Post: #1

This is a couple years old but I'm actually quite surprised this was posted in a mainstream publication given how politically incorrect it is. It gives a breakdown on how intelligence differs between men and women and destroys the myth of the glass ceiling. At the genius level, men are 8x as numerous as women. Even though men and women have similar IQs at the middle of their respective bell curves, men have a much wider curve than women so you will have far more brilliant men than brilliant women and far more retarded men than retarded women. When you think about it, male behavior tends to be more extreme overall than women. More heroism and innovation amongst men and more psychopaths, terrorists and criminals as well. Women are just kind of lukewarm and average in their intelligence and temperament, not that extreme in either direction. Perhaps this evolved because extreme traits in women were not conducive to their biological tendency of nurture.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/articl...-Lynn.html

Some notable excerpts:

Quote:For not only is the average man more intelligent than the average woman but also a clear and rather startling imbalance emerges between the sexes at the high levels of intelligence that the most demanding jobs require.

For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism.

Quote:, in almost 110 years of Nobel Prize history, only two women have ever won the Prize for physics, only four have won the Prize for chemistry and why no women at all have ever won the coveted Fields Medal for mathematics in eight decades of trying.

Quote:The undeniable, easily measurable fact remains that, by the time both sexes reach 21, men, on average, score five IQ points higher than women.

^^^ This does make you wonder how women are managing to graduate from college at higher rates? Either they are getting preferential treatment, are simply taking easier courses or men have just stop giving a shit about studying. Maybe some combination of all?

Quote:In 2005, the distinguished economist Lawrence Summers was forced to resign as President of Harvard University after expressing the view, at a seminar on diversity in the academic workplace, that in some fields the innate cognitive differences between the sexes might make the search for a perfect 50:50 gender balance impossible.

He didn't accept that the lack of women at senior level was all due to glass ceilings, anti-social hours or lack of opportunity and encouragement.

Instead, he went with what the science is clearly telling us - that at the really top level in maths and science, when we're not dealing with average intelligence but near genius, there are simply more men around who can do the job.

For that simple statement of truth, he was eventually forced out of his post.I take some comfort from the fact that Lawrence Summers' hormonally-driven male competitive instincts kicked in and he has now bounced back to become a senior economic adviser to President Obama.

Quote:My argument isn't based on crude chauvinist doctrine (although I'm quite sure my opponents will disagree) but on decades of research, relatively simple statistics and an understanding of the law of averages.

Of course, just because men, on average, are more intelligent then women, doesn't mean there are no individually brilliant women around.

If I'm right, it doesn't mean there will be no female professors of physics; it just means we should accept that there will be fewer of them. Nor does it mean that a woman will never win the Fields Medal for mathematics; it just means that we live in a world where such an event is very, very unlikely.

I realise my views are unfashionable, just as I realise the juggernaut of sexual equality and political correctness will take an awful lot of stopping.

But I say to the social engineers who dream up ever-more-ingenious ways of getting more women into top positions; don't be surprised if you find your nobly motivated ambitions foundering on the immovable rock of human nature.

Post: #2

(04-06-2013 07:31 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  This is a couple years old but I'm actually quite surprised this was posted in a mainstream publication given how politically incorrect it is.

Unfortunately, I don't think the DailyMail can count as MSM. It's more of a tabloid.

The fixation on the average IQ of men vs. women is a red herring.

Men have much greater variance with regard to pretty much every behavioral/mental trait; it's only sensible this extends to intelligence as well. Men also seem to have a quantitative advantage, and women a verbal one.

Verbal intelligence is more important for everyday life (national income correlates more with verbal than overall IQ across nations), but headline accomplishments in business, science, and technologies are more dependent on quantitative intelligence, and thus will be dominated by men.

Any average IQ difference (whether in favor of women or men) will get swamped out by greater male variance, since any difference is almost certainly within +- 5.

Feminists are hypergamous and only pay attention to men on the right tail. However, greater male variance will produce more men than women on both tails. I don't see feminists complaining about there being more homeless men.

(04-06-2013 07:31 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^^^ This does make you wonder how women are managing to graduate from college at higher rates? Either they are getting preferential treatment, are simply taking easier courses or men have just stop giving a shit about studying. Maybe some combination of all?

Yes. As far as the Big 5 of personality traits go, women are consistently higher in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism--traits that lead to better grades. Men are also more plagued by poor attention spans.

Women also are concentrated more in less G-loaded subject areas--men still dominate STEMs. The lower down the hierarchy of sciences you go, the more women.

Finally, men are more knowledgable than women of the same IQ. Men consistently outperform women on current events quizzes on Pew and such; men are more curious about the world around them.

Women are more shielded from the realities of the world by their solipsism, lack of curiosity, and the reluctance of men to call them out on their bullshit.

Women also aren't as inspired to achieve in business or technology because men aren't attracted to female accomplishment like women are attracted to male accomplishment.

Post: #3

A former black pimp once told me "pretty girls are smart".

I think he meant socially. There is some evidence that shows women are socially more evolved than men, although men win in mathematical/scientific intelligence.

Post: #4

(04-06-2013 08:16 PM)globalunderground Wrote:  A former black pimp once told me "pretty girls are smart".

I think he meant socially. There is some evidence that shows women are socially more evolved than men, although men win in mathematical/scientific intelligence.

Attractiveness is correlated with intelligence, as both are affected by genetic load and other genetic factors.

But knowledgeability, I would say, has a negative association with female attractiveness.

What use is knowing stuff for an attractive girl? Especially about boring, icky stuff like math or computers?

Post: #5

What I'm saying is, there are more socially deficient males out there, even if they may have a higher IQ

Post: #6

(04-06-2013 08:03 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 07:31 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  This is a couple years old but I'm actually quite surprised this was posted in a mainstream publication given how politically incorrect it is.

Unfortunately, I don't think the DailyMail can count as MSM. It's more of a tabloid.

The fixation on the average IQ of men vs. women is a red herring.

Men have much greater variance with regard to pretty much every behavioral/mental trait; it's only sensible this extends to intelligence as well. Men also seem to have a quantitative advantage, and women a verbal one.

Verbal intelligence is more important for everyday life (national income correlates more with verbal than overall IQ across nations), but headline accomplishments in business, science, and technologies are more dependent on quantitative intelligence, and thus will be dominated by men.

Any average IQ difference (whether in favor of women or men) will get swamped out by greater male variance, since any difference is almost certainly within +- 5.

Feminists are hypergamous and only pay attention to men on the right tail. However, greater male variance will produce more men than women on both tails. I don't see feminists complaining about there being more homeless men.

(04-06-2013 07:31 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^^^ This does make you wonder how women are managing to graduate from college at higher rates? Either they are getting preferential treatment, are simply taking easier courses or men have just stop giving a shit about studying. Maybe some combination of all?

Yes. As far as the Big 5 of personality traits go, women are consistently higher in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism--traits that lead to better grades. Men are also more plagued by poor attention spans.

Women also are concentrated more in less G-loaded subject areas--men still dominate STEMs. The lower down the hierarchy of sciences you go, the more women.

Finally, men are more knowledgable than women of the same IQ. Men consistently outperform women on current events quizzes on Pew and such; men are more curious about the world around them.

Women are more shielded from the realities of the world by their solipsism, lack of curiosity, and the reluctance of men to call them out on their bullshit.

Women also aren't as inspired to achieve in business or technology because men aren't attracted to female accomplishment like women are attracted to male accomplishment.

^^^^ SO MUCH THIS IT HURTS !! ( Lack of genuine curiosity part )

As a teenager, every time we went to a family gathering, the men would always talk about a variety of topics. Sports, history, politics, the economy, women, cars, career prospects ... you name it. My mother & other female family members on the other hand ... would ONLY converse about people. Their friends, their kids , husbands and people at work !

Now mind you my mother is a Doctor and most my aunts are highly educated. But when it came outside of work and the classroom their curiosity about things in life that do not affect them directly approached zero !

This aspect of women's personality is still the hardest for me to deal with. I constantly have to try to act dumber than i am by pretending to be interested in things i don't and keeping things simple and fun.

If women didnt have vaginas to fuck & babies to make I'm sure Men would just hunt and eat em like animals. They have no use , they're not funny & few are interesting.

But i agree that socially ... Women are smarter. Even those hot bimbos that try to act all dumb and stuff deep down know whats up. The cute " dumb blonde" voice is just a cover because it butters up most men.

Post: #7

(04-06-2013 08:22 PM)Kabal Wrote:  Attractiveness is correlated with intelligence, as both are affected by genetic load and other genetic factors.

I've heard this before, but I can only imagine that the correlation is strong up to a degree. When you start talking about people who are freakishly intelligent, I think it starts to become correlated with physical unattractiveness.

Post: #8

(04-06-2013 08:29 PM)LibertarianBootyHunter Wrote:  But i agree that socially ... Women are smarter. Even those hot bimbos that try to act all dumb and stuff deep down know whats up. The cute " dumb blonde" voice is just a cover because it butters up most men.

I've seen no evidence of this supposed social intelligence. They don't have the aggression associated with high testosterone but otherwise their social intelligence seems to consist of qualities that are not considered desirable in men - submissiveness to authority, ease of lying and manipulating others. Have you observed women in the work place? It is constant fighting, gossip, tantrums, tears.

Post: #9

(04-06-2013 07:31 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^^^ This does make you wonder how women are managing to graduate from college at higher rates? Either they are getting preferential treatment, are simply taking easier courses or men have just stop giving a shit about studying. Maybe some combination of all?

It's probably because more women take worthless majors like theater, soft sciences, history, and english.

Due to grade inflation, not only are they more likely to graduate (it's hard to be unmotivated when you're constantly rewarded), but they're more likely to graduate with a higher GPA because none of their course material is even remotely challenging or stimulating.

I believe that women get an innate pleasure from doing mindless, monotonous tasks like studying shit by rote, writing things down, long distance running, drawing and painting realistic pictures of things they printed off from google images, memorizing words in foreign languages, and learning how to sing in choirs.

The education majors at our school bitch about how hard it is. That's funny, because I ain't never seen them in my math or physics classes.

Post: #10

Women have to be more "stable," (ie, boring, in the middle of the bell curve, not extremely smart, dumb, incapable, overly capable, etc.) because their primary role and purpose, biologically, is to nurture the young, which is a far more passive role than that of a man. Bearing and nurturing children requires a comfortable, safe, nest. (Made comfortable and safe by the sweat of a man, maintained by the attention-to-detail of a woman.) Excessive stupidity would hinder the maintenance of this, and excessive brilliance would discourage it too. Women are not biologically suited to being great achievers, they keep the home fires (which the men figured out how to light) burning, so that the men can have a safe store of resources, to balance out their more erratic lifestyle of great highs and lows. When men behave like men and women behave like women, the relationship is symbiotic. Now that roles have been reversed in spite of nature, the relationship has become parasitical, and unsustainable.

Post: #11

(04-06-2013 08:52 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 08:22 PM)Kabal Wrote:  Attractiveness is correlated with intelligence, as both are affected by genetic load and other genetic factors.

I've heard this before, but I can only imagine that the correlation is strong up to a degree. When you start talking about people who are freakishly intelligent, I think it starts to become correlated with physical unattractiveness.

It's a bi-modal distribution. In the huge, long term Terman study of the gifted, people with 140 IQ were happier and healthier than average people, but people way out at 160+ were more unhappy than average. What if all people seemed like 7 year olds to you?

Post: #12

Women are so dumb. My roommate is a veterinarian getting a second masters degree in some other science stuff.

The only thing she wants to talk about is her cats.

It's why they always group off among themselves in mixed company, guys can't stand the monotony. And women have to agree on everything, they can't tolerate disagreement without taking it personally way worse than guys do.

As above poster mentioned, if they weren't dumb they'd never be able to hang around with 2 or 3 year olds all day without hating them.

7% of patents, that tells it all right there.

Post: #13

(04-06-2013 11:28 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  As above poster mentioned, if they weren't dumb they'd never be able to hang around with 2 or 3 year olds all day without hating them.

Brings to mind Schopenhauer, On Women:

Quote:Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.

...

This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important.

Post: #14

Lemmo, how would you define social intelligence then? Wikipedia defines it as "the capacity to effectively navigate and negotiate complex social relationships and environments". Seems like deference to authority, lying, and manipulation are all important qualities.

Post: #15

If I took courses in social work, communications, child development, and speech pathology and not bio engineering I would of graduated with a 4.0.

Post: #16

Excellent comment that got 74 thumbs up:

Quote:Oh dear - doesn't the author know that you're not allowed to write articles that praise men over women? It's fine the other way round - you can call men thickos all day long if you want, and claim that women are better at everything they do, but you are not allowed to say that about men. In reality, it's been known for a while that girls do better at school now due to changes made to accomodate them. i.e. coursework taking precedent over exams. Add in a massive proportion of female teachers, treating boys as nuisances and prioritising mathematics programs for girls whilst ignoring boys' lack of progress in English. The sad fact is that women have no issue with the fact it seems acceptable to laugh at and denigrate boys and portray men as bumbling fools and idiots in adverts and sitcoms, yet an article saying men can be more intelligent than women attracts comments suggesting it is "hate speech". Nauseating.

Post: #17

According to Esther Vilar women arent stupid per se but they have a different form of intelligence than men.
They are good at remembering and repeating things but cant form their own ideas and thoughts. Thats why you will find lots of women working as translators and in languages but they arent great inventors. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Thats also why women do better in school, when I think about school and even university it was all about mindlessly repeating facts without any deeper understanding. Even in university I know girls who are dumb as bread but they get good grades since they are good at remembering facts. Sometimes in a seminar you have a girl repeating a part from a textbook word for word. If you ask her what it acutally means you just get blank looks.

Post: #18

(04-07-2013 08:28 AM)w00t Wrote:  According to Esther Vilar women arent stupid per se but they have a different form of intelligence than men.
They are good at remembering and repeating things but cant form their own ideas and thoughts. Thats why you will find lots of women working as translators and in languages but they arent great inventors. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Thats also why women do better in school, when I think about school and even university it was all about mindlessly repeating facts without any deeper understanding. Even in university I know girls who are dumb as bread but they get good grades since they are good at remembering facts. Sometimes in a seminar you have a girl repeating a part from a textbook word for word. If you ask her what it acutally means you just get blank looks.

I remember in college when I took my first metaphysics course... The professor was a brilliant exponent of the material, but not so great when it came to grading and evaluating coursework and exam essays. The girls all sat in the back and did superbly in his class all semester. They parroted the textbook verbatim, and were rewarded with good grades. I tried to actually understand and articulate the concepts from my own mind, and was not doing so well. At the end, I studied my ass off for the heavily weighted final exam, everything finally clicked and I understood it completely, and did well on the final. I left the course with a B and a solid and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. The girls all got A's, but every one of them admitted that they had no idea what any of the stuff they'd memorized actually meant, nor did they care.

Education was, after all, yet another thing that was invented and built up by men.

Post: #19

(04-07-2013 07:11 AM)CThunder86 Wrote:  If I took courses in social work, communications, child development, and speech pathology and not bio engineering I would of graduated with a 4.0.

True this. I stumbled ass backwards through my sociology, psych, and history courses and in all three classes my tests were the curve at least half of the time. I ended up with a final grade of 104% in my sociology class because the professor had to tack on an extra four points (including the curve) on the last three exams because half of the class did so poorly.

What was funny was that 3/4 of the class were girls. They must have thought that "questions girl" who delayed class every day by ten minutes was getting the killer grade, but I had a few chats with the teacher and found out it was my test and project grades. They never figured that a seemingly always hungover dude who dressed badly and attended class roughly every other session was killing every one of them in class. Good shit.

Post: #20

(04-07-2013 07:11 AM)CThunder86 Wrote:  If I took courses in social work, communications, child development, and speech pathology and not bio engineering I would of graduated with a 4.0.

Am i the only one who sees the irony in this statement? hahahahahaha

Post: #21

(04-06-2013 09:12 PM)Hannibal Wrote:  The education majors at our school bitch about how hard it is. That's funny, because I ain't never seen them in my math or physics classes.

Reminds me of the Bill Burr bit where he discusses how women love to embellish how difficult their lives are (e.g. how difficult motherhood is), even when their tasks and responsibilities are trivial.

Not surprisingly that intended education majors get curb-stomped across the board on the GRE. Math and Physics kill it on Quant, Philosophy on Verbal and Writing, and Economics does pretty well overall.