Archive for the ‘intelligence’ Category

Women are Frivolous

September 14, 2009

Women are Frivolous

From an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense that men would have an interest in things like justice from a theoretical perspective. A man in prehistoric times may have served on a tribal council and have had to come to a fair decision based on objective criteria; a woman dealt mainly with her family and would put feelings over reason. Males would have to form alliances with other tribes, build things to deal with the forces of nature, figure out a practical way to get the mammoth down, etc. Females gossiped and took care of children. They never evolved the mental tools to go beyond the personal. That’s why something that is true but unpopular like race realism will appeal more to men than women. A man (some of us) has the potential to ask “Is this true?” while a woman can’t go beyond “Is this the correct thing to believe for the status of me and my kids?”

I’ve had men and women disagree with my positions on race, but have only seen women refer to my beliefs as “stupid.” This used to puzzle me because they couldn’t articulate a reason why. I eventually came to realize that the connotations that the word has for me are different than the ones it has for females. When I say a belief is “stupid” I mean that there are actual reasons for not believing it. When a woman says a belief is “stupid” she means that it’s not the correct thing to believe if you want to have friends. In that sense race realism can be stupid from a social stand point while also being true. But a woman doesn’t think in terms of what we call truth and doesn’t use it as a barometer to decide what is or isn’t “stupid.”

That explains why feminists like to dismiss antifeminists as “ignorant”. I don’t think feminists actually know the definition of the word “ignorant”, but even if some of them do, it doesn’t make any sense. Do they actually imagine that we have somehow managed to evade their ubiquitous and constant brainwashing? That somehow the glad tidings that women are equal to men have not reached our ears? And how is providing mountains of scientific, statistical and historical evidence for our viewpoints – something which they cannot do, as all the evidence is on our side – “ignorant”? I had assumed that it was simply a word they had heard someplace and adopted as a generic putdown. Now I know what they actually mean: that I’m too ignorant to know that I have to pretend to believe their propaganda in order to conform and not be banished from the tribe and eaten by tigers.

Well, girls, I’m not. I know perfectly well that if I regurgitated your silly lies, my life would be a lot easier and I would “fit in” way better. I simply am too honest to do so, something a feminist can’t possibly comprehend.

The answer isn’t to treat female writers “equally” to male ones. It’s a healthy society understanding that women aren’t meant to think about serious issues.

I read this post last night and it popped into my head this morning. As I got ready for the day I found myself mentally reviewing my blogreader, and I realized that it is almost exclusively male.

Now, as long-time readers may have gathered, my blogreader constantly changes. Some bloggers, you read them for a couple of months and you’ve already absorbed what they have to offer and don’t really need to keep reading unless you just enjoy their style. Vox Popoli is one such; read one month of him and you’ll get the message. Also, I’ll get interested in a subject and read several blogs about it for a few months, then when my curiosity is satisfied I’ll drop most of them except for the few that are still stimulating. And when I do that, now that I think of it, the female bloggers are always dropped at that point. Their blogs are always the most trivial.

Case in point: last year for a few months I read the saner “race realist” blogs, mainly because a lot of MRAs are also “race realists” so I wanted to learn what they had to say. Most liberals, I think, believe you shouldn’t even read verboten ideas because it might get on you, but conservatives, who are used to having a large bullshit filter to screen out the lies liberals constantly promote in schools and the media, know that they can read people they disagree with and not become “infected”. The main thing I learned is that my guess that liberal encouragement of nonwhite crime, via such things as their defense of violent criminals as “victims” of “racism” and their welfare programs which make female-headed household proliferate, is going to cause a resurgence of racism, was correct. Those blogs are full of statistics about black-on-white and Latino-on-white crime, and any white person who looks at those figures is going to start wondering if the current gospel about race is the truth. The current alien-in-chief’s unabashed plans to steal even more money from white people to give to nonwhites is only going to hasten the revival of racism. Which is fine with liberals, because if racism really were gone, they’d be out of a racket. They need victims who need their help in order to stay in power.

Anyway, while I was exploring the race realist blogosphere, I can only recall two female bloggers in that category who I followed. One was Cordelia For Lear, who IIRC was very smart but there was some major stuff (besides race) that I disagreed with her about, I don’t remember what. The other was latte island, whose blog consists chiefly of posts like, “I was in a store today and saw a black person acting obnoxious.” I can’t recall any abstractions ever appearing in her blog, except when she once declared that feminism made education available to women, which pretty much proves my point.

When my curiosity was satisfied, I kept a few of the HBD bloggers on my reader and dropped the rest. The ones I kept were the ones who frequently posted interesting information or theories about things other than race, including the biological differences between the sexes, or original data analysis – things female bloggers are unlikely to post. Neither of the female bloggers made the cut. It’s been the same with many other topics I explored.

So when I sat down at my computer today, I checked my blogreader for female bloggers. I follow some blogs because they post beautiful pictures or because they are relevant to my hobbies; a few of those bloggers are women. Putting pretty pictures on the web does not require original thought. I excluded “amusement” blogs and checked my folders of political, scientific, and philosophical blogs.

And by the way, I don’t look at whether a blogger is male or female before I add them to my blogroll. I read a few posts to see if they’re worth a look without taking into account the sex, race, religion, or anything else of the blogger. One blog I especially enjoy, I wasn’t sure what sex the blogger was until I had been following it for six months – turned out to be a man.

Want to know how many female bloggers I consider worthy of my time?

One.

Male and Female IQ

June 4, 2009

Admittedly, I have a very high IQ, so it’s easy for me to accept that men generally have higher IQs; I’m still smarter than most of the people, male or female, on the planet. For an ordinary woman with an average IQ, it must be awfully frustrating, and feminist lies about equality must seem awfully comforting.

Why men are more intelligent than women

More recently, however, especially since the turn of the millennium, there have been an increasing number of studies that cast doubt on this politically correct conclusion. Studies with large representative national samples from Spain, Denmark, and the United States, as well as meta-analyses of a large number of published studies throughout the world, all conclude that men on average are slightly but significantly more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points. So this has now become the new (albeit tentative) consensus in intelligence research.

There was a response to this:

The Equality of the Sexes I: Fact or Artefact?

This response won my heart because it finally gave me a citation on an unreferenced assertion I saw a while back, that the IQ test was originally rigged to make men and women seem identically intelligent – well, almost. Any question on which men did consistently better than women was thrown out. So, the post starts with this quotation:

“The one exception to the general rule that different groups or populations usually differ in average IQ is that both sexes have approximately the same average IQ on most tests. This is not, however, a true empirical finding but a consequence of the manner in which the tests were first constructed…the two sexes were defined to have equal intelligence rather than discovered to have equal intelligence.” (Evans and Waites, 1981, 168).

(Evans, B.. & Waites, B. (1981). IQ and mental testing: An unnatural science and its social history. London, UK: Macmillan.)

Of course, despite this, the author of the article tries to backpedal on it:

In their introduction to the first revision of the Stanford-Binet, Terman and his collaborator Maude Merrill eliminated a few tests in their trial batteries that yielded the largest sex differences. There is evidence that David Wechsler, another IQ test contructor did the same. But this was after they did their first standardization.

And even by doing so, the effect didn’t wash away all sex differences. In one of the earliest IQ tests, the Wechsler-Bellevue test (which still has some items that are on the widely administered modern day WAIS IQ test), there remained small differences in overall scores in favor of women. This led Wechsler to express: “We have more than a ‘sneaking suspicion’ that the female of the species is not only more deadly but also more intelligent than the male (Weschler, 1944, p.107)”.

Therefore, it should be crystal clear that IQ tests were not in fact designed from the very beginning to produce equal scores for the two sexes. Terman genuinely believed in 1916 that he was making an empirical discovery, and he genuinely did.

I’ll have to dig up these sources myself at some point to find out for sure if they really did rig the tests, as the quoted authors assert, or if they, um, only sort of did, as the article’s author asserts. I’m inclined to think they did, but then, I’m already a male chauvinist. But this article is valuable to me, because it gave me the references I need to find these things out.

Hm, look at this other bit from the article:

In fact, the one consistent trend they found was that the larger the sex difference on a test, the less that test related to teachers’ assessments of general intelligence. This led Cyril Burt to conclude “The higher the process and the more complex the capacity, the smaller, on the whole, become the sex differences (Burt & Moore, 1912, p. 379)”.

So they decided that the subjective impressions, of a woman, were more reliable data than the results of tests the students actually took. Now, suppose that when you applied for college, the admissions people dismissed your SATs in favor of what your teachers said about you? “Yeah, your SAT scores were really high, but your English teacher said she didn’t think you were university material.”

Everyone who’s been in school knows that teachers always hold the highest opinions of students who claim to agree with the teachers. These students may be streetsmart, but they’re not generally all that bright, or they wouldn’t be just agreeing with the nearest authority figure.

In addition, if these teachers had actually heard these students talking about things, they probably indulged in the natural human tendency to conclude that people whose thought processes were the most similar to their own were the smartest. Teachers wouldn’t be able to follow the reasoning of students significantly smarter than themselves, and might not even have heard it; very smart people sometimes just stop talking rather than try to explain things to someone who can’t keep up.

In short, the teachers’ assessments are completely worthless and should not be considered by scientists.

Male and Female IQ

June 4, 2009

Admittedly, I have a very high IQ, so it’s easy for me to admit this; I’m still smarter than most of the people, male or female, on the planet. For an ordinary woman with an average IQ, it must be awfully frustrating, and feminist lies about equality must seem awfully comforting.

Why men are more intelligent than women

More recently, however, especially since the turn of the millennium, there have been an increasing number of studies that cast doubt on this politically correct conclusion. Studies with large representative national samples from Spain, Denmark, and the United States, as well as meta-analyses of a large number of published studies throughout the world, all conclude that men on average are slightly but significantly more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points. So this has now become the new (albeit tentative) consensus in intelligence research.

There was a response to this:

The Equality of the Sexes I: Fact or Artefact?

This response won my heart because it finally gave me a citation on an unreferenced assertion I saw a while back, that the IQ test was originally rigged to make men and women seem identically intelligent – well, almost. Any question on which men did consistently better than women was thrown out. So, the post starts with this quotation:

“The one exception to the general rule that different groups or populations usually differ in average IQ is that both sexes have approximately the same average IQ on most tests. This is not, however, a true empirical finding but a consequence of the manner in which the tests were first constructed…the two sexes were defined to have equal intelligence rather than discovered to have equal intelligence.” (Evans and Waites, 1981, 168).

(Evans, B.. & Waites, B. (1981). IQ and mental testing: An unnatural science and its social history. London, UK: Macmillan.)

Of course, despite this, the author of the article tries to backpedal on it:

In their introduction to the first revision of the Stanford-Binet, Terman and his collaborator Maude Merrill eliminated a few tests in their trial batteries that yielded the largest sex differences. There is evidence that David Wechsler, another IQ test contructor did the same. But this was after they did their first standardization.

And even by doing so, the effect didn’t wash away all sex differences. In one of the earliest IQ tests, the Wechsler-Bellevue test (which still has some items that are on the widely administered modern day WAIS IQ test), there remained small differences in overall scores in favor of women. This led Wechsler to express: “We have more than a ‘sneaking suspicion’ that the female of the species is not only more deadly but also more intelligent than the male (Weschler, 1944, p.107)”.

Therefore, it should be crystal clear that IQ tests were not in fact designed from the very beginning to produce equal scores for the two sexes. Terman genuinely believed in 1916 that he was making an empirical discovery, and he genuinely did.

I’ll have to dig up these sources myself at some point to find out for sure if they really did rig the tests, as the quoted authors assert, or if they, um, only sort of did, as the article’s author asserts. I’m inclined to think they did, but then, I’m already a male chauvinist. But this article is valuable to me, because it gave me the references I need to find these things out.

Hm, look at this other bit from the article:

In fact, the one consistent trend they found was that the larger the sex difference on a test, the less that test related to teachers’ assessments of general intelligence. This led Cyril Burt to conclude “The higher the process and the more complex the capacity, the smaller, on the whole, become the sex differences (Burt & Moore, 1912, p. 379)”.

So they decided that the subjective impressions, of a woman, were more reliable data than the results of tests the students actually took. Now, suppose that when you applied for college, the admissions people dismissed your SATs in favor of what your teachers said about you? “Yeah, your SAT scores were really high, but your English teacher said she didn’t think you were university material.”

Everyone who’s been in school knows that teachers always hold the highest opinions of students who claim to agree with the teachers. These students may be streetsmart, but they’re not generally all that bright, or they wouldn’t be just agreeing with the nearest authority figure.

In addition, if these teachers had actually heard these students talking about things, they probably indulged in the natural human tendency to conclude that people whose thought processes were the most similar to their own were the smartest. Teachers wouldn’t be able to follow the reasoning of students significantly smarter than themselves, and might not even have heard it; very smart people sometimes just stop talking rather than try to explain things to someone who can’t keep up.

In short, the teachers’ assessments are completely worthless and should not be considered by scientists.

Male & Female relative IQs

February 4, 2009

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.