Report Claims Men More Intelligent Than Women

[sketerpot]

To add to the above pots, what about people who are geniuses but when they enter a test room their mind goes blank?

How does that happen? I'm not disputing it, but I've never understood it. Does the test room emit evil test-room vibes? Do some test rooms put a Tesla coil in there to distract people?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

To add to the above pots, what about people who are geniuses but when they enter a test room their mind goes blank?

How does that happen? I'm not disputing it, but I've never understood it. Does the test room emit evil test-room vibes? Do some test rooms put a Tesla coil in there to distract people?

It probably has to do with adrenaline, which degrades thinking abilities . The complaints put up now are those people put up against any test. Unfortunately, for all its flaws, tests are all we have for rapidly evaluating a person's ability.

And I thought the last time anyone said something on this subject, women were 3% superior in "general intelligence"?

[Mrs Kendall]

To add to the above pots, what about people who are geniuses but when they enter a test room their mind goes blank?

How does that happen? I'm not disputing it, but I've never understood it. Does the test room emit evil test-room vibes? Do some test rooms put a Tesla coil in there to distract people?

Since it happens to me I can accuratly say what happens with me and only me, I'm not saying this is why it happens to everyone else. For me it's because I've always been nervous about tests because of the results that could come from them, ie. you could fail and be held back a year in high school or fail your course in college etc.. I could study all night long, I could not study at all, but the same things still happen, my mind goes blank, I start to sweat, I start to shake, and I become generally nervous if I know I'm walking into a test room.

This is something that is (secretly, yet not so secret anymore) keeping me from taking my drivers test to get my license. It sucks, and yet I know I'm smart and my husband can attest to that as well so it's not just my ego

Does any of that make sense to you? I hope so.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't put much stock in this. The IQ scores of Jewish men tested in the First War World by the US Army were the lowest of any white ethnic group in the country; today the IQ scores of Jewish men are the highest of any white ethnic group in the country. In the 1920s, Poles performed on IQ tests at the same level that blacks do today; now people of Polish ethnicity follow the averages for whites.

The long and short of it, as Thomas Sowell argued so eloquently, is that "innate" abilities may very be innate--but they also must be activated, that someone must grow up in a culture which fosters learning, achievement, competition, and progress to draw on the full resources of their mind.

Women, of course, have never lived in such a culture. To this day we're encouraged to be underachievers in society by a significant portion of our whole cultural schema. Effective equality between men and women was only achieved in the mid-1970s, which means we need at least another 45 years, to go by the Jewish and Polish examples, to see the effects of those changes locked into test scores and other such things.

Even then, I'm worried, because there's still an enormous pressure in modern society, particularly that in America, to keep women in traditional roles, and that is sure to have a dampening effect.

[sketerpot]

This is something that is (secretly, yet not so secret anymore) keeping me from taking my drivers test to get my license. It sucks, and yet I know I'm smart and my husband can attest to that as well so it's not just my ego

I can understand this. When I first took my drivers license driving test, I was flooded with adrenaline. And I bombed the thing badly since I drove by a one-way road sign the wrong way.

The second time, I had cultivated cynicism and coolness and the adrenaline rush was a lot less... and I passed. Then I went to school and had to give a speech, and a weird thing happened. Normally I'm very nervous about public speaking, and my sympathetic nervous system goes nuts. This time, I was recovering from the driving test and I couldn't seem to muster the adrenaline to be nervous during my speech. Miraculously, I'm never nervous about giving speeches anymore.

On the other hand, academic tests are easy for me. I go in knowing that I can handle the material I'm being tested over, I don't get nervous, and I just kick the test's ass. I wonder if there's some common thread here, or if it's just totally random.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

On the other hand, academic tests are easy for me. I go in knowing that I can handle the material I'm being tested over, I don't get nervous, and I just kick the test's ass. I wonder if there's some common thread here, or if it's just totally random.

I've got a funny experience. However uncomfortable I was feeling with the test before I go in, once I go in, I'm able to put it all aside and stay cool. This coolness goes on after the test, buoyed by a wave of optimism. Halfway between the last test and the report card, I start getting anxiety attacks where I second-guess myself. The last hour before the card comes out I'm in near total panic. When this semester''s report card came and I knew I am going to graduate after all, I spent the next twenty minutes unable to do anything but make high-pitched, unintelligible noises, a sign that stresses had reached a new top during this last, most challenging report card.

[Mrs Kendall]

When I said drivers test I meant the written test you need to do to start the license process, BTW I'm 26 years old and I still can't bring myself to take the test for fear of failure especially since I'll be paying to take this test.
I know all the road signs and rules of the road from being a passenger for years, so essentially I've studied for years for this test yet I still feel the fear of failing it, because I always froze up on tests in high school.

I haven't even thought about the road test very much, but when I do I'm afraid I'll have an unsympathetic tester and he'll make me do a bunch of parrallel parking and crap like that, which I know I will never use when I finally get my license.

[sketerpot]

The long and short of it, as Thomas Sowell argued so eloquently, is that "innate" abilities may very be innate--but they also must be activated, that someone must grow up in a culture which fosters learning, achievement, competition, and progress to draw on the full resources of their mind.

It's interesting that the heritability of IQ increases dramatically as people get older, when early influences on their IQ have presumably been balanced out by the experiences of a longer life, and their intelligence has had more time to be activated (or more time to languish after having been activated early).

[Eleas]

It's interesting that the heritability of IQ increases dramatically as people get older, when early influences on their IQ have presumably been balanced out by the experiences of a longer life, and their intelligence has had more time to be activated (or more time to languish after having been activated early).

Not so strange, really. School is education in concentrated form, but life is an education in itself.

As an aside, I'd take a moment to argue that at least over here, I haven't perceived any significant bias against educating women in schools. The discrimination tends to come later, in workplaces.

[Elfdart]

You guys are sooo gullible!

Let's have a look at some of Richard Lynn's other works, shall we?:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1271

Take the infamous Chapter 13, which Murray has often claimed is the only chapter that deals with race (far from it--there are at least four chapters focused entirely on race, and the whole book is organized around the concept).

Murray and Herrnstein's claims about the higher IQs of Asians--widely cited in the media as fact--are almost entirely cited to Richard Lynn, a professor of psychology at the University of Ulster.

In the book's acknowledgements, Murray and Herrnstein declare they "benefitted especially from the advice" of Lynn and five other people.

Lynn has received at least $325,000 from the Pioneer Fund (Rolling Stone, 10/20/94). He frequently publishes in eugenicist journals like Mankind Quarterly--published by Roger Pearson and co-edited by Lynn himself--and Personality and Individual Differences, edited by Pioneer grantee Hans Eysenck. Among Lynn's writings cited in The Bell Curve are "The Intelligence of the Mongoloids" and "Positive Correlations Between Head Size and IQ."

Murray and Herrnstein describe Lynn as "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences." Here's a sample of Lynn's thinking on such differences: "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." (cited in Newsday, 11/9/94)

Elsewhere Lynn makes clear which "incompetent cultures" need "phasing out": "Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?" (cited in New Republic, 10/31/94)

Lynn's fingerprints are all over the footnotes to Chapter 13. In discussing the question of Asian intellectual superiority, Murray and Herrnstein say that the affirmative position has been well defended by Lynn, but that the question can only be decided by "data obtained from identical tests administered to populations that are comparable except for race."

"We have been able to identify three such efforts," the authors announce--two that support the concept of Asian superiority and one that does not. A review of the footnotes reveals a sleight of hand: The two tests that support Lynn's thesis were conducted by Lynn himself. (See New York Review of Books, 12/1/94.)

For those who don't know, the Pioneer Fund is a Nazi organization that is always pimping the idea of "phasing out" certain people. I'm not surprised seeing a white supremacist with a taste for phrenology branching out into misogyny. I am surprised that news outlets would print this bullshit without any mention of the crazed theories of the author. I can't wait for a respectable news outlet to do PR for the latest from David "More Jews Died In Ted Kennedy's Car Than Auschwitz" Irving.

[Peregrin Toker]

Does that not count as a borderline ad hominem argument, Elfy?

I mean, to use an analogy, The Horten Brothers were Nazis too but that does not mean that flying wings do not have advantages over conventional aircraft design.

[Master of Ossus]

I am surprised that news outlets would print this bullshit without any mention of the crazed theories of the author. I can't wait for a respectable news outlet to do PR for the latest from David "More Jews Died In Ted Kennedy's Car Than Auschwitz" Irving.

The papers you cited have survived the peer-review process quite well. In particular, the controversial second one on the correlation between brain-size and IQ is now quite well accepted, and has been verified by numerous follow-up studies using various methodologies.

[Elfdart]

Does that not count as a borderline ad hominem argument, Elfy?

I mean, to use an analogy, The Horten Brothers were Nazis too but that does not mean that flying wings do not have advantages over conventional aircraft design.

So a geologist who keeps rambling on about how to find oil and water with a divining rod is to be taken seriously until his bullshit is thoroughly picked over? Please. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ad hominem is fair play when someone has no evidence and asks you to take his word for it. Lynn's word is worth < Jack Shit.

Flying wings have nothing to do with Nazi race theory, eugenics, creationism and other forms of pseudo-science. The belief that some people are genetically smarter than others based on "race", religion, ethnic background or sex does have something to do with eugenics (in this case a quack scientist) in common.

The papers you cited have survived the peer-review process quite well. In particular, the controversial second one on the correlation between brain-size and IQ is now quite well accepted, and has been verified by numerous follow-up studies using various methodologies.

You can always find people to affirm the ravings of racists, sexists and other forms of crank science, as the "Intelligent Design" hucksters have proved. That's because eugenics, "scientific" racism, misogyny and phrenology all have a long history of admiration among the boys in white coats. Yokels don't have a monopoly on bigotry.

[Master of Ossus]

The papers you cited have survived the peer-review process quite well. In particular, the controversial second one on the correlation between brain-size and IQ is now quite well accepted, and has been verified by numerous follow-up studies using various methodologies.

You can always find people to affirm the ravings of racists, sexists and other forms of crank science, as the "Intelligent Design" hucksters have proved. That's because eugenics, "scientific" racism, misogyny and phrenology all have a long history of admiration among the boys in white coats. Yokels don't have a monopoly on bigotry.

Unfortunately, then, mainstream science has picked up on the idea that brain size is heavily correlated with intelligence. Frankly, I tend to agree with them based on this article and others like it.

Of course, some people might support such conclusions based on personal biases and failings, but the studies done seem to have been reasonable and IMO cannot be dismissed that easily. At the very least, articles like this one seem to require a dedicated response, and the ones I've found on the internet seem to be nothing but "Those conclusions can't be right. They just can't."

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Unfortunately, then, mainstream science has picked up on the idea that brain size is heavily correlated with intelligence. Frankly, I tend to agree with them based on this article and others like it.

May I ask what's so hard to believe about the hypothesis that a larger brain would help? Sure, a larger brain doesn't guarantee intelligence, but all else being equal, it is hard to see why some more space to put neurons in won't help.

If a brain is larger and no smarter, it is arguably less efficient. If it is reprehensible to think that "large brain = smart" due to vague eugenics concerns, isn't it equally reprehensible to think "large brain = no gained intelligence = less efficient"?

[Elfdart]

Unfortunately, then, mainstream science has picked up on the idea that brain size is heavily correlated with intelligence. Frankly, I tend to agree with them based on this article and others like it.

May I ask what's so hard to believe about the hypothesis that a larger brain would help? Sure, a larger brain doesn't guarantee intelligence, but all else being equal, it is hard to see why some more space to put neurons in won't help.

If a brain is larger and no smarter, it is arguably less efficient. If it is reprehensible to think that "large brain = smart" due to vague eugenics concerns, isn't it equally reprehensible to think "large brain = no gained intelligence = less efficient"?

Wouldn't that depend on which part of the brain is larger and in which way? A brain could be larger because the olfactory section is larger. Having a better sense of smell means dick when it comes to intelligence.

[Elfdart]

Unfortunately, then, mainstream science has picked up on the idea that brain size is heavily correlated with intelligence. Frankly, I tend to agree with them based on this article and others like it.

Of course, some people might support such conclusions based on personal biases and failings, but the studies done seem to have been reasonable and IMO cannot be dismissed that easily. At the very least, articles like this one seem to require a dedicated response, and the ones I've found on the internet seem to be nothing but "Those conclusions can't be right. They just can't."

The fact that Lynn has done a press release of his "findings" but hasn't publicized his actual research should be your first clue that something fishy is going on. The fact that fellow Pioneer Funders Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein pulled the same bullshit with The Bell Curve should be the second dropped shoe. For those who don't remember, Hernstein and Murray made a big fuss about their "research" that supposedly proved blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. Of course, they didn't show their stuff for peer review (except by others on the take from the Pioneer Fund) -in fact, they didn't even send out galleys for regular book reviews. Why? Because they were pimping a fraud they knew wouldn't withstand scrutiny. Once real scientists got hold of The Bell Curve, it cracked like the Liberty Bell.

This gem shows what passes for research with Richard Lynn:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/019.html

The link between The Bell Curve and the racist and fascist group surrounding Mankind Quarterly is not accidental. Murray and Herrnstein acknowledge the guidance and literature of Richard Lynn, a professor of psychology in Northern Ireland. Lynn is an associate editor of Mankind Quarterly, whose work is cited in The Bell Curve no less than twenty-four times. Murray and Herrnstein note Lynn's assertion that the IQ of blacks in Africa is 70, at the low end of what is considered educably retarded. Although Lynn maintains that an IQ of 70 is a valid approximation of black IQ throughout Africa, it is based on a single 1989 study of 1000 sixteen-year-olds using the South African Junior Aptitude Test.

Furthermore, the actual author of this 1989 study was not Lynn but Dr. Ken Owen, who maintained explicitly that the results in no way suggested a biological inferiority of black people, but were the result of poorer education of black children under the racist system of apartheid. Yet both Lynn, and Murray and Herrnstein, insist on drawing racist implications from the Owen study, and from other such reports conducted under apartheid.

It is impossible in the context of a review to evaluate and refute the large body of tainted evidence that Murray and Herrnstein employ. But it is tainted. For example, they compare the IQ of less than 200 Japanese children with a sample of 64,000 Americans taken thirteen years earlier. The small sample of Japanese was not taken in any way which could be said to represent Japanese society as a whole, and the 13 year time difference between the studies was artificially adjusted by the distribution of extra statistical points. This is just plain bad science. And that is the fundamental point about The Bell Curve. The function of science is to reveal the truth, and all science worthy of the name serves the people as it serves the truth. What Murray and Herrnstein have done is the opposite of science. They have assembled a body of work by racists and fascists, by ideologues so committed to racialism that every difference noted between ethnic groups within racist societies, such as the U.S. and South Africa during apartheid, is almost automatically attributed to alleged biological inferiority rather than racial exclusion, enforced poverty, mass unemployment, poor education, and the many other forms of ruling class ideology and oppression.

Another hoax the media are all too willing to believe.

[Lord of the Abyss]

May I ask what's so hard to believe about the hypothesis that a larger brain would help? Sure, a larger brain doesn't guarantee intelligence, but all else being equal, it is hard to see why some more space to put neurons in won't help.

Because a big brain won't make you smarter if it's tied up in controlling a big body. This is classic rascism/sexism, like in the old days when scientists "proved" the inferiority of blacks by comparing the brain size of a female pygmy and an over-six-foot German male. The only thing that matters about brain size is it's size relative to the body; it's not like humans have the largest brain on Earth, after all.

[Master of Ossus]

Another hoax the media are all too willing to believe.

Did you even read the article I posted? It had nothing to do with the Bell Curve or any similar texts. This is purely a way of ignoring the main point by focusing entirely on someone vaguely associated with it, even though his research was not definitive or even referenced. Suffice it to say, the article I linked to makes an extremely compelling case largely because it refers only to published studies that were duplicated numerous times by researchers at several reputable and fully-accredited universities.

It's easy to brush off one guy as a quack, but you're not facing one guy. Even if the original source of the idea is very questionable (though, really, the idea that brain size and intelligence were correlated dates way back), the research fully supports the conclusion that brain-size is significantly correlated with intelligence even in modern human populations.

Edit: fixed typo.

Second Edit: Added edits.

[Master of Ossus]

Because a big brain won't make you smarter if it's tied up in controlling a big body. This is classic rascism/sexism, like in the old days when scientists "proved" the inferiority of blacks by comparing the brain size of a female pygmy and an over-six-foot German male. The only thing that matters about brain size is it's size relative to the body; it's not like humans have the largest brain on Earth, after all.

The article I linked to earlier indicates that the absolute brain size actually does make a difference, and that the difference is robust and statistically significant. This is probably because the two do not scale linearly, as shown here. Honestly, at some point we have to acknowledge that merely decrying "racism/sexism" when researchers come out with something we don't like does nothing to advance anything. There is, frankly, not a trace of racism or sexism in the articles that I linked to--the only thing that prevents you from accepting them is your prejudice against conclusions you don't like. It's true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but with a sample size of over 50,000 and extremely robust correlative values (especially using MRI scans), it's no longer feasible to simply argue that the evidence isn't there and we should begin to study the reasons for WHY such studies repeatedly demonstrate such significant differences.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Wouldn't that depend on which part of the brain is larger and in which way? A brain could be larger because the olfactory section is larger. Having a better sense of smell means dick when it comes to intelligence.

I assumed the brain scaled up more or less linearly.

Well, in your case that might not be intelligence in the usual sense, but it is still an advantage isn't it? If the larger olfactory section brought no advantage, than it is less efficient, no? And if you think it plausible that "Bigger olfactory section"=better smell, then shouldn't "bigger frontal lobe"=higher intelligence?