Archive for the ‘iq’ Category

Women and IQ

October 10, 2009

Why Did Europeans Create the Modern World?

According to Swedish Professor Annica Dahlström, an expert in neuroscience, men are found more frequently than women at the extremes of high and low intelligence. Female geniuses exist, but they are much less frequent than male ones. The feminist establishment claims that she has misused her position as a scientist to reinforce “gender stereotypes,” yet as Dahlström says, “The difference between boys and girls, in terms of their biology and brain, is greater than we could ever have imagined.” We can now scan and follow brain activity in real time. Differences between the sexes are clearly recognizable at the age of three, if not before. The centers of the brain dealing with verbal communication, interpretation of facial expressions and body language are more developed in girls even at this early age.

In the USA, Larry Summers, President of the prestigious Harvard University, was forced to resign partly because of a 2005 speech where he suggested that women’s under-representation in the top levels of academia is due to a “different availability of aptitude at the high end.”

Professor Helmuth Nyborg at Aarhus University in Denmark did research which revealed that there are differences between the sexes when it comes to intelligence. This triggered massive resistance from his colleagues. He states that “Within the realms of psychology you are not allowed to talk about intelligence. You cannot measure intelligence and you cannot rank people according to intelligence. The entire field of intelligence is a so-called ‘no-go-area.’“ If you still choose to proceed, you are a bad person.

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 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.

Link Dump

March 16, 2009

Sacrificing our children

A while back, I blogged about the issue of our young people traipsing off to Third World countries to engage in various do-gooding activities. Now, just to clarify, I don’t object to doing good for people, although I think we’ve forgotten that charity begins at home. I do object to the trend of many parents who are apparently bereft of all judgment and common sense giving their blessing to their young daughters in particular going to dangerous Third World countries as volunteers, whether as church volunteers or Peace Corps volunteers. Yet I have a feeling that the administration’s vaunted ‘national service’ plans, which will apparently be mandatory for all young people, will send them to such dangerous environments….

So why does this go on? Why are there not more common sense measures to protect these people, or beyond that, why is there so little caution on the part of the young women themselves, or their parents? Why do parents whose minor daughters (and sons, for that matter) are going to these dangerous places not refuse their permission? I asked the mother of one such young woman why she was willing to let her daughter go to such a dangerous part of the world, but she was not at all concerned: the group leaders know what they are doing, she said, and besides the young people thought the locals to be endearing, childlike people who are not at all dangerous.

The young women themselves are driven party by feminist ideas of ‘I can do anything I want; I can do anything men can do’, and partly by the natural feminine desire to help and nurture people, especially people who seem to be pitiable and helpless, like most Third World people.

One of the young woman had her head turned by the attention she received from the native men, who made a fuss over her pretty blonde looks, and supposedly even proposed marriage to her.

In other words, though these young women believe themselves to be equal to men in all respects, they are naive and immature, though they no doubt have a heart for the less fortunate.

International Women’s Day

The first IWD was observed on 28 February 1909 in the United States following a declaration by the Socialist Party of America [emphasis added]. Among other relevant historic events, it came to commemorate the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The idea of having an international women’s day was first put forward at the turn of the 20th century amid rapid world industrialization and economic expansion that led to protests over working conditions. By urban legend, women from clothing and textile factories staged one such protest on 8 March 1857 in New York City. The garment workers were protesting against very poor working conditions and low wages. The protesters were attacked and dispersed by police. These women established their first labor union in the same month two years later.

Read the whole thing.

Not at Home to Mrs. Self-Knowledge

Women think they’re in control of their emotions, but their ’emotional intelligence’ really means that they say whatever they feel without a thought to the consequences. It’s not ’emotional intelligence’, it’s ’emotional incontinence’. Men think ‘honesty’ is a considered opinion to which he sticks. Women think ‘honesty’ is changing her opinion as frequently her knickers because it is how she ‘feels’ at that second.

Which is why we fellas don’t think women are actually capable of understanding ‘principles’ such as the rule of law. So, when we say women are ‘equal’, it’s because we’re forced to by law and society. Very few men actually believe it.

“Women. They’re just not like proper chaps”.

It is with this in mind, that I look upon Harridan Harperson-Dromey. Just what does she think her “court of public-opinion” would do to her?

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

Women are another recently discovered “oppressed class,” and the fact that political delegates have habitually been far more than 50 percent male is now held to be an evident sign of their oppression. Delegates to political conventions come from the ranks of party activists, and since women have not been nearly as politically active as men, their numbers have understandably been low. But, faced with this argument, the widening forces of “women’s liberation” in America again revert to the talismanic argument about “brainwashing” by our “culture.” For the women’s liberationists can hardly deny the fact that every culture and civilization in history, from the simplest to the most complex, has been dominated by males. (In desperation, the liberationists have lately been countering with fantasies about the mighty Amazonian empire.) Their reply, once again, is that from time immemorial a male-dominated culture has brainwashed oppressed females to confine themselves to nurture, home, and the domestic hearth. The task of the liberationists is to effect a revolution in the female condition by sheer will, by the “raising of consciousness.” If most women continue to cleave to domestic concerns, this only reveals the “false consciousness” that must be extirpated.

Of course, one neglected reply is that if, indeed, men have succeeded in dominating every culture, then this in itself is a demonstration of male “superiority”; for if all genders are equal, how is it that male domination emerged in every case? But apart from this question, biology itself is being angrily denied and cast aside. The cry is that there are no, can be no, must be no biological differences between the sexes; all historical or current differences must be due to cultural brainwashing.

Boys are still top dogs
Research suggests that males will always dominate the highest ranks of IQ