gender and brain structure

[Anonymous No.11661920]

Men are more intelligent than women but are their brains different?
Or is that because women are more emotional and their way of thinking is influenced by hormones to greater extent than it's for males? Or any other factor?

If the answer for the first is yes then does it also apply to pre-pubescent boys and girls?
Are their brains different?

Please, let only specialists speak up.
If you make a point write your source.

[Anonymous No.11661927]

>>11661920
>Please, let only specialists speak up.
>If you make a point write your source.
>telling anon what to do
this isn't gonna work fwend

[Anonymous No.11662070]

If men’s and women’s brains are structurally different in any way, their brain strucutre must be necessarily different.

[Anonymous No.11662669]

>>11661920
>Men are more intelligent than women
False

[Anonymous No.11662670]

>>11661920
>t. abrahamist

[Anonymous No.11662683]

>>11661920

>anti-women and thinks they're of inferior value

Fuck off Goldblatt. Go choke to death on some baby foreskin.

------------------------------------------------

Quote by SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler (1937):

> The attitude about the inferiority of women is a typical (((Christian))) attitude, and we also who have been Nationalsocialists up to this day – many even who are strict heathens – have unwittingly adopted this set of ideas.

> I recently said to a Hitler Youth leader:"You are usually so un-Christian, but your attitude toward women is the purest Christianity that is at all possible.”

> Christianity is directed at the absolute destruction of women and at emphasizing the inferiority of women. The entire substance of the priesthood and of the whole of Christianity is an erotic union of men for the erection and maintenance of a 2000-year old Bolshevism. I reach that conclusion because I know very well the history of Christianity in Rome. The Roman emperors, who eradicated the first Christians, did exactly the same thing we are doing with the Communists. These Christians were then the worst yeast which the great city contained, the worst Jewish people, the worst Bolsheviks that there were.

Source: https://archive.is/JlkBd

--

> "Women are Evil!"
https://share.dmca.gripe/yLqydqXqpqk3MRcV.webm

> About Women
https://share.dmca.gripe/4PGIbg6UU0yL6QVT.webm

> About the Sterilization of European Women
https://share.dmca.gripe/a4r2qebh1vv7sVc8.webm

> How to attract THE RIGHT type of women!
https://share.dmca.gripe/ZwtkPazySTPuj7Xt.webm

> The Key to good Women's Hearts
https://share.dmca.gripe/zB6frlBxST7UkydX.webm

> No Good Women Left?
https://share.dmca.gripe/c2A4haV4BANc4wWn.webm

> Natural Blonde Women
https://share.dmca.gripe/OelBVNN5Nut16W7m.webm

> Should Women Train Hard?
https://share.dmca.gripe/oPkTsoEh1EBs0juH.webm

> The Role of Women
https://share.dmca.gripe/mJt7unI13FiPxWlu.webm

[Anonymous No.11662691]

>>11661920
The avg between the sexes for intelligence is a wash but men are spread along a wider spectrum

[Anonymous No.11664203]

>>11662670
>>11662683
I'm not anti women. I don't even know what is an abrahamist. Fuck off, /pol/.

Studies show that average iq of women is slightly lower than men. Also there are many more men in STEM-related fields.
I wanted to know if that was somehow related to differences in brain structure, if they exist.
I guess if I just google that I'll get better answers.
This board fucking sucks.

[Anonymous No.11664211]

Men aren't "more intelligent" in a general sense, they display more variance, there are more male geniuses and more male idiots. This is because men are expendable from a species-standpoint and the only "useful males" are the high achievers in the top 20%, who can proceed to procreate with the rest of the females.

Societal conditions can exacerbate this natural inequality, as society expects and demands men achieve and produce things so they are more motivated and driven to further their thought and ability. For women, a lot of the time intellectual pursuits are a hobby, for men it is their meal ticket to sexual success and status.

[Anonymous No.11664233]

>>11664203
>Studies show that average iq of women is slightly lower than men.

More importantly, women have lower variability in intelligence than men. So less retards but also less geniuses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis

[Anonymous No.11664240]

>>11661920
>Men are more intelligent than women
They aren't. Where are you getting this nonsense?

>let only specialists speak up.
I have a PhD and close to a decade of experience working as a neuroscientist.

[Anonymous No.11664260]

>>11661920
>Men are more intelligent than women
then how comes you cant get laid and they can

[Anonymous No.11664266]

>>11661920
even if men and women are different brains can be rewired absolutely so it doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.11664276]

>>11664240
>They aren't. Where are you getting this nonsense?

Males have greater g
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-11267-008

Among adults, the male advantage is 0.33d equivalent to 5 IQ points
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289604000492

There is a huge difference in overall neuron number, with males having about 15% more neocortical brain cell. It would be very strange if men did not have a higher level of mental ability as a result.

[Anonymous No.11664299]

>>11664276

>There is a huge difference in overall neuron number, with males having about 15% more neocortical brain cell. It would be very strange if men did not have a higher level of mental ability as a result.

is this relative or absolute? (ie how does this figure when controlled for body mass since bigger animals need more brain)

[Anonymous No.11664310]

>>11664276
>more neurons
Should we be afraid that whales and elephants are going to out smart us soon? No, obviously not. Muscle mass requires a large amount of neurons to properly steer, and accordingly the vast majority of neurons in the brain are dedicated to motoric coordination (e.g. most neurons in the brain are in the cerebellum), hence more neurons in males.

>There is a huge difference in overall neuron number, with males having about 15% more neocortical brain cell. It would be very strange if men did not have a higher level of mental ability as a result.
This is a misconception, it would not be surprising at all.

>Lynn, Jackson, & Rushton,
lel, they're known crackpots who selectively evaluate literature.

For every one study that shows a difference, there are many that show no difference. See here for some better quality articles (including meta analysis that finds no difference in mean):
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5906/1331
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/269/5220/41

[Anonymous No.11664334]

>>11664299
>is this relative or absolute? (ie how does this figure when controlled for body mass since bigger animals need more brain)

Males have larger brains even after controlling for body size, and larger brains have more neurons.

>This is a misconception, it would not be surprising at all.

Not an argument.

>Should we be afraid that whales and elephants are going to out smart us soon? No, obviously not. Muscle mass requires a large amount of neurons to properly steer, and accordingly the vast majority of neurons in the brain are dedicated to motoric coordination (e.g. most neurons in the brain are in the cerebellum), hence more neurons in males.

You can't compare between species, as the elephant brain has 1/3rd as many neurons in its cerebral cortex as humans. The male advantage in neuron number is spread out through the neocortex, as Pakkenberg 1997 demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.11664345]

>>11664310
From your own sources:

>International testing results show greater variance in boys' scores than in girls' scores.

>the test scores of males consistently have larger variance. Except in tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, males typically outnumber females substantially among high-scoring individuals.

So all other things being equal, men will be naturally overrepresented among smart people. See also here:

>>11664233

[Anonymous No.11664361]

Yes, their brains are different. They are smaller and there is less development in the areas that enable abstract and mathematical reasoning.
They are doubly disabled when it comes to practical decision making because of their increased emotional response. When confronted with a stressful situation, their impulse is to cry and look for help.

[Anonymous No.11664377]

>>11664361
>They are doubly disabled when it comes to practical decision making because of their increased emotional response. When confronted with a stressful situation, their impulse is to cry and look for help.

I used to buy the new age feminist kool aid and assume this old stereotype was just misogynistic nonsense as a lad but after having become a man and actually experienced and realized what women are this is no fucking joke. THEY ALL DO IT

[Anonymous No.11664388]

>>11664345
Yup. So does it mean that men are smarter than women? No, it does not.

[Anonymous No.11664406]

>>11664388
It does mean that among geniuses you will have much more men than women, and this becomes even more true among super-geniuses. Interpret that however you want.

[Anonymous No.11664411]

>>11664388
If you're the PhD neuroscientist, you didn't reply to my point about the much larger number of neurons in males not being in cerebellum, as in elephants or other larger brained mammals, but instead in the cerebral cortex. >>11664334

[Anonymous No.11664429]

>>11664276
Your pic does not imply that men are smarter than women. Number of neurons does not necessarily correlate with intelligence: there are people who are born with only one brain hemisphere out there who lead a completely normal life and even get master's degrees. Nobody, including them, knows about it until they do an MRI.

[Anonymous No.11664438]

>>11664406
It also means that among retards you will have more men than women, and this becomes even more true among super-retards. Interpret that however you want.

>>11664411
I did not reply because you failed to grasp the initial point. The cerebellum was only an illustration of the notion that muscle mass requires neural support. A very large chunk of neocortical neurons is dedicated to motor control and somatosensesion. Brain-to-body-mass ratio between men an women is no different, same for neocortical volume after removing variance associated with body mass.

>Not an argument.
Obviously, the argument was given above.

[Anonymous No.11664461]

>>11664438
>A very large chunk of neocortical neurons is dedicated to motor control and somatosensesion

A very large chunk of neocortical neurons are also dedicated to higher level cognition/thought as well. You appear to be engaging in motivated reasoning. It is interesting that before proof of males having more neurons in their cerebral cortex emerged, attempts were made by earlier studies to claim that despite the smaller average female brain, the overall neocortical neuron number is the same due to higher density (obviously false), implying people realize intuitively that more brain cells in the region which is most closely associated with thinking in the brain means a higher level of consciousness.

>>11664429
It's not only evidence I cited. What to make of the fact that the majority of innovations in science and art have been accomplished by men, despite many women being more privileged than say, Michael Faraday or Ramanujan? What to make of the fact that men have to compete more to stay in the gene pool, implying a higher level of intelligence is an advantage in competing with other men for status?

[Anonymous No.11664477]

>>11664438
>It also means that among retards you will have more men than women, and this becomes even more true among super-retards.

Affirmative action for retardation when?

[Anonymous No.11664493]

>>11661920
>not knowing about brain sexual dimorphism
damn burgers

[Anonymous No.11664533]

>>11664461
I'm not usually in the habit of repeating myself, but I'll try one last time to get you to see a point that should have been obvious 20 minutes ago. You're simply not following a logical line of reasoning, so let me elaborate:

Beyond the simple fact that the vast majority of neurons is dedicated to motor control, complex cognition arises from local circuit dynamics that have little to do with the overall number of neurons that are present, but emerges from feature that endow the circuit with an ability to recapitulate its own past activity (e.g. read up on the relationship between persistent activity and working memory). Such features include balanced excitation and inhibition, recurrence in the microcircuit, and the topology of long-range anatomical projections. So rather than overall neuron number, cytoarchitectonics is what matters more, and it's what sets us apart from other species (hence, whale and elephant argument). No evidence exists to date that these features differ between men and women, in fact, transcriptomic data suggests hardly any sexual dimorphism. And besides, such features are polygenically encoded and are unlikely to be restricted to Y chromosomal loci that would be necessary for dimorphism to arise in the first place.

To put it in simple terms, more neurons = more smarts, does not hold. It's how they're wired and what kinds that matter. In that men and women are no different.

[Anonymous No.11664666]

>>11664493
uhm, I can see that women look different from the outside but it doesn't prove anything
btw at this point I think we already got to a conclusion
thx for the reasonable replies with sources linked

[Anonymous No.11664878]

>>11664233
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis

"Sex differences in variability across nations in reading, mathematics and science: a meta-analytic extension of Baye and Monseur (2016)"
>we find that there is significant heterogeneity between countries, and that much of this can be quantified using variables applicable across these assessments (such as test, year, male–female effect size, mean country score and Global Gender Gap Indicators). While it is still not possible to make any causal conclusions regarding why males are more varied than females in academic assessments, it is possible to show that some national level variables effect the magnitude of this variation.
so basically there's a an environmental contribution to this male variance

[Anonymous No.11664884]

>>11664533
kek, that sure shut him up

[Anonymous No.11665339]

>>11664533
Brain size still accounts for 9-16% of the variability in general intelligence when corrected for body weight.

[Anonymous No.11665343]

>>11665339
By size i mean volume

[Anonymous No.11666672]

>>11665339
Men don't have larger brain volume after correcting for body weight.

[Anonymous No.11666695]

>>11666672
Or maybe not
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016028969290013H

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6041980/

The last one is what the second article is based on i believe.
Pic related, it seems different areas of the brain are not all smaller/larger to the same extent. (Meta study of >5000 individuals)

[Anonymous No.11666699]

>>11666695
better image

[Anonymous No.11666762]

>>11666695
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016028969290013H
>correcting for body height or body surface area
Note how I said weight, not these indirect proxies of weight. Correlations are non-transitive. You cannot substitute one for the other and expect to account for the same proportion of variance.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6041980/
The news focus in Science doesn't doesn't do the best job in describing this one I think. The paper looks at inter-sex variability in *regional* volume after correcting for within-sex volume differences. That's not the same as simply comparing volume post-correction for body weight, so from the current analyses you cannot conclude anything about overall volume post-correction. All you can conclude is that given overall brain size within a sex, men have relatively larger volume in a specific set of ROIs.

But setting that aside for a moment, notice how all areas where men show larger volume than women are subcortical areas, including those involved in motor control (basal ganglia). Also, note that the image you posted has an equivalent where woman out-score men, and somewhat ironically given OP's focus on cortex, even before correcting for body size women have thicker cortices than men (fig 2a, bottom). But most importantly given the thread, this study finds no difference in standardized test scores between men and women (table 1).

[Anonymous No.11666775]

>>11666762
Ok but the greater spread has a physical basis.

[Anonymous No.11666782]

>>11666762
And the paper is literally filled with other differences. Men and women brains are not the same. Similarities sure. But not identical on average. There are physical differences.

>its how theyre wired that matters. In that men and women are no different >>11664533

This is simply false

[Anonymous No.11666786]

>>11666762
Also this. From the discussion

"The higher male volume in our study appeared largest in some regions involved in emotion and decision-making, such as the bilateral orbitofrontal cortex, the bilateral insula, and the left isthmus of the cingulate gyrus (Craig 2009; MacPherson et al. 2015; Ochsner and Gross 2005; Wager et al. 2008; note that the insula showing the largest sex difference is consistent with a recent large-scale study of children and adolescents (Gennatas et al. 2017)—it appears this region retains its substantial sex difference into later life), but also areas such as the right fusiform gyrus."

[Anonymous No.11666791]

>>11666775
We cannot conclude that from this study either, as correctly pointed out in the news focus in Science:
>The controversial—and still unsettled—question is whether these patterns mean anything to intelligence or behavior.

>>11666782
Aside from what we conclude from this study alone though, it's rather obvious that inter-sex differences in variability must have some physical basis, unless you're implying dualism. Whether it's differences of variance in regional *volume* is not a given, however.

>Men and women brains are not the same.
No one is saying that male and female brains are exactly the same. If you think that is what I'm claiming then you are mistaken. But I will say that they are more alike than they are different, and the within sex-variability outweighs any inter-sex differences in mean.

>This is simply false
Oh? Show me a paper that reports differences in microcuircuit cytoarchitectonics. None of the papers we've discussed here show this.

[Anonymous No.11666793]

>>11666762
And this.

"The issue of adjusting for overall brain size in analyses of sex differences (Rippon et al. 2014) was addressed in each of our macrostructural analyses. As can be seen comparing Figure Figure22A and B, after this adjustment the higher male volume and surface area was substantially reduced, often to non-significance."

[Anonymous No.11666794]

>>11666791
>show me a paper
I cant. But bear in mind neuroscience has a replication rate of 0.14 at the moment. So anything said on this will likely be wrong in 10 years time.

[Anonymous No.11666802]

>>11666794
>But bear in mind neuroscience has a replication rate of 0.14 at the moment. So anything said on this will likely be wrong in 10 years time.
That's an enormous non-sequitur. We do not form theory by individual articles. Consistent and replicable findings shape theory. The excess washes away over time.

>I cant.
Then I rest my case.

[Anonymous No.11666804]

>>11666791
Plus you'd expect some differences in how the brains are wired. Maybe not the neurons themselves, but what communicates with what, simply due to hormones and evidenced by personality differences.

[Anonymous No.11666805]

>>11666802
You havent proved theyre the same either?

[Anonymous No.11666808]

>>11666804
You need to do a bit more reading, including the core of my argument and not its dumbed down summary, because what you are saying has nothing to do with what I'm claiming.

[Anonymous No.11666817]

>>11666805
Here's some of the transcriptomic findings that show extremely high inter-subject reliability I was referring to earlier:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26571460
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243026/
Since these seminal studies the sample size has increased, and it's all free for download from the ABI website.

I have work to do now so I'll leave you with your thread.

[Anonymous No.11666819]

>>11666808
Still not proved anything

[Anonymous No.11666877]

>>11666819
-> >>11666817

[Anonymous No.11667088]

>>11664203
>Also there are many more men in STEM-related fields.
probably cultural

[Anonymous No.11667501]

>>11667088
More clever men, as in more men with iq above 125.

[Anonymous No.11667511]

>>11667088
>probably cultural
certainly impacts it but I'm pretty sure men have better spatial thinking on average

[Anonymous No.11667561]

>>11667511
you clearly haven't read the thread have you

[Anonymous No.11667678]

>>11667501
said the NEET

[Anonymous No.11667785]

>>11661920
Men are on average slightly more intelligent (maybe by 4-5 iq points). But they have more geniuses, due to greater variance in intelligence within the male population. There must be physical cause for this, obviously. Have we found what they are conclusively, no.

Brain development will obviously be different between the sexes because...they're different sexes. Brain weight diverges at age 16, from the onset of puberty in men (See Lynns developmental theory below).

Males have faster reaction times than females, so despite having more body mass to coordinate, they are still quicker at it.

Llynn's very famous metastudy here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886994900302

Lynns more recent work on developmental theory: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242788102_Sex_differences_in_intelligence_and_brain_size_A_developmental_theory

Obviously this gives a phenomological perspective. We don't know the mechanisms. But a mechanism that predicts men and women have the same intelligence must be wrong, according to this data. From reaction times it also shows there are physical discrepencies in the rate of transmission by neurons (nerve conduction velocity may be slightly greater in males)

>inb4 corrected for height not weight
read the study you'll see Lynn corrected for size and weight.

[Anonymous No.11667790]

>>11667678

[Anonymous No.11667840]

>>11667785
>Men are on average slightly more intelligent (maybe by 4-5 iq points).
wrong

[Anonymous No.11667854]

>>11667785
>Lynns
>"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."
fucking kek, how can you take this guy seriously

[Anonymous No.11667863]

>>11667854
seeth faggot

[Anonymous No.11667869]

>>11667863
/pol/ plz go

[Anonymous No.11667877]

>>11667854
Hows the planet gonna fair when theres 4 billion africans by the year 2100.

[Anonymous No.11667878]

>>11667840
>males have a 28% higher number of neocortical glial cells and a 19% higher neocortical neuron number than females. The overall total number of neocortical neurons and glial cells was 49.3 billion in females and 65.2 billion in males

Just ignore things that upset your egalitarian world view, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.11667886]

>>11667878
>higher neocortical neuron number
some other faggot already explained why this is wrong, see: >>11664533

>just ignore things that upset your egalitarian world view, I suppose.
oh sweet irony

[Anonymous No.11667896]

>>11664233
>So less retards but also less geniuses.
fewer

[Anonymous No.11667898]

>>11661920
> Most IQ tests are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males.[10][148] Popular IQ batteries such as the WAIS and the WISC-R are also constructed in order to eliminate sex differences.[149] In a paper presented at the International Society for Intelligence Research in 2002, it was pointed out that because test constructors and the United States' Educational Testing Service (which developed the US SAT test) often eliminate items showing marked sex differences in order to reduce the perception of bias, the "true sex" difference is masked. Items like the Mental Rotations Test and reaction time tests, which show a male advantage in IQ, are often removed.[150] Meta-analysis focusing on gender differences in math performance found nearly identical performance for boys and girls,[151] and the subject of mathematical intelligence and gender has been controversial.[152]

[Anonymous No.11667906]

>>11667886
Yeah thats not explaining its wrong. That whole paragraph is just "wiring matters more than size."
But as in >>11667785
nerve conduction velocity is different between men and women, and even when you correct for size and weight there are still discrepancies. Even if you have a personal vendeta against Lynn, he conducted a meta study with over 100 other scientists work. So you'd be disagreeing with them too, as it was peer reviewed by scientists familiar with this work.

[Anonymous No.11667949]

>>11662683
/pol/ culture: smoking meth, worshipping women for doing nothing, worshipping mudhut-tier animistic cultures

[Anonymous No.11667959]

>>11667906
>meta study
Several studies including a recent meta analysis published in science were already posted here that directly oppose the conclusion, read the thread

And reaction time is equal to nerve conducting velocity is a dumb as shit statement

[Anonymous No.11668000]

>>11667959
>reaction time =
I didn't say that. Its just a physical difference between men and women that might explain some of the observed differences. I literally said we dont know the physical mechanisms
> a recent meta analysis
Where, you mean the pay to get sources, that look like he literally just clicked on the first study that came up on google
Literally, the source that might contain something useful was made before both of Lynns studies. The other only considers variability, not mean scores. Also see>>11667898

[Anonymous No.11668011]

>>11668000
And the one from 2008
Heres a bigger meta analysis of 100000 people
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000250

[Anonymous No.11668037]

>all those nerds weighing brain mass and counting neurons.

Lmao, just talk to a woman and you'll know who's smarter.

[Anonymous No.11668069]

>>11668037

Yeahhhh doesn't really matter if there's a similar amount of natural potential there, they don't bother using it

[Anonymous No.11668110]

>>11668000
>a physical difference
yeah. you said reaction time is different so neuron conduction speed must be different

that's bullshit

>you mean the pay to get sources
lol, you for real don't know the journal science, do you? and you haven't figured out how to use sci-hub? what is this, is how 2 spot a /pol/tard 101?

>The other only considers variability, not mean scores
both consider mean score, did you read them?

[Anonymous No.11668114]

>>11668011
kek, see >>11664310

[Anonymous No.11668148]

>>11668037
quality post

[Anonymous No.11668165]

>>11668011
that study is shit, see:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/spanish-journal-of-psychology/article/null-sex-differences-in-general-intelligence-evidence-from-the-waisiii/87B800AC999E73D304602ED212260664

[Anonymous No.11668170]

>>11668165
>>11668011
also:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-33479-014

[Anonymous No.11668171]

>>11661920
most men like you are dumb as bricks, though. can't even manage to outsmart some dumb broad into bed. really puts it into perspective about where you mentally ill incels really stand

[Anonymous No.11668176]

>>11668171

>the projection poster has entered the thread

[Anonymous No.11668188]

>>11668069
said the NEET incel

[Anonymous No.11668195]

>>11668011
>meta analysis
this isn't a meta analysis, this is a single study

a meta analysis considers the results of multiple studies and then runs additional statistics to look at the consistency of effects

this is not that

[Anonymous No.11668203]

>>11668110
No its cited in the study i posted if you bothered to read. I'll provide it for you bc you're incapable of any self guided research
Reed, T.E. & Jensen, A.R. (1992). Conduction velocity in a brain nerve pathway of normal adults correlates with intelligence level. Intelligence 16: 259-272
Reed, T.E., Vernon, P.A. & Johnson, A.M. (2004). Confirmation of correlation between brain nerve conduction velocity and intelligence in normal adults. Intelligence 32: 563-572.

>dont know the journal science/ you didn't read them
You clearly didn't read what i posted. Hell you didnt even read your own sources
Here it is so people dont have to do the work themselves
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5906/1331

>literally not even using iq or g, just mathematics and reading
>"Mathematics. With the same comparisons for mathematics, the mean difference
is positive, which indicates that boys generally outscore girls"
> a survey
of 15-year-olds who are
enrolled in full- or part-time
education in industrialized
countries
15 year olds, 15 year olds, 15 year olds, jsut let that sink in.
Literally all this says is 15 year old girls outscore men on reading tests, suprising absolutely no one, and not even remotely relevant.

[Anonymous No.11668215]

>the other source:

imagine my shock when it literally shows more g loaded sub tests show greater mean for men. In fact overall the paper literally states men score higher, then they ignore it.

>"All of the
effect sizes were relatively small except for
those associated with vocational aptitude
scales (mechanical reasoning, electronics
information, and auto and shop information) in which average males performed
much better than average females"
Why did you lie about having read your sources. Why do you claim to know anything about this?

[Anonymous No.11668217]

>>11668188

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST GO AND ACTUALLY TALK TO WOMEN AND REALIZE THEY'RE STUPID, ONLY INCELS CALL WOMEN STUPID CERTAINLY NOT ALL THE CHADS AND PICK UP ARTISTS WHO PUMP AND DUMP THEM THEY THINK THEY'RE SMART

The more you experience women, the more you realize how limited they are. Sorry about it

[Anonymous No.11668224]

>>11668215
fucking kek, now quote the sentence before and the sentence after this part you dumb shit

[Anonymous No.11668252]

>>11668217
if you were trying to come across as a NEET incel well then congrats because you succeeded

[Anonymous No.11668262]

>if you were trying to come across as a NEET incel well then congrats because you succeeded

[Anonymous No.11668270]

>>11668262
i'm clearly striking a nerve here

[Anonymous No.11668275]

>i'm clearly striking a nerve here

[Anonymous No.11668286]

>>11668275
enjoy the 404

[Anonymous No.11668326]

>>11668224
No you retard they ignore what I quoted without quantifying or giving any justification.
Why can't you comprehend anything in the source you cite?
>"Thus, with respect to the effect size convention, these data suggest that average sex
differences are generally rather small."
Generally rather small is not how I describe d>1 or even d>0.5, which is a majority of their data. They haven't attempted to quantify any mean or relate it to general intelligence.
I'd tell you to jump off a bridge, but im afraid youd do it.

>"On average, females exhibited a slight
tendency to perform better on tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and
associative memory, "
Literally covered this with the g loading of sub tests

[Anonymous No.11668495]

someone update me please. whats going on?

[Anonymous No.11668573]

>>11664878
love how this was totally ignored

[Anonymous No.11668581]

>>11668573
Cause it was irrelevant

[Anonymous No.11669311]

>>11662683
Everyone look it’s a feminist nazi

[Anonymous No.11670315]

>>11661920
Are you an asukafag? if so then you're more retarded than any woman.