First, a blog post you should all enjoy: Lonewolf Diaries: If You Think Men and Women Are Different You’re Sexist?
Now, my readers know I’m fascinated by evolutionary psychology. For a while I was following one blog about it, but in a few days it became clear that the blogger knows a lot of things that aren’t true. However, before I gave up on him, he did make one interesting remark in his post, Why men are more intelligent than women
He says:
The answer is: They aren’t.
The orthodoxy in intelligence research for the second half of the 20th century had been that men and women had the same average intelligence, but men had greater variance in their distribution than women. Most geniuses were men, and most imbeciles were men, they said, while most women were in the normal range.
This is of course true and well documented, but he goes on to deny it, without really supporting his claims. His conclusion, by the way, is that taller people are smarter than shorter people, and men are smarter because they’re taller! Never mind that a short man is biologically more similar to a tall man than to a woman of any height. And what is he to do with short geniuses such as myself, Ayn Rand, my father, my high school sweetheart, and many others?
What really interested me about this post, however, is an assertion he makes without referencing it:
Not wanting to discover, or a priori denying, any sex differences in intelligence, psychometricians simply deleted from the standardized IQ tests any item on which the performance of men and women differed.
He doesn’t say where he got this data. Does anyone know where I can verify it? In any case, if it is true, it could mean that the superiority of male intelligence is far greater than our current IQ tests show, because they were rigged to conceal it.
I do sympathize with feminists at times. My IQ is genius level, so it’s easy for me to admit that men in general are smarter than women; I’m still smarter than about 95% of the people on this planet. Normal women must find their natural inferiority quite painful in an era which devalues their natural worth as females.
Female Misogynist 
February 5, 2009 at 3:13 am
Society has always had a big impact on my life due to my intelligence test scores. However, I don’t think I’m wise or sensible or insightful — I’m just good at taking tests. I think our culture has a terribly narrow notion of intelligence, and does not value intellectual curiosity nearly enough.
I often speculate what life would be like in a technological society with lots of robots. I imagine that intelligence would be less prized because brain work would command lower wages. What would the prized characteristic be in such a society?
Further, many men and women who are bad at math and logic but good at interpersonal manipulation have attained high posts. Does their skill at skullduggery and betrayal qualify as a new kind of intelligence?
One of the inventors of the semiconductor, Shockley, thought that white people had more “scientific creativity” than other races.
February 5, 2009 at 3:13 am
Society has always had a big impact on my life due to my intelligence test scores. However, I don’t think I’m wise or sensible or insightful — I’m just good at taking tests. I think our culture has a terribly narrow notion of intelligence, and does not value intellectual curiosity nearly enough.
I often speculate what life would be like in a technological society with lots of robots. I imagine that intelligence would be less prized because brain work would command lower wages. What would the prized characteristic be in such a society?
Further, many men and women who are bad at math and logic but good at interpersonal manipulation have attained high posts. Does their skill at skullduggery and betrayal qualify as a new kind of intelligence?
One of the inventors of the semiconductor, Shockley, thought that white people had more “scientific creativity” than other races.
February 5, 2009 at 3:13 am
Society has always had a big impact on my life due to my intelligence test scores. However, I don’t think I’m wise or sensible or insightful — I’m just good at taking tests. I think our culture has a terribly narrow notion of intelligence, and does not value intellectual curiosity nearly enough.
I often speculate what life would be like in a technological society with lots of robots. I imagine that intelligence would be less prized because brain work would command lower wages. What would the prized characteristic be in such a society?
Further, many men and women who are bad at math and logic but good at interpersonal manipulation have attained high posts. Does their skill at skullduggery and betrayal qualify as a new kind of intelligence?
One of the inventors of the semiconductor, Shockley, thought that white people had more “scientific creativity” than other races.
February 5, 2009 at 11:01 am
Welcome back FM – I was beginning to fear that you were not returning. I’m sorry that this comment isn’t really about your post but I thought that you might be interested in this at my Journal.
February 5, 2009 at 11:01 am
Welcome back FM – I was beginning to fear that you were not returning. I’m sorry that this comment isn’t really about your post but I thought that you might be interested in this at my Journal.
February 5, 2009 at 11:01 am
Welcome back FM – I was beginning to fear that you were not returning. I’m sorry that this comment isn’t really about your post but I thought that you might be interested in this at my Journal.
February 10, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Mild Colonial Boy,
Don’t worry, I am not going to abandon this blog any time in the foreseeable future! I’ve simply been busy. I may post less often for the next few months, but I will be posting, never fear!
And I’m so glad I was missed.
February 10, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Mild Colonial Boy,
Don’t worry, I am not going to abandon this blog any time in the foreseeable future! I’ve simply been busy. I may post less often for the next few months, but I will be posting, never fear!
And I’m so glad I was missed.
February 10, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Mild Colonial Boy,
Don’t worry, I am not going to abandon this blog any time in the foreseeable future! I’ve simply been busy. I may post less often for the next few months, but I will be posting, never fear!
And I’m so glad I was missed.
February 18, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I cant get a link, but Charles Murray confirmed that tests were neutered to keep the averages the same in an interview. Its probably on youtube – but which one? I dont remember sorry.
He does add that, it wouldnt have been possible to do unless the IQs were quite similar – though thats a rather wimpy statement to come from a psychometrician – after all, population shifts of just 1 or 2 points can have profound effects, especially if most of the interesting stuff happens on the tails.
February 18, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I cant get a link, but Charles Murray confirmed that tests were neutered to keep the averages the same in an interview. Its probably on youtube – but which one? I dont remember sorry.
He does add that, it wouldnt have been possible to do unless the IQs were quite similar – though thats a rather wimpy statement to come from a psychometrician – after all, population shifts of just 1 or 2 points can have profound effects, especially if most of the interesting stuff happens on the tails.
February 18, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I cant get a link, but Charles Murray confirmed that tests were neutered to keep the averages the same in an interview. Its probably on youtube – but which one? I dont remember sorry.
He does add that, it wouldnt have been possible to do unless the IQs were quite similar – though thats a rather wimpy statement to come from a psychometrician – after all, population shifts of just 1 or 2 points can have profound effects, especially if most of the interesting stuff happens on the tails.
February 19, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Thank you, Mensarefugee. That gives me a place to start looking.
February 19, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Thank you, Mensarefugee. That gives me a place to start looking.
February 19, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Thank you, Mensarefugee. That gives me a place to start looking.
August 8, 2009 at 7:26 pm
“Men in general are smarter than women?” “Women must deal with their natural inferiority?” How do those conclusions follow from the greater variance in women’s IQ scores? It’s a raging non sequitur.
It’s also worth noting that many female intellectual abilities are not measured by IQ tests, such as emotional intelligence and ability to read social situations. The human cerebral cortex (the thinking part of the brain, yes, that’s an over-simplification but it’s close enough for this discussion) evolved to deal with complex social situations: the size of the cortex in mammals correlates positively with the size of social groups in the particular species. In general, women are better at handling social situations than men are, but you will find that ability measured nowhere on any IQ test (or the SAT or GRE, for that matter). I would argue that as a result, women’s intelligence is systematically under-estimated.
September 3, 2009 at 1:13 am
Typical feminist argument: “Women can’t compete, so we’ve got to change the rules!”
September 4, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Erin said: “Men in general are smarter than women?” “Women must deal with their natural inferiority?” How do those conclusions follow from the greater variance in women’s IQ scores? It’s a raging non sequitur.
They don’t follow from your premise Erin, but your premise is wrong.
Men’s IQ scores have greater variability than womens.
October 24, 2009 at 7:47 pm
[…] of the slanting of the IQ test to minimize differences between men and women can be read here, here, here, and here. And despite the slanting in women’s favor, men still score consistently […]
January 21, 2010 at 4:32 pm
“Typical feminist argument: “Women can’t compete, so we’ve got to change the rules!”
Apparently women can compete though, you admit it is well documented that, “research for the second half of the 20th century had been that men and women had the same average intelligence”. Yet, you insist that this data is flawed and women are less intelligent. Why? Because you’re a genius and you can see it? Personal experience, of genius quality or not means nothing in the face of science. Sorry, your hatred seems to be founded on nothing but your hatred, not your supposed genius and not science. Anyway, the specificity of IQ tests is indeed a concern amongst scientists, a casual dismissal is childish. In your view the concern must be because of feminism, maybe you have some evidence of that other than mere pointless denial.