[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 17 KB, 228x279, Sufiah+Yusof[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4890323 No.4890323 [Reply] [Original]

Why are there so few female prodigies?

>> No.4890332

>>4890323
>>4890323
because i thought that was a fatass fat boy before you said it was a girl

>> No.4890334

most societies view females as less talented and less able to do things that society actually values (science, math, and such).

That makes math and science harder for girls to get into.

Also, their brains are smaller than those of males.

>> No.4890336

Because girls this days only care about if their hair looks good.

>> No.4890347

As far as IQ distributions, males have far more statistical outliers, with more very smart and also more very stupid, but the mean IQ is the same as for women. There are just fewer super smart women.

>> No.4890354

>>4890334
Yeah. It's the patriarchy's fault.

>> No.4890364

>>4890323
She became a prostitute.

Is this irony or something?

>> No.4890562

No one notices when someone is a prodigy at hair, makeup, clothes, or boys.

>> No.4890568

>>4890347
This. There are more male morons and geniuses.

>> No.4892669

>>4890364
>She became a prostitute.
Damn.

So are there really no decent female child prodigies?

>> No.4892677

Because there are few prodigies period?

What makes you think there are more male prodigies than female? I'd like to see some statistics (and a rigorous definition of prodigy.)

>> No.4892692

they all get
>fucked
over

doh ho ho

>> No.4892709
File: 39 KB, 450x338, 1223470715569.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4892709

>>4892692

>> No.4892739
File: 17 KB, 429x241, male_female_bell_curve_.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4892739

Woman have a smaller standard deviation in intelligence plus modern intelligence tests to bias in females favor by giving points for non-g-loaded shit like verbal 'intelligence'.

So woman have both a lower real Get Shit Done intelligence and well as a narrower spread in intelligence, this will obviously result in massive over representation of men in the extreme right of the intelligence curve, where you'd find prodigies.

>> No.4892741

>>4892739
That's not an explanation you fuckhead. That's completely circular logic.

>> No.4892745

>>4892739
Lol, nice graph there. Did you randomly make that in MATLAB by plotting two arbitrary bell curves?

>> No.4892751

Women are a lot better had handling emotions. They are able to read emotions and facial expressions a lot more easier and faster than men.

>> No.4892752

Okay, so if the claim that males have a larger standard deviation of intelligence is true. (Thus having more morons and geniuses) Then I have a follow up question. Why? Why is there a larger spread in male intelligence, than in females? What causes men to be more likely to be either a moron or a prodigy?

>> No.4892755
File: 26 KB, 548x459, 1315949095120.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4892755

>>4890334
>m-muh patriarchy
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/science/15tier.html
>Swedish researchers, Ulf Sandstrom and Martin Hallsten, did a follow-up study analyzing the Swedish medical fellowships awarded in 2004, they found that female applicants were actually rated more favorably than comparable male applicants. In 2005 a large study, conducted by the RAND Corporation, concluded that female applicants for research grants from federal agencies in the United States typically got as much money as male applicants.

>. . .

>Also last year a task force of the National Academy of Sciences concluded from its investigation of 500 science departments. . .the task force reported that at major research universities, female candidates “had a better chance of being interviewed and receiving offers than male job candidates had.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/08tier.html
>The Duke researchers. . .focused on the extreme right tail of the distribution curve. . .1991 the gender gap had narrowed to four to one, presumably because of sociocultural factors like encouragement and instruction in math offered to girls.

>Since then, however, the math gender gap hasn’t narrowed, despite the continuing programs to encourage girls. The Duke researchers report that there are still four boys for every girl at the extreme right tail of the scores for the SAT math test. . .Among the 19 students who got a perfect score on the ACT science test in the past two decades, 18 were boys.

>> No.4892765

>>4892751
you are trolling, if you want to be good at spelling, learn to read that is logic what you are saying in as many words in this forum is completely fucked in the head.

sincerely gregoryronalds@gmail.com

>> No.4892775

>>4892741
>circular logic
u wot m8?

There are more male prodigies because biological differences between the sexes result in more men amongst the extreme right of the intelligence curve.

How is that circular reasoning?

Oh, unless you're trying argue that intelligence isn't predominantly innate? In which case you can fuck off, you pseudo-science cretin.

>> No.4892780

>>4892755
>Among the 19 students who got a perfect score on the ACT science test in the past two decades, 18 were boys.
Wait, WTF? Since when was the ACT that hard? I got like 90th percentile in the science section without even studying or remembering much from my science classes. The science section was just a science-themed reading section, you didn't need to know anything for it.

>>4892741
>>4892745
To be fair, what he said is true. Women have a smaller standard deviation in IQ scores than men. The consequence is that you find many more male geniuses, but you also find many more male retards as well.

>> No.4892784

>>4892752
>What causes men to be more likely to be either a moron or a prodigy?

Maybe because of hunting and warfare? Tribes of humans for millennia needed male leaders smart enough to formulate strategies for both, and male subordinates dumb enough to follow orders no matter what.

>> No.4892828

>>4892752
>>4892784
Actually it probably has more to due with the fact that the Y-chromosome is a very truncated version of the X-chromosome. As a result, women are very resistant to mutations on the X-chromosome whereas men express fucking everything on it in full force.

If it's not that then my next bet would be that at least one of the sexual differentiation processes in the brain can have side-effects on intelligence.

>> No.4892878

>>4892780

Theres a big difference between percentile and percent. So while you may score in the 90th percentile you could have only got 50 percent of the points. I'm too lazy to look up what percent of possible points people in high percentiles are scoring for the ACT.

>> No.4892892

>mfw when people go off SAT/ACT/IQ/Derp tests
>yfw you realize how logically and mechanically flawed they are

>> No.4894478

>>4892828
I wonder if there have been studies on the aptitude of CAIS women? That would pretty much definitively show whether it was genetic, or a product of brain morphology changes caused by virilization.

>> No.4895432

>>4892775
>There are more male prodigies because biological differences between the sexes result in more men amongst the extreme right of the intelligence curve.

By "biological differences" you would be referring to a difference in distribution (of expression) of some sort of intelligence allele, but why do you come to this conclusion?

OP asked why there is a difference in distribution of "child prodigies" by gender. You responded with a graph of intelligence distribution by gender. You're assuming, without question, that the graph is a direct representation of how nature unequivocally plays out. You're saying "that's how it is, because that's how it is." Your logic is circular, and you ignore the occlusion of social context in a classic case of confirmation bias. It is you the pseudoscientist.