    All the Muslim women in North Africa who could be even dubiously referred to as “physicists” (I have more fingers on one hand) will never contribute anything to physics – period. Just going through the motions, talking the lingo and crunching numbers doesn’t count.

    There is a niche of sub-continentals and a larger chunk of Asians who make legitimate contributions to physics, but they’re all men.

    Even non-Muslim America and Europe’s desperate try-hard gurl-power SMART push over the past two decades hasn’t produced any physicists of note.

    The Nth Wave party line has always been that they’re “unrecognized” but the brutal truth is that they don’t exist.

    At best they’ve been “involved” with the advances of men like Pierre Curie (I’ll give Marie some credit but she’s part of a team/couple). Women are not well-suited for lone pioneer innovation or challenging scientific orthodoxy (on actual scientific grounds – they’re awesome at challenging things based on just not liking them).

    Lisa Randall, a relatively telegenic darling of the SMART gurl-power lobby, has to “share” her sole “achievement” (a purely mathematical detail in string theory with no empirical foundation) with an Indian man.

    The next best candidate SMART-gurls have is (((Lisa Meitner))) who they allege to have ” led” the group of scientists discovered nuclear fission

    But the damned men gave the Nobel to Otto Hahn instead. They were probably anti-Semites too. With small penises. And gay.

  60. @Rosie

    Do medical schools just accept the best qualified to be doctors, or do they seek diversity by twisting qualifications?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @gotmituns
  61. Rosie says:
    @Anon7

    Since 1972, SAT verbal scores for boys are consistently a few points higher than the scores for girls.

    Lol. Apparently, women outscore men on “evidence-based reading and writing,” even though, if I’m not mistaken, male test-takers are more selected than female ones. So much for the “irrational woman” stereotype.

    https://blog.prepscholar.com/what-is-the-average-sat-score

    On that basis, one might predict that most law students are women. Lo and behold!

    https://www.enjuris.com/students/law-school-women-enrollment-2020.html

    (And no, it’s not affirmative action. Women are getting in on their own chops.)

    https://ricourtblog.com/2018/06/04/more-women-than-men-passed-the-bar-exam/

    Of course, the above article claims that women will take over the reins of the big corporate law firms. No way in hell that will happen! You heard it here first. Women will dominate relatively low-paid niches with better work-life balance.

    Remind me to tell you the story of how my son was graded a “C” student in math by female middle school teachers, and yet is now pursuing a PhD in math at one of the world’s premier universities

    Can we have the Reader’s Digest version? Did your son get the problems right or wrong? If the former, did you dispute the grade? If the latter, was his teacher supposed to grade your son based on clairvoyant vision of his future performance rather than the answers on the paper?

    • Replies: @Anon7
  62. @Toza

    …but children inherit genes from both parents. I don’t know how prof. Lynn would explain that.

    That is an excellent observation. It seems our dear Prof Lynn is of limited intelligence himself in that he may not have addressed such obviousness. (I haven’t read his book so, maybe he did somewhere in it.)

    Meanwhile, have you noticed that some triggered males on here have tried to turn this dialogue into a political and cultural one? That’s called: moving the conversational goalposts. Which, by definition, means: they have no solid arguments or basis to provide. Color me not shocked.

    I look forward to someone answering my question in Comment #9. The constructive point(s) of this “research” and article?

  63. jxh says:

    Do not forget that brain size also correlates significantly to body size. And quite a few large animals have larger brains than humans. The fact is that only the cerebral cortex is significantly involved in intelligence, the rest of the brain (in both humans and animals) is involved in doing the housekeeping, running the muscles and coordinating internal biological systems.

    Ideally you would need to measure volume of the cortex (both folded area and thickness) to use size as a stand in for intelligence.

    • Replies: @anon
  64. Rosie says:
    @cylindrical crown

    Do medical schools just accept the best qualified to be doctors, or do they seek diversity by twisting qualifications?

    It appears not. Male admittees have very slightly higher MCAT scores and GPAs than female admittees. This is to be expected, because women are probably able to make better personal statements, get better letters of recommendation.

    The racial gap between black and white admittees is many times larger than the male-female gap. Even if you eliminated the least-qualified women admittees, you would still probably have at least parity. Someone else can crunch the numbers if they like.

    https://medschoolinsiders.com/pre-med/surprising-med-school-stats/

  65. sally says:
    @Vinnie O

    i am going make all my robots dominate males and train them to seek find and conquer weaker females. . In that way I will produce from combination of twos; many new and better robots..

  66. Thomasina says:
    @Deep Thought

    Deep Thought – that’s not very deep.

    Chinamen (to use your term) are outsiders, foreigners, just as we would be in China. There is no hate or envy involved. Why would there be?

    Imagine it the other way around. Imagine China being overwhelmed by foreign-born economic migrants who possessed no love for the land, the customs or traditions, but only what they could take.

    Now imagine them, after their numbers increased, suddenly start dictating that Chinese symbols ought to be removed because they don’t represent “them”, start demanding that China’s history be rewritten, highlighting everything bad China had done in her past, or start taking university slots away from the native born through affirmative action or because they chose to study harder. I can tell you right now that there’d be hell to pay as the Chinese people would feel great sorrow over losing their way of life, what their ancestors had lived and died for. They would wake up one day and realize they had lost their country.

    The U.S. has been destroyed because they allowed a group of foreign-born dual citizens, again with no real love or attachment to the people or land, to seize control of the government. Globalization was championed and instituted, with China being a major beneficiary as foreign direct investment flooded into China. The American citizens have been the losers, and all because of the greed of our leaders.

    Coming to a theatre near you. This will be China’s fate too. Are you okay with that?

    The Chinese love the West for what it can give them. They’re all “rah, rah, U.S.A.” until something is said about China, and then they’re suddenly “Chinese” again. This does not make a country. It just leaves a country divided and splintered.

    All peoples want to live with their own tribes. It is what provides “trust”. Once China becomes half-full of outsiders (East Indians, Jews, Muslims, etc.), come back and tell us how that’s going.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  67. Rosie says:

    You chauvinists always attempt to refute documented fact with speculation, as here:

    “All the women physicists from the Muslim world” don’t add any more value to physics than even 10% of Muslim men.

    At best they’ve been “involved” with the advances of men like Pierre Curie (I’ll give Marie some credit but she’s part of a team/couple). Women are not well-suited for lone pioneer innovation or challenging scientific orthodoxy (on actual scientific grounds – they’re awesome at challenging things based on just not liking them).

    Since we’re speculating, how do you know that anonymous women underlings don’t significantly contribute to other scientific advances? Is it inconceivable to you that male superiors might attempt to hog the credit? Indeed, even if that isn’t happening, are you claiming that women aren’t doing any useful workat all? Do you think the employers of these women are paying them to serve as window dressing to promote a feminist agenda? I wasn’t aware that Muslim countries were in on that conspiracy! Do you object to the existence of these jobs, or that they are held by women who qualify for them?

    Women are not well-suited for lone pioneer innovation or challenging scientific orthodoxy

    I actually agree with this, and I suspect it has much to do with the achievement gap at very high levels. I don’t like long hours of solitary work, and I suspect that is not uncommon.

    • Replies: @Exile
  68. @Rosie

    Didn’t I see a post from you, Rosie, about how you’ve noticed in your role as a teacher you’ve found that boys are intellectually inferior and essentially untrainable?

    “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.”

    I can easily do an Internet search to find a gazillion articles touting the innate worthlessness and inferiority of men and boys.

    Competition for men, and also for many women, is the drive to excel in a particular pursuit.

    Competition from women is often the drive to prove, in a supposed general kind of way, that “We can do anything you can, but you can’t do everything we can” (as in give birth).

    (Well, men can make women pregnant.)

    Men actually like and support women who approach competition the same way men do (you won today, we’ll see who wins tomorrow vs. this proves for all time that all men are inferior).

    • Replies: @Rosie
  69. Ned kelly says:

    What’s interesting is how little of the most common sense most of the commentators have… And this subject always brings out the creepy misogynist. So you really don’t know the differences between male and female? Forget your crackpot theories! You really don’t know what men are good at… And what women are good at? Adam knew, so why don’t you?

  70. @Rosie

    Men like and support women who view competition as they do.

    For men and for many women competition is the drive to excel in a particular pursuit.

    “You won today, we’ll see who wins tomorrow.” This is because people become better through competition. You are not stuck where you are – you can improve your skills and become better. And the winner of a particular competition is not generally “superior,” just better at that particular event on that day. There is no humiliation or permanent branding of inferiority.

    This is in contrast to “We can do everything you can do, but you can’t do everything we can do” (as in give birth).

    (Well, men can make women pregnant.)

    Do women compete due to their love of the pursuit, or do they compete to humiliate men? Men appreciate the women who, like themselves, love the pursuit.

    But it seems to me that for most women (including yourself?) it’s “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.”

  71. gotmituns says:
    @cylindrical crown

    The hell with doctors. What a bunch of shitbirds.

  72. Shpalone says:
    @Rosie

    no! FEminists have ruined schools and colleges a long time ago. These fanatics really believe that we will see a betetr world when women are in powerful positions. These dedicated morons might be crazy, but they have been very succesful at it.

    A matter rarely or never spoken about is the grading in schools. Ive seen studies up to 20 years old that showed how girls are graded better than boys for the same work in schools (albeit not just from female teachers, but also male). Almost a full grade on average.
    Also notice how colleges are overrun by women. And up to now no fuss was made about this from the media(you can imagine the reaction if it were the opposite).

  73. Here they are trying to put us all into concentration camps and you are worried about girls and boys. Silly children.

  74. I don’t like being politically correct — but as a rule, women really are far better at empathizing and conciliating than men.

    My understanding of the term ‘autistic’ is shaky — but it seems to me that most men are a lot closer to that condition than most women. We tend to grunt and making threatening noises; they dialogue.

    It’s possible that given a problem, women naturally start ruminating about the social implications of any given choice, whilst men have simply perceived the solution and are bulling ahead with it, whatever others may think. This would also help to explain why women do relatively well in school; women would tend to consider ‘what would the teacher like to hear,’ whilst men have simply focused on the question of ‘what is the truth?’

    I’m perfectly open to the idea that men are really more intelligent than women — although again, we really are remarkably obtuse when it comes to social relations. It’s just that I can perceive more than one explanation for the difference.

    • Replies: @ingotus
    , @Anonymous
  75. Rosie says:
    @Jeff M. Smith

    Didn’t I see a post from you, Rosie, about how you’ve noticed in your role as a teacher you’ve found that boys are intellectually inferior and essentially untrainable?

    You most certainly did not. You must be confusing that with the many times I’ve gone on about how much I cherish my boys. I’m not a teacher. I’m a homeschooler.

    Competition from women is often the drive to prove, in a supposed general kind of way, that “We can do anything you can, but you can’t do everything we can” (as in give birth).

    You might consider that belittling women’s intelligence isn’t the way to discourage that. Indeed, women in the most “feminist countries” tend to avoid male-dominated occupations, probably because they don’t feel they have anything to prove.

  76. @Vinnie O

    “And can anyone name the 3 most influential female SPEAKERS in America?”

    Oprah, Oprah, and Oprah.

  77. Anon7 says:
    @Rosie

    OK, so my son is in middle school, and I get a note saying he’s getting a “C” in math. This didn’t seem likely to me, but you never know, so I got an appointment with the teacher. Right away she says “I break grading up into three parts, tests, homework and in-class assignments, and your son is getting a “C” in all three.”

    OK, I say, so what does a test consist of? She says “Thirty to thirty-five problems.” And I ask how many he gets right. “Oh,” she says, “he always gets all the answers right.

    So, why did he get a “C”? “Well, he didn’t show his work.” Seriously.

    You think maybe he’s cheating? “No, I don’t think he’s cheating.”

    Do you think he’s a good guesser? (I got a dirty look for that one.)

    It turns out that the whole class was set up to make sure that highly verbal girls with good penmanship and good clerical skills could get higher grades than boys. (Lots of chances for “extra credit” idiot work to make up for the inability to find the correct solutions to problems. [This was confirmed by my conversations with some of my neighbor’s daughters.]) Students had to keep a notebook of all homework assignments, in order by date, with a table of contents. Why? “So they can look up all the comments and corrections I make.” But my son gets all the answers right, so why keep them? (Another dirty look.) Why in-class assignments? So verbal girls can do as much talking as possible, and garner better grades from teacher.

    Anyway, I gave my son the option of taking extra tutoring in math so he could place out of a couple of years of boring middle school penmanship math, and by his senior year in high school he was taking honors math analysis at our local university.

    His penmanship is still terrible (imagine PDEs written down by a third-grader). But he’ll get his PhD soon. No thanks to the women in teaching who do whatever they can to make sure that girls get higher grades than boys in math in high school.

    • Replies: @Joe Paluka
    , @Rosie
    , @Anonymous
  78. @parasite enthusiast

    I disagree. Our society in general is associated with an elevated risk of divorce, for various reasons. In the past virtually everyone married young and stayed married. In society today, 2nd marriages (be default at later ages) have an even higher rate of divorce than first marriages.

  79. ingotus says:
    @Colin Wright

    Roy Baumeister has a more nuanced perspective on each gender’s perceived strengths and weaknesses regarding various types of social interactions.

    See: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Is-There-Anything-Good-About-Men.pdf

    An excellent article for anyone interested in the debate, which I understand has since become a full blown book available on Amazon.

    It is hard to break away from the unfortunate uni dimensional paradigm established by the notion of equality and feminism. Baumeister provides material to help one do that, focusing on what the OP article mentions only in passing, the different dispersion of the distribution.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  80. @Anonymous

    The very fact that this question is being asked is testament to how far we have strayed from our cultural and religious wisdom. If you had asked even educated men and women this question 150 years ago, they would have said to you, that you can’t compare men and women’s intelligence, because men and women were created for different purposes, they are complimentary opposites in which they were each given special talents to benefit society. Comparing a woman to a man in intelligence is like comparing a chisel to a hammer. The hammer makes a terrible chisel and the chisel makes a terrible hammer, but together, they can achieve a lot.

    • Agree: Reaper
    • Replies: @ingotus
  81. ingotus says:

    Dear Mr. Devlin,

    I believe the first of your writings I came across was the excellent “Sexual Utopia in Power” before it became a book. Your insights are priceless and as far as I can tell, original for our time. The reference to “Assembly of Women” alone was worth the price of admission.

    Thank you also for the above article on intelligence. I would also recommend, per your last paragraph, a more extensive treatment of the differing dispersion of the distributions, not just in intelligence, but among other dimensions as well. If you haven’t seen it, from Roy Baumeister: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Is-There-Anything-Good-About-Men.pdf

    Best regards,

  82. ingotus says:
    @Joe Paluka

    Great comment. Comparing specific characteristics can be helpful, as long as (and apparently only as long as) your observation underlies the entire analysis.

    Alas, it seems many folks in this comment thread take the tree for the forest, and are thus unable to put a puzzle together. Perhaps a testament to the fantastic effects of decades of brainwashing propaganda.

  83. Alrenous says: • Website
    @mijj

    >Yet the male brain is on average 12 percent larger than the female brain, in both newborns and adults.

    The blue whale brain is several times larger than a human brain, apparently we need to hire blue whales ghostwrite all our public articles.

    In reality you have to correct for brain size relative to total body size. Further, the correction factor isn’t linear.

    Nevertheless it’s true that essentially all intellectual activity is male. Even if you buy the Regressive Inquisition’s memes about female contribution, it only proves they’re not contributing. Women discovered one (1) element, whereas men discovered the other 117. Sorry ladies, you weren’t needed. This might be a bell curve / standard deviation thing, but it smells like some deep-seated, biologically-rooted psychology.

    It makes evolutionary sense. Men need to impress women to have babies, or at least the womens’ fathers. Women just need to show up, maybe not entirely neglect the baby. A woman engaging in science seriously is merely finding new and exciting ways to neglect the baby, so…

  84. @Vinnie O

    He was talking of averages, where what he stated is a fact, not a factoid, and one everyone who observes the world round him will know. At the average level, women handle words and speech better than men.

    You refer to high-order, or excellence, ambits, and state the obvious about those.

  85. @anon

    I don’t think black males outsmart anyone. The only white females that go with them are ones that are disfunctional, self-hating ones that haven’t been raised properly. A white woman that has had a proper upbringing by her parents with a strong father figure, that has educated his daughter about racial differences and has been kept away from our horrible “educational” system will almost never go with black men. There are always outliers, but the vast majority of properly raised white girls would avoid them at all costs.

  86. @Intelligent Dasein

    The use of the term “biological reality” may not have grammatical or linguistic exactness that you demand, but it gets the point across. The whole point of language is to communicate ideas, our languages are sloppy and fluid, but they are all we have at this point, until telepathy is a reality. Terms like biological reality, for free, military intelligence, are not perfect, but when they are said, people understand them. The English language is far from perfect and we achieve very little if we pick apart every utterance that “doesn’t follow the rules”.

  87. @Anon7

    This is a perfect example of why we should privatize public schools.

  88. @Deep Thought

    Yeah! Kick the USer militants out of the Straits, the Red Sea, the Black Sea, the Med, and keep the Indo-Pacific, Atlantic, and the South China Sea open for Freedom and Democracy. So many US lies!

    As for this topic, “intelligence testers” wouldn’t know intelligence if it bit them. The above article is the stupidest discussion I’ve seen this year. Bigger brain (on average!) my arse!

  89. ricpic says:

    Women gossip. Men don’t.

    Gossip, viewed objectively, is the outcome of a fascination with, an obsession over relationships. All kinds of relationships. That’s what really fascinates women: relationships. No wonder the ordering of society, social arrangements, are determined by women. Not how the world works.

    How the world works is what preoccupies men. Their talk is either shop talk or status talk pertaining to things, possessions, achievements.

  90. anon88 says:

    The women posting here need to get busy and make us menfolk some sammiches.
    And those cold beers aren’t going to fetch themselves….

  91. The biggest difference between men and women is that men understand that men and women are different, and women don’t.

    • Agree: Corrupt
  92. @ricpic

    Overall, these are very astute observations. Unfortunately, I spent some time in unionized manufacturing. Over 90% male. The amount of gossip, insecurity, and whining was absolutely epic. In spite of the fact that the pay and benefits were good, and management was relatively easy-going.

    I know the workforce at that place was the exception rather than the rule as far as white male workers, but it was something to behold. I think it was a combination of the union entitlement mentality, low educational levels, and other dynamics I just can’t put my finger on. Though the men were invariably more skilled/productive than the women. They also tried hiring some blacks (male and female) and that was a disaster.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
  93. RJJCDA says:

    Corpus Callosum relative sizes probably enables differing abilities and specialties. Female intuitive abilities probably caused by thicker tissue, hence more integrated abilities. Male thinner causes non-integration hence possible abstract abilities.

  94. Bill says:
    @Toza

    Agree. And don’t let anybody tell you men are taller or stronger or that they have heavier beards, either. None of this nonsense about penises and wombs! After all, anything Toza doesn’t understand is surely false.

  95. Ruckus says:
    @Rosie

    How tall are you Rosie? I’m guessing 5’1″.

    Gentlemen, this is what the “small dog complex” looks like in a human female.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  96. Bill says:
    @Deep Thought

    Chinese are definitely better at “attitude to work.”

  97. Bill says:
    @Outspoken

    Marriage is a societal and cultural institution, not an evolutionary one.

    That’s an odd distinction. Social and cultural institutions evolve, and the more successful ones become more common. Furthermore, genes and cultures co-evolve. Marriage is not a human universal, but cultures which are successful have had marriage because it is such a good idea for humans.

  98. @Anonymous

    “Institutions lack this ability”? The last I knew about institutions was that they consisted of men and women. no robots and no other species. [email protected]

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  99. @ingotus

    Meh. This bit from the article (I’ve only skimmed it) seems to be be taking the easy out.

    ‘…Maybe women can do math and science perfectly well but they just don’t like to. After all, most men don’t like math either! Of the small minority of people who do like math, there are probably more men than women. Research by Eccles has repeatedly concluded that the shortage of females in math and science reflects motivation more than ability…’

    I’m skeptical. This is wildly anecdotal, but I have a daughter and a son. In general, I would say Lydia is smarter; she is sharp. Nothing wrong with the Boy, but it’s Lydia who’s got the brains.

    …in general. When it comes to math, Lydia has to struggle: she bludgeoned her way through calculus, but it’s not like she discovered a gift.

    Outline a mathematical concept to the Boy, and he snaps it right up. Obvious.

    And indeed. We’ve had peasant children who were discovered to be great mathematical geniuses; the talent will out. But the talent’s overwhelmingly male. I just don’t see the gifted female mathematicians. Even allowing for a different curve, there should be some.

    • Replies: @ingotus
  100. @Rosie

    ‘Oh look, here we have one who can’t read plain English going on about how superior he is.’

    Not bad. You git ’em, Rosie.

  101. @Ruckus

    ‘How tall are you Rosie? I’m guessing 5’1″.

    Gentlemen, this is what the “small dog complex” looks like in a human female.’

    That might be for the best. What if she were 5’10” and one eighty — sort of your basic Viking warrior princess model?

    The blood runs cold.

  102. Rosie says:
    @Anon7

    His penmanship is still terrible (imagine PDEs written down by a third-grader). But he’ll get his PhD soon. No thanks to the women in teaching who do whatever they can to make sure that girls get higher grades than boys in math in high school.

    This is ridiculously conspiratorial and certainly unsupported by your anecdote. Seriously, do you know how much like a deranged SJW you sound?

    I tell my kids all the time to show their work. If they don’t show their work but get the problems right, I don’t worry about it, because there is no one to copy from. On the other hand, if they don’t get the problems right, I tell them I can’t help them, because I don’t know what they were thinking.

    Of course, this is one of the benefits of personalized instruction. I can let things like that slide. You cannot expect that from a teacher who has dozens of students, and really, it’s not at all unreasonable for teachers to ask students to show their work. You should have told your son to follow his teacher’s instructions. If his handwriting was that poor, he would be eligible for reasonable accommodations, and I think you know that. But it’s edgier and more macho to attack women teachers en masse so that’s what you do.

    • Replies: @parasite enthusiast
  103. Mike Tre says:
    @Automatic Slim

    I’m also in a union. Men absolutely gossip. Mutli ethnic unions are worse for obvious reasons.

    However, in my observation, the actual structure of the union and how seniority is applied to our access of hours contributes a great deal more to the divisiveness and suspicion among its members.

    • Thanks: Automatic Slim
  104. @Rosie

    “How do you know that?”

    There has been a lot of study and research into life history strategy. It also makes a lot of sense. Fast life-history strategists have more children, sexually mature earlier, have children earlier, are more promiscuous, more aggressive, more extraverted, less intelligent, more dimorphic and pair bond to a lesser extent because it would impact their reproductive fitness by reducing the number of children the males can have and reducing the females ability to genetically diversify her offspring.

    • Replies: @Automatic Slim
    , @Rosie
  105. @Outspoken

    “Marriage is a societal and cultural institution, not an evolutionary one. Humans are not monogamous and they are not designed like penguins to stay together for life. Therefore the divorce objection is useless.”

    Pair bonding is biological and evolutionary. Marriage is a cultural extension of it for the purposes of social order, because as you say humans are not naturally entirely monogamous. Some of them are close however.

  106. @Rosie

    “it’s not at all unreasonable for teachers to ask students to show their work”

    It is unreasonable when they get almost everything right. It makes the work takes 2-3 times as long unnecessarily.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  107. Fuzzbaby says:

    Intelligence is irrelevant for a woman when it comes to being feminine .

    What is important for a woman is for her to dress up in a nice skirt or dress, wear heels and hosiery and get a decent style at the beauty parlor. She should never be loud or a sour puss.

    She should be soft, sensual and have a dignified poise as opposed to being a crude boor with unladylike propensities.

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
    , @Rosie
  108. @parasite enthusiast

    “Fast life-history strategists have more children, sexually mature earlier, have children earlier, are more promiscuous, more aggressive, more extraverted, less intelligent, more dimorphic and pair bond to a lesser extent…”

    So it is safe to say the majority of blacks are “fast life-history strategists.”

    • Replies: @parasite enthusiast
  109. Magnus says:

    I liked the one comment that said you can’t compare men and women cause we’ve been created for different purposes. Only one that hasn’t been complete hogwash. All of you people need to go get some fresh air.

  110. @Thomasina

    An unintelligible yapping I won’t spend time on.

    Almost all murrikans are OUTSIDERS!!!

    • Replies: @Thomasina
    , @Thomasina
  111. @Automatic Slim

    Yes, blacks are far more disposed towards FLHS or r-selection than whites and asians, this has been thoroughly demonstrated by Phil Rushton and others.

  112. Rosie says:
    @parasite enthusiast

    It is unreasonable when they get almost everything right. It makes the work takes 2-3 times as long unnecessarily.

    No, it really isn’t. Anon7 was pissed because his son’s teacher made him follow the same rules as everyone else rather than exempt him as a special little genius snowflake. Public schools aren’t great when it comes to personalized instruction. They teach to the middle, and there is really no way around that.

    I even get nervous when my kids aren’t showing their work. As I said, I usually let it slide, and that has come back to bite me more than once. When kids have good number sense, they can often work things out in their heads without actually knowing how to do the math when they encounter a problem they can’t compute in their head.

    Reasonable educators can and do disagree on this question, and a teacher is entitled to make rules for the class and it is not the parents’ place to undermine the teacher’s authority.

  113. Bert33 says:

    Did you know that it’s legal for women to own smartphones? And you thought the east german stasi was bad. You were saying, about ‘intelligence’…?

  114. Rosie says:
    @parasite enthusiast

    There has been a lot of study and research into life history strategy. It also makes a lot of sense. Fast life-history strategists have more children, sexually mature earlier, have children earlier, are more promiscuous, more aggressive, more extraverted, less intelligent, more dimorphic and pair bond to a lesser extent because it would impact their reproductive fitness by reducing the number of children the males can have and reducing the females ability to genetically diversify her offspring.

    In other words, you have nothing but your own hunch to support your assertion that youth at marriage is not a causal risk factor for divorce. That something “makes a lot of sense” to you does not make it true. This is very typical of the kind pre-Galilean armchair logic that is so pathetically common in the dissident right.

    It “makes a lot of sense” to me that a young woman who does not yet know who she is and what she values is not ready to choose a life partner. I can only thank God Almighty that I didn’t marry any of the guys I dates in my late teens/early 20s. They were all completely unsuitable.

    Lest you think I am counseling women to spend the whole of their twenties “finding themselves,” keep in mind that couples are together for an average of six years before getting married. If the average age at first marriage for women is 27.1 or whatever, they’re meeting their future husband at 21 or 22, moving in with him a couple of years later, getting engaged a couple of years after that, and getting married a coupleof years after that. Contra Clive of Comment #16, they are not waiting until they’re 35 and screwing 100 guys. If that’s not good enough for you, then that is your problem.

    https://www.weddingstats.org/average-time-dating-before-marriage/

    • Replies: @parasite enthusiast
  115. @Fuzzbaby

    I’m in absolute agreement with you – maintaining femininity is paramount.

    Your thoughts are encapsulated in the 2 min video I posted (refer to comment # 19).

  116. Rosie says:
    @Fuzzbaby

    Intelligence is irrelevant for a woman when it comes to being feminine .

    What is important for a woman is for her to dress up in a nice skirt or dress, wear heels and hosiery and get a decent style at the beauty parlor. She should never be loud or a sour puss.

    She should be soft, sensual and have a dignified poise as opposed to being a crude boor with unladylike propensities.

    Young women: avoid creeps like this at all costs! They are totally unsuitable partners for a woman who wants children. I couldn’t run around with my kids as I do in heels and panty hose, and Mr. Rosie loves me for putting family fun above my hair and nails.

    Apart from that, he doesn’t expect me to damage my orthopedic health for his viewing pleasure. High heels are absolutely ridiculous. The only women who can comfortably wear them are women who don’t want the extra height: tall women. Women with small feet (short women) can’t really wear them, as the angle puts far too much pressure on the ball of the foot to be safe let alone comfortable for any significant length of time. (Yes, Ruckus, I’m short, but no I’m not that short, and I take the small dog remark as a compliment.)

    https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/ss/slideshow-worst-shoes-for-your-feet

  117. Exile says:
    @Rosie

    Do you think the employers of these women are paying them to serve as window dressing to promote a feminist agenda? I wasn’t aware that Muslim countries were in on that conspiracy!

    Yes.

    And let’s not pretend that social promotion/Wokeism is a crazy-sounding “conspiracy.” At least be honest enough to admit that there is a strong agenda and incentive/disincentive structure for advancing non-Whites and women. If you deny that you’re not minimally honest enough to even engage with.

    Even the newly-resurgent Taliban are working on their “optics” in the eternal Faustian search for (((foreign investment.)))

    Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have blasphemously made peace and collaborated with Israel.

    Fundamentalism is waning in the Islamic world and woke consumerist liberalism is resurgent.

    It’s happening in the same way that supposedly “backward ignorant hick” countries like Ireland and Australia are full of strivers eager to torch their heritage in return for globohomo acceptance.

    The kind of cartoonish wahmen-oppression that the counter-Jihad Jews have been selling in the West since 9/11 exists only at Islam’s fringes – most obviously in the ISIS pseudo-state established by Jews and their CIA collaborators to destabilize and wrong-foot genuine populist Arab and Islamic movements that threaten Zionist interests.

    • Agree: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @Rosie
  118. Richard B says:
    @Vinnie O

    In my first response to your comment I forgot to include your question that I was responding to.

    Your question was:

    What is the survival advantage of THAT?

    Without repeating my entire comment the point of it was this:

    None of these tests really direct attention to the heart of the matter – species adaptation!

    Or, how is our intelligence used to improve adaptability? More bluntly, Is the obvious drop in human intelligence fast rendering us a biologically maladaptive species?

    What would be the advantage of asking and answering these questions?

    The advantage of asking a question like What is the function of our behavior in biological adaptation? is that it would allow us to gain a more scientific control over our theories of human behavior.

    After all, such theories would subsume any test one might use to measure human intelligence. And isn’t that what it’s all about? Measuring intelligence in relation to biological adaptation? And wouldn’t a detailed study of the value of the Arts & Sciences help us in that regard, or at least point us in the right direction?

  119. @nokangaroos

    “Everything points to women being intermediate hosts in the reproductive
    cycle of humans”

    You really should stop abusing yourself while binge-watching The Handmaid’s Tale.

  120. @Jeffrey A Freeman

    Well, then, if women aren’t made in God’s image, are trans men allowed to go to your church? At least they’re trying.

    • LOL: Rosie
  121. @Rosie

    “No, it really isn’t”

    You didn’t give me an argument. It makes the work takes 2-3 times as long unnecessarily. Its not an exemption if its not compulsory.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  122. @Rosie

    “In other words, you have nothing but your own hunch to support your assertion that youth at marriage is not a causal risk factor for divorce.”

    That’s not true, I said there has been a lot of research into FLHS. Since you ignored this, you are basically committing a strawman fallacy so im gonna stop replying.

  123. Anonymous[412] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon7

    It turns out that the whole class was set up to make sure that highly verbal girls with good penmanship and good clerical skills could get higher grades than boys. (Lots of chances for “extra credit” idiot work to make up for the inability to find the correct solutions to problems. [This was confirmed by my conversations with some of my neighbor’s daughters.]) Students had to keep a notebook of all homework assignments, in order by date, with a table of contents. Why? “So they can look up all the comments and corrections I make.” But my son gets all the answers right, so why keep them? (Another dirty look.) Why in-class assignments? So verbal girls can do as much talking as possible, and garner better grades from teacher.

    Unfortunately, this sort of “extra credit” idiot work plagues much of American education, including even at the university level. All kinds of homework, extra assignments, “extra credit” work, “open book” tests (tests in which students are able to use their notes, books, etc. during the test), office hours hand holding, etc. are tacked onto classes to inflate grades. It functions as a kind of informal affirmative action to support girls and dimmer students.

  124. @ricpic

    Women gossip. Men don’t.

    Gossip, viewed objectively, is the outcome of a fascination with, an obsession over relationships. All kinds of relationships.

    Aren’t Laws of Physics statements expressing the relationships among physical entities?

    • Replies: @ricpic
  125. Rosie says:
    @parasite enthusiast

    It makes the work takes 2-3 times as long unnecessarily.

    You are begging the question, which is precisely whether it is necessary to show one’s work. Come to think of it, even that is not really the question. The question is whether it is arguably beneficial to have students show their work. If it is, then parents shouldn’t have the right to tell teachers what they or may not require of students. Indeed, it sounds like such a requirement would be beneficial even for Anon7’s genius snowflake, who apparently still needed to practice writing his numbers in middle school.

    Its not an exemption if its not compulsory.

    That’s the whole point. It was compulsory!

    I get that you don’t agree with the teacher’s rule, but that is not up to the parents.

    That’s not true, I said there has been a lot of research into FLHS. Since you ignored this, you are basically committing a strawman fallacy so im gonna stop replying.

    Good grief. I’m doing no such thing. The point is that even if one grants your whole premise about life history, that doesn’t preclude a causal role for youth at first marriage in divorce.

  126. Rosie says:
    @Exile

    And let’s not pretend that social promotion/Wokeism is a crazy-sounding “conspiracy.”

    Yes, it is a ridiculous conspiracy theory to claim that jobs are being created specifically to hire women as window dressing. Of course, it might be true, but then lots of things might be true. That doesn’t oblige sensible people to believe them.

    Surely wokism is more advanced in Western countries than in the Muslim world. If eliminating the STEM gap were as simple as creating bogus jobs for women, why do Western governments and corporations not do likewise? You might protest that they are doing it, but if that is the case, they’re obviously not doing it to the same extent. Otherwise, why the ongoing STEM gap in Western countries?

    But then, even if that were happening, the fact remains that these women are competing for these desirable jobs, however useless you may think they are, and winning. Do men not want these jobs? Are you alleging pervasive and outright discrimination, against men, in Iran and Saudi Arabia? I’m sorry, but there are much more parsimonious explanations than that.

    The problem with you chauvinists is that you won’t settle for a position that you can reasonably defend. Yes, it is true that men dominate the very upper echelons of science and technology and probably always will. Rather than being content to leave it at that, you insist further that womwn aren’t capable of making worthwhile contributions at any level and concot ridiculous conspiracy theories to explain away ample evidence to the contrary. It’s really not a good look. Indeed, it rather tends to vindicate everything the media says about the dissident right, which is really shame.

    • Agree: Red Pill Angel
    • Replies: @anon
  127. Thomasina says:
    @Deep Thought

    “Almost all murrikans are OUTSIDERS!!!”

    They and their ancestors have been here for hundreds of years, and they built the country with their own blood, sweat and tears. The outsiders have come in, now that the roads are all paved and it’s all civilized, to take what they can get. But it will be the ruination of the country, and they’ll soon return to their own corner of the world, no doubt building a wall around their country in order to keep those nasty “outsiders” out. LOL

    Again, not very deep, Deep Thought.

  128. Thomasina says:
    @Deep Thought

    “Almost all murrikans are OUTSIDERS!!!”

    They and their ancestors have been here for hundreds of years, and they built the country with their own blood, sweat and tears. They plowed the fields, dug the ditches, built the churches, schools, hospitals, universities, and they lived and died for their country.

    The outsiders have now come in, now that the roads are all paved and it’s all civilized, to take what they can get. But it will be the ruination of the country, and they’ll soon return to their own corner of the world, no doubt building a wall around their country in order to keep those nasty “outsiders” out. LOL

    Again, not very deep, Deep Thought.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  129. sp says:
    @Anonymous

    Don’t forget kitchens and sandwiches.

  130. @RoatanBill

    Bill – All of that is simply because the women you described were not taught to read maps, how to orient things geographically, how to navigate, ETC.

    For some reason, their neglectful fathers didn’t teach them and very likely he and other family members outwardly regarded those females as incapable and, sadly, the women believed them and never bothered to teach themselves. All of that was common among my peers when growing up.

    Contrast that with my Father teaching my siblings and myself with how to read maps, a compass and sun direction. Consequently, we are all skilled with maps and good navigators. I am the only daughter and am very likely better than my brothers at all of that having also spent a decade on the road seeing customers before the GPS era. Using paper maps only; love them!

    There are other subject matters for which the two top paragraphs are true. Many of those calling the shots back in the day simply made baseless, lazy, self-serving assumptions about what people (in this case, women) were capable of.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  131. ricpic says:
    @Deep Thought

    I think you understood that I meant HUMAN relationships and you’re just being cute.

    Either that or you’re dull. Though I doubt you are.

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  132. @Intelligent Dasein

    This needs to stop.

    Totally agree. I’ve asked twice on this string for someone to explain the constructive value of this type of “research” or an article about it. Crickets…

    And do you notice who it is, virtually always, that likes to keep the flame burning on ‘gender battles’? Yes, OLD, white males. WTF is wrong with them beside being relics in general? Plenty of them are stuck in bygone eras.

    • Disagree: Drapetomaniac
  133. Anonymous[329] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    I don’t like being politically correct — but as a rule, women really are far better at empathizing and conciliating than men.

    That’s not an everytime thing, but on average it’s unquestionable. Women have bigger hearts, men bigger brains, the former are better where heart is needed, the latter where brains are.

    Since culture, and the average person’s mind, are materialistic, everybody wants to have the bigger brains.
    To me it’s rather clear that to have a bigger heart is the best lot.

    In the Church, it’s most obvious that nuns and women monks do have truer faith, and are much more authentic in their praying, than priests, friars and men monks are.

    None of this disproves or taints what the article we are commenting on states, though, and the explanation it offers is way preferable to that of women being slower at analysis because they are wondering what other will think. If that were the case, they’d perform better in private situations.
    (On the other hand, they surely care much more about grades, and being appreciated by teachers. Which I’d much hesitate before viewing as a virtue, or indication of intellectual value.)

  134. @The Real World

    I wish your assertion were true. There’s more to it than you suggest. Most women have little to no interest in learning how to read a map. I don’t know of a single male that can’t navigate via map and know no woman that can, at least not proficiently. I don’t remember anyone teaching me how to read a map; I just read it as though it were a natural part of my being.

    There are certain professions that are male dominated and others female dominated. The natural proclivities of the sexes has something to do with certain abilities that are abundant in males and woefully lacking in females and vice versa.

    There came the day my father and I got in the Buick Special to teach me how to drive. The lesson was over in 15 minutes because I already knew how to drive after watching my father behind the wheel for years and just experiencing the seat of the pants feel of a car in motion. I took the driving test and got my license. Contrast that with my mother who must have had 8 learners permits in NYC and never learned how to drive. She is completely incapable of maneuvering a vehicle. My father tried to teach her, and I tried to teach her and we both concluded the task was impossible. Part of the problem was no feel for the mechanics of a car. My Mom floored the gas pedal to burn rubber in a street parking spot on my 383 Dodge Charger. My grabbing the wheel was the only thing that averted a wreck.

    I know one woman that knows how to drive as well as a man. She can fling a car around with the best of them. The rest of the women I know point their vehicles in a particular direction and can get from point A to B, but I wouldn’t say they know how to drive. None of them can parallel park without laughter erupting from observers.

    My wife’s directional ability are something for the record books. On our first date, we were supposed to meet up at a restaurant in Queens, NY, but she never showed up. The next day, I learned that she ended up at Montauk Point at the tip of Long Island before she realized she had made a mistake. The Atlantic ocean was the only thing that prevented her from continuing to find the restaurant that happened to be in the completely opposite direction.

    I design welding projects in 3D CAD. Sometimes my wife is my client because she wants something built for her bakery. She has a very difficult time visualizing 3D images on a huge monitor as I try to get her to agree that what I designed is what she wants built. I can rotate things through 3D space and all it does is confuse her. I can’t explain it, but I recognize it. BTW – my wife is a mathematician / professional software developer with a 4.0 GPA in 3 years from Fordham University. She’s no dummy.

    • Replies: @The Real World
  135. Somebody else, elsewhere, summarily rejected this article:

    ‘”Yet the male brain is on average 12 percent larger than the female brain, in both newborns and adults”

    ‘Yes, and an elephant’s brain is even bigger! This explains why so many Nobel laureates are elephants.’

    …and elicited the following reaction from me, in which I cover several points that I think bear repetition:

    Your reaction isn’t very impressive. Perhaps you should read on.

    I tend to suspect that IQ is a linear measurement of a three dimensional reality — and in any case, an IQ difference that rises to all of three or four points isn’t terribly significant. So fucking what? Where is it mandated that men and women must be of exactly identical average mental ability? They’re not exactly identical in any other respect.

    It’s perfectly possible men are slightly more intelligent on average than women. After all, it’s indisputable that the respective curves for IQ distribution are different. Can you explain why the average height of those curves should be precisely the same?

    In any case — and to be objective about it — the difference in intelligence is slight enough so that given a random man and a random woman in some random situation, some other sexually-differentiated characteristic is likely to matter more. It’ll be be greater size and physical strength, or a greater capacity for empathy, or a greater tendency to pick ‘fight’ over ‘flight,’ or a greater ability to bear and nurse children (!), or greater spatial ability, or something — not that overwhelming, catastrophic probability that the man may be slightly but measurably more intelligent than the woman.

    If anything, the most significant aspect of the whole conversation is how it demonstrates that intelligence has become our sole yardstick for human worth.

    It wasn’t always that way. See The Song of Roland. Roland is explicitly dumb as a post. He isn’t intelligent because he doesn’t need to be — unlike his Muslim opponent. God will tell him what to do, because he’s accepted Christ as his savior.

    This goes far to explain the outcome of many a medieval battle — but it also helps to demonstrate how our values have shifted. It’s quite alright if men are braver, or women care more, or whatever — but God forbid their intelligences differ. That would mean one was better than the other.

    • Agree: Red Pill Angel
  136. Dusan says:

    Makes no sense to me. Male dominance in science until recently can totally be attributed to societal enforcement of traditional roles. Sports can be explained by physical attributes and generational involvement in gender specific activities (hunting etc.). Spacial orientation could be tied to memory. I can not see any IQ differences between sexes, period.

  137. 136 comments on a scientific question. Only two academic citations in the entire thread, one on a related question, one by Rosie.

    It’s like a long boozy family Thanksgiving.

    Razib Khan, we hardly knew ye.

  138. Fr. John says:
    @Anonymous

    “Note that male homosexual male domestic partners generally lack this ability.”

    Yeah, they lack normalcy. What an asinine comment to include in an article dealing with M/F comparisons. They are abominations, and are rejects: evolutionarily, morally, historically, and aesthetically.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Reaper
  139. It doesn’t bother me at all that men have a 7-point or whatever IQ advantage. It probably helps the average woman find a fellow a bit brighter and look up to him, gives her a charming, childlike appeal, while still allowing her to be bright enough to pick berries, build a hut, cook, and keep the children from falling off a cliff. Where fellows here lose track is when they think, aha, I’m smarter than all women! Women are all dumb! No, you need to find a woman who is about 7 IQ points dumber than you. That is nature’s sweet spot of female dumbness. More and you will be bored and sad because she is, well, dumb; less, and she will detest you for your obvious stupidity.

    I like it that my husband is very intelligent, and somewhat faster on the uptake than me. My IQ is high enough for Mensa, but I’m completely uninterested in STEM, except on a pop science level (We both read science articles, like astronomy, etc). I’m happy that he can explain a lot of stuff to me and take me to used bookstores.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  140. Despite all the affirmative action pressure, only 4 women have won a nobel prize in physics and only 7 in chemistry. They are not as good at tech as men and that is what matters. Women have verbal skills but who cares.? Engineers, businessmen, physicists, inventors, – these are the people that count

    Feminism is a wacky conspiracy theory . There is no giant conspiracy holding down women. They don’t have the ability.

  141. @Red Pill Angel

    ‘…I like it that my husband is very intelligent, and somewhat faster on the uptake than me. My IQ is high enough for Mensa, but I’m completely uninterested in STEM, except on a pop science level (We both read science articles, like astronomy, etc). I’m happy that he can explain a lot of stuff to me and take me to used bookstores.’

    Sadly, you’re married.

  142. Turk 152 says:

    I will have to tell my future daughter in law who just interviewed at Stanford Medical that she should keep her expectations low because I read on Unz that her brain size is too small.

  143. Fr. John says:
    @Rosie

    Rosie, m’dear.

    Why ARE you trying to be ‘like a man’?

    I can tell you definitively, why. Because Eve sinned first, and Adam listened to her….
    That was her damnation, and man’s first error.

    Luckily Christ came to redeem women. But they need to submit to their betters, and be saved by childbearing. Not nuclear physics, not computer programming, not women’s studies…

    but being submissive wives and mothers. AND LITTLE ELSE.

    For all modernity and feminism, is aberrant beyond all measure.
    https://dailystormer.su/woman-puts-son-in-car-trunk-and-drives-to-coronavirus-testing-site/
    Q.E.D.

  144. @RoatanBill

    Bill – I like most of the comments you make here but, you are off-base on this one. Very much so.

    I wish your assertion were true.
    They aren’t merely assertions, they are reality. You have not lived it so, you cannot speak to it. Anyone willing to be intellectually honest and of a certain age can most certainly remember how condescending males, circa 1950s to, say the 1990s, very often were to their wives and women in general. (No doubt prior to that too but, I wasn’t alive then so won’t speak to it.) With some, it was a virtual constant and that is what they modeled for their sons; many of whom toddled-on and did precisely the same thing to their girlfriends and then, wives. The stories of your own family provide the very examples.

    Btw, to this day much condescension still exists but, many males have learned to be more passive-aggressive about it lest they be shunned. Every women I know deals with some degree of that male disregard, being unwilling to give her credit, talking over her, constant disputing and hair-splitting (as you have just done – that is how utterly automatic it is.) They just can’t move on and evolve – there is a brain block.

    Your Mother and your wife could have gotten better at those skills but, they had too many curmudgeons in their lives who seemed to LIKE their sub-par abilities in those areas. So, they repeatedly drove it home that they’d never be any good at it to make themselves feel superior. Truly relics – my Dad was one of those too with my Mother. It was sad to watch.

    There’s more to it than you suggest.
    There is always more to any macro topic. I offered one aspect of what I know occurred frequently and resulted in many women being much more under-confident than they should have been. Often, their Mothers were of no, or little, help in making up the difference.

    Why don’t males ever want to discuss the astonishing achievements women have made, on so many levels, in the last 50 years? Why is that, Bill? An article should be written about that. Might you write it?

    • LOL: RoatanBill
  145. ingotus says:
    @Colin Wright

    It is possible that Baumeister is trying to cater to an audience broader than the converted. I think the article has several instances of it, and you mention one of them. For that he could be rightly accused of intellectual dishonesty I think.

    However, I learned much from it when I read it, and it helped me expand my own perspective on male/female differences, specially if one allows for some bones thrown to the opposing view.

    Speaking of sources, a fun Norwegian documentary is Hjernevask. Several short episodes on controversial topics, interviewing alleged experts on both sides of the debate. Worthwhile. Here’s the episode on “The gender equality paradox”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3tiDr4E4LM

    • Thanks: Colin Wright
  146. Roger says:

    Finally, females have better social cognition, meaning an ability to decode non-verbal cues and infer what other people are thinking. Prof. Lynn finds no evolutionary explanation for this

    Maybe this skill has negative value. Verbal communication is more accurate than non-verbal communication. Misreading non-verbal cues causes a lot of trouble.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  147. @Thomasina

    They and their ancestors have been here for hundreds of years, and they built the country with their own blood, sweat and tears…

    “They and their ancestors have been here for hundreds of years,” performing genocides, slavery, racism, reservation-camping (a form of concentration-camping). And they also want to do the same to the rest of the world:

    {Although some observers believe that the ongoing tensions between the US and China are just a power struggle, it is very naive to dismiss the fact that race plays a significant role in the former’s strategic approach toward the latter.

    “The idea is to knock out China as an economic rival, to ‘colonize’ China and make Chinese industry work for us. Racism and xenophobia is not the source of the problem – but a useful tool to demonize China,” Professor Alfred Maurice de Zayas, a former UN consultant, said during an interview this writer conducted for Asia Times in May.

    Although it may sound controversial to some US apologists, it was reported in April last year that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s team had been preparing a strategy for China based on an idea rooted in racial differences between the two countries.

    “This is a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology, and the United States hasn’t had that before,” Kiron Skinner, the former director of policy planning at the State Department, said in 2019 at a security forum in Washington.}

    {In fact, this approach should not come as a surprise, as the ongoing racial tensions in the US, started by the brutal killing of George Floyd by police officer Derek Chauvin, have exposed the true colors of the nation, which built its might on the back of slaves from Africa brought to a land formerly belonging to indigenous peoples who were now residing in reservations and had no real influence in the land taken from them.

    The white supremacist identity, which gave birth to the so-called “New World,” appears to be the US modus operandi not only in its internal dealings with non-Caucasian inhabitants (including Asian-Americans), but also external conduct toward countries like the Middle Kingdom.}

    {Failure to recognize this reality by China, or to think that the desire to destabilize the country is limited only to President Donald Trump’s administration, may be the beginning of the end of the only superpower that can prevent the US from turning rest of the world into one big reservation for the indigenous nations around the globe.}

    https://asiatimes.com/2020/07/china-needs-realism-not-wishful-thinking-on-us/

    • Replies: @epochehusserl
  148. @ricpic

    Just having some fun playing with words!

    Cheers! 😀

  149. @Fr. John

    but being submissive…

    I think I heard that before somewhere… like “being submissive laundrymen”, “being submissive viet-gooks,” etc, etc.

    The rest is now history!

  150. anon[149] • Disclaimer says:
    @jxh

    This can be done rather easily nowadays using standard MRI analysis software.

  151. @Fr. John

    Rosie is a wife and mother who homeschools her children. The Bible says women should submit to their husbands, not to you and every other Tom, Dick and Harry on the internet. Her level of submission to her husband is none of your business, but she seems quite content to me.

    The woman who put her son in the car trunk for Covid testing is the victim of out of control female submission and virtue signaling, unfortunately all too common today.

  152. anon[211] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Well, recently the trend in my field has been to guarantee women the same number of invited talks, awards etc. whether their scientific contributions are up to snuff or not. At a conference five or so years ago a Young Investigator award was given to a woman who had less than 15 pubs, and so-so pubs at that. Typically, you can’t even get a tenure-track position with so few publications, let alone win an international award. The bar for men to get this award has been at least 50-60 high-impact pubs (this can be easily checked by who got the award every year and their publication record/h-index up to that point). A recent check of this female award winner’s publication record shows that she still hasn’t published even 20 papers, 5 years later. For the senior investigator award, since men were winning it “disproportionately”, they just established a separate senior award for women.

    The same things go on, less publicly, with tenure decisions and grant awards. I’ve reviewed grant proposals where the (female) applicant specifically promised to discriminate against men in hiring and admissions in staffing her lab, should the grant proposal be funded.
    And of course, most if not all newly created tenure-track positions are explicitly advertised as discriminating against white men, and search committees are quite open about their determination to hire a woman (or an “underrepresented minority”) for those positions.
    And now some scientific journals are promising to enforce “gender equity” in that their issues will contain an equal number of papers by male and female authors. Not sure if it has to be an equal number of lead/senior authors, or whether a paper’s author list can be padded with female middle authors to make it “equitable”.
    Since awards/grants/papers are what make or break an academic career, then yes, I would say that jobs are being specifically created or kept open for women as a window dressing.

  153. @Deep Thought

    They and their ancestors have been here for hundreds of years,” performing genocides, slavery, racism, reservation-camping (a form of concentration-camping). And they also want to do the same to the rest of the world:

    As opposed to the racism, slavery and genocide that existed prior to the founding of the country? Precisely what country didn’t have those things at one point? Slavery and conquest had always existed prior to 1776. How are we different in that regard?

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
  154. Fuzzbaby says:
    @Rosie

    “What do you think should women do with themselves when they’re 35 have no small children”?

    The answer is obvious: It’s called housewife ; an important full-time job. Baking, cleaning and keeping a comfortable cheery home for the breadwinner when he comes home.

    It’s time that the gals who work in age-old profession get the respect and appreciation they so deserve.

  155. ingotus says:

    Thanks anon[211],

    Can you tell what the drivers are that keep the non-sense going? Why are folks in decision making positions willing to destroy meritocracy for the sake of wokeism? Is it just brainwashing or the result of pressure, or both? I’d like to think brainwashing to be limited in that environment where truth should prevail, but perhaps that is naive.

    Otherwise, what is the type of pressure being applied to them?

    Thank you

    • Replies: @anon
  156. Only difference is in hormones.

    Who the fuck in their right mind thinks there is a difference in 2022? If you wanna talk about the differences between the sexes, talk about the emotional aspect and how it affects decision making.

  157. @Roger

    ‘Maybe this skill has negative value. Verbal communication is more accurate than non-verbal communication. Misreading non-verbal cues causes a lot of trouble.’

    That’s something that has been brought home in the facemask era. A lot of people suddenly seem vaguely hostile. I suspect it’s because you can’t really read their facial expression, and they can’t read yours.

    Thank God that’s dying off — around here, anyway.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  158. anon[264] • Disclaimer says:
    @ingotus

    The drivers are screechy feminists who want more, or all, of the pie. The pressure is the official religion of Wokism to which all must adhere in academia. I suspect that many males, except perhaps for the wokest epsilons, understand what’s going on – it’s hard not to, when some female with meager accomplishments that nobody’s ever heard of wins a fairly prestigious award in the field. But all are afraid to say publicly that the empress is naked.
    That’s why leftism is winning – it arrogates the high moral ground while being a simple grab for power and money. Allowing them to call themselves “progressive” plays right into their hands, as it implies that they’re on the path of righteousness, the Shining Path as it were.

  159. roonaldo says:

    I ran across some Russian proverbs…

    As chicken is not a bird, woman is not a human being.

    A dog is wiser than a woman–it does not bark at its master.

    Nosey Barbara’s nose was torn off at the market.

    It is easier to bear a child once a year than to shave every day.

    When a girl is born, all four walls weep.

    A woman’s tongue is longer than her hair.

    There are more whores in hiding than there are public ones.

    Why marry, when your neighbor’s wife is ready to go to bed with you?

    You would do better to sit on a powder keg than on the knee of a woman.

    There is nothing better than a rich wife and a generous mother in law.

    (Affirmative action statutes require one more…)

    A good man maybe, but it’s still best to shoot him.

  160. Stones says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Mishmash.
    An organism’s structure, characteristics and performance is primarily dictated by its genetic endowment.

    Biology is the study of that physical organism, the meat of life. And Devlin says that, in the case of the human , the quality and quantity of the meat, especially between the ears, is very important as any who see the big picture would expect.

    Your struggle with the word reality seems to indicate your ignorance of the proper reason for its being attached in these discussions .

    The reason is simple. There is at present the bizarre fashion of ignoring completely the biological aspects of human cognition differences which has obliterated reality in this area. Egalitarian blither has made the subject unnecessarily contentious. In fact, the science of race realism and sex realism is in many venues now thought of as criminal. Thought crime

    So, relax. Biological Reality is here and is real – predictive. Egalitarianism is not real – is not predictive and never can be.

    Knowing what is reality and what is fantasy is important.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  161. @epochehusserl

    Precisely what country didn’t have those things at one point? Slavery and conquest had always existed prior to 1776. How are we different in that regard?

    Precisely which group of non-white “outsiders”, that @Thomasina referred to, has done hundreds of years of genocides, slavery, racism, reservation-camping in murrika or in Europe?

    How is it that when whites migrate to other peoples’ lands, they are NOT “outsiders” but “insiders” instead? Why is it that whites, who had committed countless atrocities against non-whites, have more rights than the non-whites who did not do that to the whites?

    All that you and @Thomasina are selling is “white makes right”, which is considered a repugnant ideology by the rest of the world:

    {The Western imperial presence – of conquest and subjugation – within Asia was buttressed on a diligently maintained myth of white superiority, a philosophy every bit as repugnant as that maintained by Imperial Japan.}

    https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/the-pacific-war-eastern-empire-vs-white-supremacy/

  162. @Colin Wright

    I suspect it’s because you can’t really read their facial expression, and they can’t read yours.

    This is also a large part of what causes road rage and traffic frustration in general. In the absence of other communicative cues, every less than ideal interaction seems like a slight.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  163. @Stones

    You do realize you’re just begging the question, right?

  164. @Intelligent Dasein

    ‘This is also a large part of what causes road rage and traffic frustration in general. In the absence of other communicative cues, every less than ideal interaction seems like a slight.’

    It’s also why — even everything were equal otherwise, which it rarely is — ‘diversity’ is such a crock.

    The more similar we are to each other, the better able we are to easily and correctly interpret the meaning of each others’ verbal and non-verbal cues and anticipate their expectations.

    I lived in Hawaii for a year-plus. It’s got its points, but everyone is different — and I kept seeing and experiencing missed cues. Now I’m in lily-white provincial Oregon.

    Man, is it nice! I’m not sure they can read me, but I can read them just fine.

  165. Anonymous[349] • Disclaimer says:
    @Donald A Thomson

    “Institutions lack this ability”? The last I knew about institutions was that they consisted of men and women. no robots and no other species.

    Yet another attempt to discredit by acting insane, or possibly not being a native speaker. OK, I’ll explain at length.

    Institutions, whether staffed by men or women, cannot raise children successfully. This was common knowledge before daycare became a lucrative business and a political issue for the Left, which still follows Marx’s surmise that families were the first instance of role specialization, hence responsible for worker alienation.
    For that reason, I contrasted women and institutions.

    * Developmental deficit
    https://www.livescience.com/21778-early-neglect-alters-kids-brains.html

    * Death

    https://www.canr.msu.edu/resources/working-age-adult-mortality-orphan-status-and-child-schooling-in-rural-mozambique

    https://www.irishcentral.com/suffer-little-children-new-evidence-that-irish-kids-were-murdered-in-reform-schools

    https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past

    * Even daycare has its bad effects.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22661337/

    http://psych-history.weill.cornell.edu/pdf/Trauma_of_Separation.pdf

  166. Anonymous[349] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fr. John

    “Note that male homosexual male domestic partners generally lack this ability.”

    Yeah, they lack normalcy. What an asinine comment to include in an article dealing with M/F comparisons. They are abominations, and are rejects: evolutionarily, morally, historically, and aesthetically.

    OK, you don’t like homosexuals. Take it up with the EEOC, not me.

    I was making the point that wives (women) can, even under contemporary law and mores, often induce men to support them for life. In contrast while male homosexuals (men) lack this ability, as shown by the following:

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/how-do-homosexual-couples-compare-to-heterosexual-an-analysis/

  167. I came to the comments thread looking for intelligence and found none.

  168. gepay says:

    much of the problem is that there are many different aspects of intelligence. As mentioned but not enumerated was the obvious difference between mental intelligence and emotional intelligence. I was born male and emotionally challenged. Although I got good grades (being mentally intelligent) it didn’t help me with dealing with workaday reality. Most test taking is just about access to memory. Most of my male friends were emotionally challenged as well. Men who weren’t born that way usually got laid a lot more often. As women matured they usually made better choices about who to mate with. Not mentioned in the article was something Jordan Petersen has pointed out – reliable contraception and abortion freed women from much of their former dependency on men – freeing women to express their anger. Throughout history the mutual dependency of men and women has been a good thing. Some of the absurdity of wokism is a normal pendulum swing of cultural attitudes. What is being lost is that societies work better if there is advancement based on competence – not on cultural fantasy or credentials or who your parents were.

  169. Publius 2 says:
    @Rosie

    You get nervous driving your own car without a mask on, so what’s your point?

    Public school teachers are a national embarrassment.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
  170. Reaper says:

    Article is just fine and real science which point to: the book would be the same.

    Jet in certain special skills, like vocal/ text advantages for females would be nice some more information in the article itself.

  171. Reaper says:
    @Fr. John

    Actually in cases where homosexuality based on primary biological reasons (which is off course an old debate – eg. reasons of the origins/ existenmce) which includes brain structure, hormones, sensory organs, etc then it is reasonable to include.
    As does in special skills/ abilities.

    Just as an example: in certain professions gays perform very well – in average better than heterosexual (males) – like (in film industry) as dressers, hairdressers. makeup artists.

  172. Reaper says:
    @Toza

    “I don’t really understand how evolution can transfer abilities based on sex.”

    Different biological apperance, abilities are neccesary for different sexes as they have different roles.
    It is not a human (or mammal) only thing.

    Even spiders greatly differer in size, abilities, capabilities, etc…
    Off course spiders never heard about equality/ equity/ liberal dogmas.

  173. Jusses says:
    @Toza

    I don’t really understand how evolution can transfer abilities based on sex. If men only beget men and women women, that would be obvious, but children inherit genes from both parents. I don’t know how prof. Lynn would explain that.

    So you’re saying that both men and women should have breasts, for example, because they both get the same genes from their parents?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All F. Roger Devlin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV