Post: #1

ya could have fooled me....


http://www.newser.com/story/150154/sorry...igher.html

Post: #2

One isolated study doesn't prove anything especially if it's only in Argentina, Estonia and New Zealand, but there's a couple points to make:

1. The education system is femcentric, better learning opportunities = more of their IQ potential is reached

2. Female IQ is distributed differently to male IQ. The AVERAGE is the same, but female IQ is more concentrated in the middle but less so at either end. Therefore there are many more male geniuses then female geniuses, but there are also more male idiots then female idiots.

Post: #3

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Yeah, I'm struggling, but I really don't have anything else to say.

Post: #4

as long as the female IQ is occupied with trash tv and gossip, even a 2x in IQ would not make a difference.

Post: #5

James Flynn has no medical or psych background at all. He is a political science major who has been fighting geneticists for years trying to prove that intelligence is not genetic. He is the man behind The Flynn Effect, which people have clung to for years simply because the scientific studies related to intelligence are regarded as hate facts. Its just more bullshit from him really, although no doubt people will lap it up.

Post: #6

Leaked sample question from the test:

Quote:42. If Jennifer Aniston is taller than Kim Kardashian and Kim Kardashian is taller than Hayden Panettiere, how much of your monthly credit limit will remain if you spring for Daquiris for the girls and buy those cute Ugg boots?

Post: #7

There is absolutely nothing new or surprising here.

The vast majority of studies have always converged on a male/female gap of 0-3 points. The average gap according to Flynn here is now "minimal", i.e. within that traditional range.

That females score higher in three countries does not especially mean anything and could well (I would venture probably) be an issue of small sample sizes.

The real difference is in (1) distribution; and (2) drive. The latter favors men, and the former leads to relatively far more male geniuses, as P Dog already pointed out (as well as more male retards).

The last factor is (3) how intelligence is distributed. Men are better at visuo-spatial and numerical tasks, while women are better at verbal. In combination with (1) and (2), this explains why literature is the only major sphere of human achievement in which women have put in a respectable performance.

Post: #8

As others have said, Flynn has no credibility. He says what he thinks is (politically) correct or uplifting, not what he has reason to believe is true.

It's amazing that the gap is only 3 points. Even though men obviously have way more drive than women, at only 3 points difference I'd still expect to see more female hard science Nobel winners, inventors and so on. I don't think social scientists really have a good explanation for this. Difference in drive/hormones/priorities only takes you so far.

Post: #9

(07-16-2012 09:38 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  As others have said, Flynn has no credibility. He says what he thinks is (politically) correct or uplifting, not what he has reason to believe is true.

It's amazing that the gap is only 3 points. Even though men obviously have way more drive than women, at only 3 points difference I'd still expect to see more female hard science Nobel winners, inventors and so on. I don't think social scientists really have a good explanation for this. Difference in drive/hormones/priorities only takes you so far.

Yeah but I (didn't read the article) imagine that this is an average.

So, the average IQ for men is 100, women 103.

Nobel prize winners/inventors/CEO's/awesome people have a tendency to be far above average. The fact is, you can't be at the top of the game unless you've devoted serious time and mental energy to it. That means a) If you've got an average IQ/intellect when you start, you're going to have to be a genius by the time you finish. b) Most women, even if they have an average or slightly above average IQ, are not going to become geniuses becaus the motivation for doing so isn't there.

Men's intelligence follows more of an inverse bell curve. There are a lot of illiterate men at the bottom of the pile and there are a lot more men at the top of the pile. That is because men gain more social advantage from variation.

Post: #10

Just saw this similar article on yahoo.

http://shine.yahoo.com/secrets-to-your-s...00313.html

Post: #11

(07-16-2012 09:38 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  As others have said, Flynn has no credibility. He says what he thinks is (politically) correct or uplifting, not what he has reason to believe is true.

It's amazing that the gap is only 3 points. Even though men obviously have way more drive than women, at only 3 points difference I'd still expect to see more female hard science Nobel winners, inventors and so on. I don't think social scientists really have a good explanation for this. Difference in drive/hormones/priorities only takes you so far.

I wonder about this too. The HBD crowd is always harping on the fact that blacks have low IQs thus haven't been represented well amongst Nobel prize winners and inventions. But then what explains why women who have IQ similar or in this case slightly surpassing men are almost absent from inventiveness relative to men? I would think 50% of the world's inventions would come from women. Maybe there are other things at work that explain things besides just IQ.

Post: #12

Women score lower or about the same as men? - zero coverage in the media.

Women score higher than men, in a marginal, tiny study? - MUST COVER STORY, EVERYWHERE.

Women score lower? IQ is worthless, has nothing to do with intelligence, it's a pseudo-science... Women score higher? Women are smarter, end of story buddy.

Post: #13

(07-16-2012 05:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-16-2012 09:38 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  As others have said, Flynn has no credibility. He says what he thinks is (politically) correct or uplifting, not what he has reason to believe is true.

It's amazing that the gap is only 3 points. Even though men obviously have way more drive than women, at only 3 points difference I'd still expect to see more female hard science Nobel winners, inventors and so on. I don't think social scientists really have a good explanation for this. Difference in drive/hormones/priorities only takes you so far.

I wonder about this too. The HBD crowd is always harping on the fact that blacks have low IQs thus haven't been represented well amongst Nobel prize winners and inventions. But then what explains why women who have IQ similar or in this case slightly surpassing men are almost absent from inventiveness relative to men? I would think 50% of the world's inventions would come from women. Maybe there are other things at work that explain things besides just IQ.

This is a really good point. I think I can explain it.


Black men in America, since the 1850's, have actually been quite accomplished compared to American women.

So my guess is that Black men, at the right end of the IQ curve, contribute a shit load to society just like white men at the right end of the IQ curve. However, because black men were either in dysfunctional societies (i.e. Africa), or under slavery in white societies, they simply never had the chance to use their talents.

Once, however, black men got some basic freedoms, many of them have become quite accomplished in white societies.

Compare that to American women, or women in general - they have had the same basic freedoms as men, if not more, and have far less to show for it.

Post: #14

(07-16-2012 04:08 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  James Flynn has no medical or psych background at all. He is a political science major who has been fighting geneticists for years trying to prove that intelligence is not genetic. He is the man behind The Flynn Effect, which people have clung to for years simply because the scientific studies related to intelligence are regarded as hate facts. Its just more bullshit from him really, although no doubt people will lap it up.

Regarding the Flynn effect, in the last few years the evidence has been showing that IQ scores have stopped rising in the first world amongst non-immigrants (I believe they're still increasing amongst African Americans as well). The improvements in phenotypic IQ are no longer stronger then the decline in genetic IQ. It's possible that we've hit the limit to which improved nutrition and education improves IQ, so now our dysgenic fertility for the last 60 years is catching up to us. I did some quick Googling and since the mid 1990's some first world countries have seen IQ slip amongst non-immigrants (U.K and Norway), Australia's have been static since 1975 and I'm not sure about the U.S.

One more tidbit about intelligence, it's been shown that the greatest single predictor of a persons IQ is the IQ of their mother, and the latest evidence is now saying that the genes for general IQ are located on (or at least predominately located on) the X chromosome, which means that general IQ is passed on maternally.

Post: #15

(07-17-2012 02:27 AM)P Dog Wrote:  One more tidbit about intelligence, it's been shown that the greatest single predictor of a persons IQ is the IQ of their mother, and the latest evidence is now saying that the genes for general IQ are located on (or at least predominately located on) the X chromosome, which means that general IQ is passed on maternally.

Interesting. While my mother isn't dumb by any means, she's no mensa candidate either.

My father, brother and myself on the other hand... Actually most of my dad's side of the family can be included as well.

The exception proves the rule though, eh?

Post: #16

the whole concept of IQ is highly questionable to begin with...

Post: #17

(07-17-2012 02:27 AM)P Dog Wrote:  One more tidbit about intelligence, it's been shown that the greatest single predictor of a persons IQ is the IQ of their mother, and the latest evidence is now saying that the genes for general IQ are located on (or at least predominately located on) the X chromosome, which means that general IQ is passed on maternally.

Interesting. But another reason that, statistically, intelligence would be more connected to the mother rather than the father is that almost ALL traits would show this pattern. Because the father the child is being compared to in these studies isn't necessarily it's biological father, even if that is his understanding, due to paternity fraud.

So you'd expect to find a closer link to the mother with almost any genetic trait, even those not specifically linked to the X-chromosone.

Post: #18

(07-17-2012 09:33 AM)w00t Wrote:  the whole concept of IQ is highly questionable to begin with...

The idea of IQ isn't all that questionable. It's that lots of people assume that we already know more about IQ than we really do.

It is one of those areas where the actual science gets pushed aside in favor of the the battle between left-leaning PC types and right-leaning HBD types.

Post: #19

(07-17-2012 09:50 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 02:27 AM)P Dog Wrote:  One more tidbit about intelligence, it's been shown that the greatest single predictor of a persons IQ is the IQ of their mother, and the latest evidence is now saying that the genes for general IQ are located on (or at least predominately located on) the X chromosome, which means that general IQ is passed on maternally.

Interesting. But another reason that, statistically, intelligence would be more connected to the mother rather than the father is that almost ALL traits would show this pattern. Because the father the child is being compared to in these studies isn't necessarily it's biological father, even if that is his understanding, due to paternity fraud.

So you'd expect to find a closer link to the mother with almost any genetic trait, even those not specifically linked to the X-chromosone.

Definitely. Makes you wonder if that study used paternity testing to determine whether or not IQ comes down maternally or paternally.

Post: #20

I'm getting emails from retarded girls regarding this study. Usually they just forward it without reading past the title. And looking at the source of origination of the emails, it's been by extremely pussy whipped beta men whom I know could use more than 1 blowjob a month from their wives.

Post: #21

(07-17-2012 07:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 09:50 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 02:27 AM)P Dog Wrote:  One more tidbit about intelligence, it's been shown that the greatest single predictor of a persons IQ is the IQ of their mother, and the latest evidence is now saying that the genes for general IQ are located on (or at least predominately located on) the X chromosome, which means that general IQ is passed on maternally.

Interesting. But another reason that, statistically, intelligence would be more connected to the mother rather than the father is that almost ALL traits would show this pattern. Because the father the child is being compared to in these studies isn't necessarily it's biological father, even if that is his understanding, due to paternity fraud.

So you'd expect to find a closer link to the mother with almost any genetic trait, even those not specifically linked to the X-chromosone.

Definitely. Makes you wonder if that study used paternity testing to determine whether or not IQ comes down maternally or paternally.

I Googled paternity stats: Paternity Myth: The Rarity of Cuckoldery

Around 3% non-paternity. I can see why you would think non-paternity is the reason why studies show intelligence is inherited maternally, but maternal intelligence is the reason why there so many more male geniuses and idiots then female geniuses and idiots.

When a female is born she inherits two X chromosomes with genes for general intelligence which both impart her her genetic intelligence. The science is sketchy over how this happens, but a regression towards the mean occurs due to having two X chromosomes which causes female intelligence to be more concentrated in the middle (the mean) of the bell curve.

Since male children inherit only one X chromosome instead of two like his sisters, if the genes they inherited were "smart" (I'm being really crude here, having said genes is no guarantee of being more intelligent, it just increases the likelihood), there is no second chromosome to act as a function backup and/or could cancel out or dampen the effects, so no regression towards the mean occurs.