Male vs female

[Anonymous No.10005625]

So we know men are physiologically stronger than women on average (usually by 30-60%), but what studies are there regarding psychologically and just generally cognitive potential?

Men seem innately good with tools, for example.

Any research on this?

[Anonymous No.10005648]

I read a study not too long ago that compared IQ/Persoanlity between a couple thousand or so male and females.

From what I recall, men and woman and technically the same when it comes to their cognitive abilities. Woman tend to be more orderly and men tend to be more industrial

[Anonymous No.10005649]

>>10005625
Can I ask?

Where the fuck do you get these pictures guys? Jesus Wept.

[Anonymous No.10005650]

>>10005648
>From what I recall, men and woman and technically the same when it comes to their cognitive abilities. Woman tend to be more orderly and men tend to be more industrial

This sounds extremely and intentionally vague.

[Anonymous No.10005743]

>>10005650
It's basically saying women are more detail and small task oriented and men are more about mass scale efficiency and labor

[Anonymous No.10005751]

>>10005625
It's essentially impossible to determine because you can't remove the cultural aspect from an experiment without it being ridiculously unethical

[Anonymous No.10005772]

Men and women have similar median IQ levels, but men have a flatter distribution, leading to over-representation at the two extremes of the spectrum (there are more male retards and geniuses than female)

[Anonymous No.10005777]

>>10005751
>It's essentially impossible to determine because you caan't remove the cultural aspect from an experiment
Absolutely agree.
>without it being ridiculously unethical
Care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.10005796]

>>10005625
wow those two are absolutely disgusting

[Anonymous No.10005826]

>>10005796
they're 15 and 14 respectively, I believe.

[Anonymous No.10005827]

>>10005625
This is what a fathers broken dreams look like.

[Anonymous No.10005829]

>>10005625
Hotly debated subject but just taking the weighted mean of the studies that have been done (only on adults/late teens) men have an advantage of... 2 IQ points. See pic related. Which is basically meaningless. It's far closer than say the black-white IQ gap in the US, which is an entire standard deviation (American whites 100, American blacks 85)

Men and women do have many differences.in psychology BEYOND IQ though. For example we know that male baby chimpanzees play with trucks, while females prefer plush dollies. So it seems like common sense (I haven't seen any studies on this but my knowledge of the subject is very elementary) that this carries over into humans. Girls just naturally prefer traditionally feminine things and boys prefer traditionally masculine things. It doesn't mean one is smarter than the other, we're just different in a way that complements the other.

[Anonymous No.10005839]

>>10005777
you would have to raise an entire generation under conditions that completely separate them from society.

[Anonymous No.10005842]

>>10005648
Sounds like a dumb thing you read if you got that conclusion.

Men/women have an IQ difference, a cognitive difference on an overall scale. Take the bellcurve for example, men have a lot of variety for our intelligence. From dumb as brick to smart as hell. Where as women aren't so much, they're right in the middle of the pack. Sure there's ocassional annecdotes, but that's that. Look at the list of scientists by gender. List of inventors by gender. List of mathematicians by gender. List of chess masters by gender. List of Go masters by gender. etc.

Cognitive potentials difference is certainly there. On average men's brain are ~10% larger than women, we can attribute that to just physical size ratio difference. There's no direct correlation between brain size/intelligence between different species but there's certainly one within one. Even across race, the brain size factor correlates with IQ, intelligence, etc.

[Anonymous No.10005843]

>>10005829
>For example we know that male baby chimpanzees play with trucks, while females prefer plush dollies.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10005844]

>>10005842
"outlier" is the word you're looking for, not "anecdote"

[Anonymous No.10005849]

>>10005844
No, I meant to use the word anecdotes. Frequent rebuttal to the argument is an anecdote. People are more emotional, so they resort more to personal experience rather than statistical outliers. Especially when it hits their core belief system.

[Anonymous No.10005855]

>>10005796
id let them rim me

[Anonymous No.10005857]

id let them suck me if i were their dad

[Anonymous No.10005858]

>>10005625
I can't be bothered to find studies now, but the way it goes is that both sexes have similar cognitive abilities, but women tend to group around the center of the bell curve. The average is the same, but you'll see more male geniuses and more male psychopaths/other mental illnesses.

On average though, yeah, men tend to be better with spatial tasks (tool use, navigation, etc.) While women tend to be more socially-minded

[Anonymous No.10005859]

>>10005625
>>10005826
>it would be illegal in my state to rape either one of those chicks
Our laws are so retarded

[Anonymous No.10005877]

>>10005843
Ok

>chimpanzees- females prefer intants, males rough-and-tumble play
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210014491
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/101220-chimpanzees-play-nature-nurture-science-animals-evolution/

>rhesus monkeys- males vastly prefer wheeled toys, females prefer plush toys
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

I should add that in the last study, the males tended to show a MUCH greater preference for masculine toys, whereas the girls were more likely to prefer girl toys, but they'd still play with masculine toys as well. So there was a preference for feminine toys, but it wasn't as significant as the male preference for masculine toys.

[Anonymous No.10005879]

>>10005859
Even if they were 18 it still would be illegal for you to rape them.

[Anonymous No.10005889]

>>10005843
>>10005877
cont.

>vervet monkeys- males prefer cars and trucks, females prefer dollies, both prefer picture books and stuffed dogs equally
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513802001071

There's also a ton of studies (e.g., Berenbaum and Hines, 1992; Campbell et al., 2000; Pasterski et al., 2005; Serbin et al., 2001) showing human male and female children preferring traditionally masculine and feminine toys respectively but you asked about the monkeys...

[Anonymous No.10005890]

>>10005879
>commiefornian detected

[Anonymous No.10005961]

>>10005625
God I wish that were me

[Anonymous No.10005968]

>>10005879
and I bet you call yourself a liberal u fucking oppressor

[Anonymous No.10005976]

>>10005625
I've seen research showing that the mean IQ is more/less the same, but that the variance in men is much greater. Meaning, women are more distributed around the mean, and with men, there are bot more geniuses and dumb motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.10006006]

>>10005751
Even if you could, they wouldn't develop the biological part properly (if you're implying raising some children in a very stripped-down environment). We thrive in the socially-complex.

[Anonymous No.10006010]

>>10005843
This is widely known man

[Anonymous No.10006027]

>>10005968

Takbir!

[Anonymous No.10006050]

>>10005625

Women are exactly as capable with tools. They'd just need to practice using them like men do. It's not a difference in capability. It's a difference in interest.

[Anonymous No.10006051]

>>10005829

Go read the Damore pamphlet. He cites a few sources for your claims.

[Anonymous No.10006452]

>>10005968
>I bet
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa

[Anonymous No.10006466]

>>10006050
>Women are exactly as capable with tools.
There are numerous skills that would affect the aptitude of using tools and differ between males and females. A prominent example is that men tend to possess greater spacial awareness, which naturally would affect many different tools. Another example is strength, since many tools exist that require high levels of strength to use effectively.

[Anonymous No.10006476]

Human females have no need to develop their intellect beyond basic social manipulation because it is a waste of their capital since they can get results with the commercialization and marketing of their sexual activity.

[Anonymous No.10006491]

>>10005625
if there was some would be disinclined to say
regardless outliers are the way forward in discoveries
as well the cognitive potential would perhaps (according to a theory another anon posted that western europeans chose females based on looks and not on intelligence as much) be more present in western european concentrations which is probably why the only female fields medalist was iranian

[Anonymous No.10006493]

>>10005625
as well in a hunter gatherer scenario the males to have spatial awareness very likely survived/proliferated more

[Anonymous No.10006494]

>>10006466
By this logic any majority of tools that exist suited for a particular demographic would immediately make that demographic "better with tools".
What the anon you're replying to was getting at was that in general when the skills being used to operate the tools are just your brain and your coordination (there are plenty of tools like that) there's not really a skill gap on average between the genders.

[Anonymous No.10006502]

>>10005625

natural selection made women submissive and men aggressive and more dominant.

[Anonymous No.10006506]

>>10005625
From what ive heard woman are better at crunching data but men are better at actually applying the data.
Also woman have a much harder time at taking logical decisions because emotions get in the way.
ive read a study that pointed out that when you have a all female working pool, they are always more efficient when a man is the boss, because when its a woman in lead they automaticaly start undermining the female boss on a subconscious level because they see them as competition, even when there isnt a male around to fight for.
While men, who are notorious for "thinking with their dicks" work just as wel under a female boss as a male boss.

[Anonymous No.10006585]

>>10005625
I've seen multiple studies and the difference in IQ can be one way or another, but it's always insignificantly small. At 2-5 points difference IQ doesn't really matter that much and various environmental factors.

Men aren't really innately better than women. It's survivor bias, you only take in account intelligent man, ignoring all these retards who perform much worse than women. And this is the significant difference between women and man. Males have higher variability than women. This is responsible for over representation of males at extremes, both geniuses and idiots, while females are closer to average.

In general, any sex is not really worse. But females are statistically less likely to become a genius or an idiot.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

[Anonymous No.10006632]

>>10006585
what drives the low int variation in men?

[Anonymous No.10006641]

>>10006632
>low int variation in men
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.10006648]

>>10005829
taking weighted mean hides differences in spread.
Supposedly, men have more spread, so both more potato men and genius men than potato women and genius women.

[Anonymous No.10006650]

>>10006641
what drives the variation?
shouldn't low int variation kill itself off more readily?
why is male intelligence so much more variable compared to female?

[Anonymous No.10006670]

>>10006650
Females need a social net for support during vulnerable periods like pregnancy and early motherhood. For this, it helps to be more like other people, ergo lower variance.

[Anonymous No.10006679]

>>10006585
2-5 points is about the difference between Asians and whites, which is the usual explanation for why Asians commit half the crime and get into top schools at a rate 4-5 times greater.
Pic related - a small difference in the average and the spread can have large differences at the extreme.

[Anonymous No.10006684]

>>10006650
Y Chromosome. Usually, for any given gene, both copies (one for each chromosome) determine the gene's contribution to the phenotype. Since there is no second X, whatever allele shows up on the single X, the man is stuck with (hemizygosity, ignoring aneuploidy). Same is true of whatever shows up on the Y, but all the coding genes there are for sex-characteristics. As a large number of genes on the X are related to intelligence, you would necessarily have greater variance in men (one X only) as opposed to women; this is inevitable

[Anonymous No.10006687]

>>10006670
Nah, that's not it. If there's a biological reason driving the difference it's going to be due to the fact that there's a low bar to female reproduction - be fertile, whereas men need to be good at something, whether that's physical force or intelligence or sneakiness, if they want to get a kid they're going to have to work at it.
Women requiring community help to raise children probably influences there preference for 'social' and 'caring' occupations.

[Anonymous No.10006689]

>>10006650
>>10006670
We don't really know. There might be some culture factor in it, but this variation appears in many animals too.
It might be related to the fact that males usually do the hunting and are dominating so they might get especially rewarded for being clever or unreasonable(likely to take the risk), I wonder if females have higher variation in species where they are the dominant sex.
Things like social net are too recent to have real impact on our genes.

>>10006679
I'm pretty sure their culture play major role in this. They are traditionally obedient and less egoistic.

[Anonymous No.10006789]

>>10006689
I'm sure culture and environment has an impact - crime rates have varied a lot over the years, but the frequency that the order of black, hispanic, white, asian comes up in crime stats (or any other kinds of stats like school achievement, divorce, drug use, STDs) leads me to believe there's something more to it - and this occurs in different cultural contexts all around the world, among fresh immigrants and 3rd generation Americans.

[Anonymous No.10006803]

>>10006648
You mean like pic related? I've heard this but I've never seen the actual study that makes that claim so if anyone has it I'd like to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true tho.

[Anonymous No.10006814]

>>10006689
>>10006789
There is good reason to believe the East Asian IQ is more due to genetics than culture.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iqs-of-east-asians/

Don't get me wrong I'm not the "it's 100% all genetics and culture/parenting don't matter at all" but it does seem to be about 70-80% genetics and the culture/parenting is either reinforcing or padding the effects of the underlying genetics.

[Anonymous No.10006815]

>>10005843
Brainlet confirmed

[Anonymous No.10006823]

The larger male variation exists in a bunch of traits, so I wouldn't be suprised if it were the same with iq
For example here is grip strength in quite a neat graph
Male variation is ~17 kg, female is ~10
Src https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/almost_all_men_are_stronger_than_almost_all_women/

[Anonymous No.10006827]

>>10006823
>>10006803
I wanted this here

[Anonymous No.10006838]

>>10005625
Crosses.
Sticking chest forward to make tits look bigger.
Dear lordosis what went wrong?

[Anonymous No.10006857]

>>10006010
>>10006815
I get that y'all are buttmad about something but If you can't back up your assertions with a citation you shouldn't be on /sci/. "Everyone knows" or "it is widely known" is not proof of anything except on /x/.

[Anonymous No.10006931]

>>10006689
>Things like social net are too recent to have real impact on our genes.
Not true. If I became dictator tomorrow and demanded that everyone below average height be rounded up and executed I'd have a dramatic effect on the gene pool, increasing the concentration of 'tall' genes in the next generation.
Whilst it's not due to the social net exactly, child mortality has dropped massively in the last hundred years or so, from 1 in 3 by age 5 to less than 1%. Obviously this change has occurred most at the impoverished end of the spectrum. This combined with the decreases in fertility starting at the wealthier end has had a massive effect on society. There is good reason to think we are not 'genetically' smarter than we were 150 years ago, and that the Flynn effect has covered up massive dysgenic changes.

[Anonymous No.10006938]

>>10006931
>Not true. If I became dictator tomorrow and demanded that everyone below average height be rounded up and executed I'd have a dramatic effect on the gene pool, increasing the concentration of 'tall' genes in the next generation.
Well, that's something way more aggressive and on completely different level than some social benefits and culture.

[Anonymous No.10006953]

>>10006938
If you read the next paragraph you'll see that we've been culling large numbers of people for centuries, mostly based on social position, and then suddenly stopped during the 20th century. Hygiene, health care, benefits, contraception and university has radically altered who produces the next generation.

[Anonymous No.10006966]

>>10006679
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617301241?via%3Dihub
open with sci-hub.tw
sample sizes are from usa and india which are both canonically white. it's possible india's 7119 students swayed the sample size compared to the 2,053,265 but not likely. it should be noted any sway would be due to nutrition (or lack thereof)

"The present study examines cognitive ability tilt across the last 35 years in 2,053,265 academically talented students in the U.S. (SAT, ACT, EXPLORE) and 7119 students in India (ASSET) who were in the top 5% of cognitive ability, populations that largely feed high level STEM and other occupations."

"sex differences in ability tilt were uncovered, favoring males for math > verbal and favoring females for verbal > math."

didn't account for genetics of the sample populations and therefore didn't include origin of students
pretty sure it's just a western european thing if it's ever this extreme in something that matters
>literal grade 8,9 test scores used and then high school exit tests in an already biased population (top 5% "cognitive ability" that goes to stem mostly)
interestingly enough, according to the grade 8 and 9 test scores the "Level of Ability" gap between charts actually seems to grow implying (if true in a way that matters) that adults get the variation more. there's a joke in this somewhere
also loling at this heavily biased and heavily arbitrary ability tilt bias which again doesn't account for ethnicity.
[math] Y(tilt)_{it} = \alpha_i + \beta_1(sex)_i + \beta_2(year)_i + \beta_3(sex)_i * (year)_{it} + \epsilon_{it} [/math]
they probs had a statistician go in and find a model with high difference.
and to top it off Johnathan Wai and his cabal are psychologists

tldr; can't fit this with my comment xD
>psychology

gonna work on other things like the joke. i usually avoid threads like these anyway as they're pointless (pretty sure race mixing is the real killer here) and the outliers will always beast

[Anonymous No.10006997]

>>10006857
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE YOU TWO FULL POSTS OF CITATIONS YOU SMUG FUCKING MORON
WHY DO YOU NEED ME TO DO THE SAME THING

[Anonymous No.10007008]

Women have more stored fats and so survive longer in freezing conditions and under starvation.

[Anonymous No.10007013]

>>10006997
Someone else also complained about my post why do you need to do the same?

[Anonymous No.10007021]

>>10007013
You only need one person to give you the facts
It takes multiple to let you know just how many people think you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.10007024]

>>10007021
>it is widely known that you are an idiot
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10007029]

>>10007024
Are you feverish? Are you seeing spots? Do you need me to take you to a hospital? Why are you hallucinating sentences I never spoke?

[Anonymous No.10007035]

>>10007029
I've been taking (you)s to keep my fever down thanks for the extra supply.

[Anonymous No.10007037]

>>10007035
Alright, well I have to go to work, big guy. Watch some TV and have some of that soup I made you. You know what my cell number is, call me if you need anything.
Love you, tiger

[Anonymous No.10007043]

>>10006585
That’s true for the average. However, men are up to one standard deviation smarter in spatial abilities than women.

[Anonymous No.10007049]

IQ articles are usually extrapolated from school test scores.
Since not all people apply themselves in school it means it's all fake analysis and psuedoscience

[Anonymous No.10007053]

>>10007049
Wow, thanks for clearing that up anon

[Anonymous No.10007061]

>>10005625
>Men inventing basically everything doesn't mean shit to me.
Nature does not have to be fair.

[Anonymous No.10007070]

>>10005625
So what I'm getting from this thread is men are slightly smarter on average, meaning it's generally meaningless. However men have more geniuses and idiots than women, whereas women tend to remain somewhere in the middle of the curve. Is this correct?

[Anonymous No.10007108]

>>10005751
Test all cultures and compare the results for similarities.

[Brandon No.10007120]

>>10005649
13 year olds whores upload them themselves. Do you live in a cave?

[Anonymous No.10007137]

>>10005625
Would genuinely bang the one on the left

[Anonymous No.10007181]

>>10005843
>asking proofs for widely known facts.
Found the white knight.

[Anonymous No.10007233]

>>10007049
>Since not all people apply themselves in school it means it's all fake analysis and psuedoscience
Only literal retards would fail to apply themselves when presented with the SAT/ASVAB/ACT or a similar test of cognitive ability, because doing so would hinder the test-taker´s chances of success .

Some people may legitimately "pretend to be retarded" when writing such tests, but such an attitude reflects of a low intelligence to begin with, and as such the statistics remain fairly accurate in spite of these unfortunate people doing everything in their power to suppress their awareness of their own brainletism.

[Anonymous No.10007237]

>>10007181
Sample size of 1 I didn't know that "widely known fact"

[Anonymous No.10007240]

>>10007237
That's on you, not on the rest of humanity.

[Anonymous No.10007302]

>>10005625
Talk with a woman in university and talk with a non alcoholic/drug abusing male in the lower class with, at best, high school education.

You will figuring out very fast, that even males in the lowest class are more capable of complex logical thinking and problem solving than any female ever entered a university.
Back then, governments were smarter, they realized the inferiority of the female gender and gave them no rights, like it should be.

[Anonymous No.10007327]

>>10006689
>Things like social net are too recent to have real impact on our genes
Socialization is a recent human invention? What about pack animals like wolves and buffalo?

[Anonymous No.10007362]

>>10005751
>what is animal experimentation
Just an example: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n10/full/nn1325.html

[Anonymous No.10007381]

>>10005625
Women are brainlets scientifically

[Anonymous No.10007383]

>>10006814
I'm guessing you're misinterpreting the heritability metric. One important thing to consider is that environmental factors (parenting, wealth, education, nutrition, culture...) may themselves have a genetic origin.
This article by Flynn is a good read on that topic:
http://humancond.org/_media/papers/dickens_flynn01_heritability_estimates_environment.pdf

[Anonymous No.10007415]

>>10005625
>(usually by 30-60%)
only that? damn

[Anonymous No.10007626]

>>10006476
Even if that was correct, then what kind of boring-ass worthless life would that be?

[Anonymous No.10007656]

I watched a video about the lack of female professional video game players and the conclusion they drew is that cognitive differences are the result of the female BODY being unable to supply power to the brain for as long as a male body. In other words, females will always perform just as well as males when it comes to simple tests performed over a short amount of time, but they will start lagging behind in improvement over long periods of time because they cannot put the same amount of time into a task per day as a male can.

[Anonymous No.10007673]

>>10007383
Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that groups still, even after adjusting for environmental factors, differ in IQ generation to generation.

>Consider a hypothetical garden in which two crops of corn, crop A and crop B, were planted in poor soil. Let’s suppose that corn stocks from crop A were, on average, 5 inches taller than corn stocks from crop B. Now, imagine that the bad soil of the garden was replaced with good soil and, as a result, the height of both crops increased by an average of 6 inches. Because both crop’s height increased by the same amount, the 5-inch gap between crop A and crop B remains.
>What does this “Flynn Effect” in height tell us about the causes of the crop height gap? Nothing. This story is obviously fully consistent with the gap being entirely due to genes, the environment, or some combination of the two, even though crop B stocks of the “good soil generation” are taller than crop A stocks of the “poor quality soil generation”.
>The same logic can be applied to individual differences: that the environment can cause large IQ differences between people over generations tells us nothing about why people within a single generation differ in IQ.
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/10/the-flynn-effect-race-and-iq/

[Anonymous No.10007724]

Spatial intelligence is much better in males.

[Anonymous No.10008500]

>>10007656
>basically woman can't ever be autistic

[Anonymous No.10008527]

>>10005625
those girls are underage, this thread is being reported you fucking creep

[Anonymous No.10008532]

>>10007656
What about female pilots who must stay alert and active for hours and hours?

[Anonymous No.10008535]

>>10007233
this was a brainlet post, you fucking idiot. The other anon is stupid too, but jesus christ are you undiscerning and just not very thoughtful! bad trait if you work in STEM man

[Anonymous No.10008542]

>>10005625
there's a huge difference in grey matter/white matter in males/females and this probably causes most of the psychological differences outside of hormonal and sex chromosome related things.

[Anonymous No.10008715]

>>10008527
>being underage girl is now illegal
What a fag.