[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 22 KB, 611x138, mushsocialconstruct.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6127004 No.6127004 [Reply] [Original]

Is this true?

So the only reason why there are few women engineers it's because they play with dolls while men play with legos?

>> No.6127004,1 [INTERNAL] 

I doubt it's the only reason, but has some of the truth in it.

Still reads like people arguing some dogmatic beliefs, which was the style at the time.

>> No.6127034

>>6127004
Yes.
Women are the same as men.
Yes, some studies show that woman are some standard deviations behind men in IQ, but everyone know IQ is pseudoscience proving nothing, and taken seriously and used only by sexists and racists.

>> No.6127039
File: 26 KB, 486x309, iq and gender.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6127039

>>6127034
Actually IQ confirms female superiority.

>> No.6127042

>sociologist
>scientist

Pick one, dumb bitch.

>> No.6127048

>>6127042
That's why she said "scientist AND sociologist". She is both and of course she knows they are two different things. Please learn logic. Your ignorance of a concept as fundamental as logical conjunction is very disturbing.

>> No.6127053

Are men better engineers? Probably not

Are men better at some studies and vise versa? You fucking betcha

>> No.6127055

>>6127039
Are you making a joke? What that graph shows is that there are far fewer high-IQ women than men.

Anyway, IQ tests are deliberately weighted to make women's and men's scores come out to the same average, even though this means doing the equivalent of making a physical fitness test where upper body strength is 2% of the score while flexibility is 50%, and seriously undermining the value of IQ as applied to individuals.

>> No.6127060

>>6127055
I guess >>6127039 is a woman.

>> No.6127061

>>6127004
In *general* men have better spatial functions than women. Of course they are both on a bell curve and most people fall inside the overlap area.
I knew a female mechanical engineer who admitted this she said she was the best female mechanical engineer she had ever met but that she had met many men who were better. Her career plan was to move into administration/management because of this.
She also said being a woman gave her an advantage in that because she was a “peacemaker” while men fought about who had the better solution and it always ended in a pissing contest. She was knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision and socially adept enough to stay out of the fight.

>> No.6127062

>>6127055
>undermining the value of IQ as applied to individuals.

IQ works perfectly fine. It allows us to compare the scores of different individuals. You scored low? Deal with it. We're on /sci/. Keep your "muh feelings" bullshittery on /pol/ where feelings are of higher priority than facts.

>> No.6127066

She's an idiot. Psych graduate here. There's a wealth of evidence detailing sex differences in the brain. Is she trolling or just uneducated?

>> No.6127070

>>6127062
I scored at 145. And I still think IQ is a terrible metric, for many reasons.

I've known too many high-IQ people who were ONLY good at the kinds of things you find on IQ tests, very narrow-focused and poor at assimilating and applying large amounts of unorganized information. I've seen that lots of low-IQ people just don't like tests and have no patience with abstract puzzles that have no relevance to their lives.

Sure, I believe IQ correlates to g fairly well. But so do all sorts of easily observed traits.

IQ is a strangely-weighted score of dubious measures of an odd subset of cognitive capacities.

>> No.6127072

>>6127070
IQ is our definition of intelligence in cognitive science.

>I've known too many high-IQ people who were ONLY good at the kinds of things you find on IQ tests
That means they are intelligent. Intelligence is not the same as success or achievements.

>lots of low-IQ people just don't like tests and have no patience with abstract puzzles
That's why they are unintelligent.

>> No.6127076

>>6127072
>IQ is our definition of intelligence
Yep... this confirms that you know nothing about the subject.

Nobody who does research on IQ considers it to define intelligence. It's just a score that correlates to a general factor of intelligence. Intelligence is a multidimensional attribute.

>> No.6127080

>>6127076
>this is what "muh feelings" redditors actually believe

Can you please stop spreading anti-scientific propaganda? We got your message. You are upset because you scored low. Learn to fucking deal with it.

>> No.6127081

>>6127080
autist confirmed

>> No.6127084

>>6127080
Don't you have anything better to do?

I don't normally respond to trolls, but this one just made me feel kind of sad that someone bothered to post it. It's so obvious, and not at all funny. It just makes me feel bad about the kind of life you must be living that posting this would make you feel better.

>> No.6127087
File: 20 KB, 387x357, giraffe and elephant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6127087

>>6127062
>IQ works perfectly fine
It does what it is meant to do perfectly fine but it is such a sloppy shortcut.
Personally, my long term memory is in the top .02% but my short term is actually well below average.
IQ takes those, pattern recognition, deduction and everything else and lumps it into a single linear score. That is oversimplification to an almost comic level. You cannot express the complexity of a whole human mind with one linear number.
Would Shakespeare have been a good scientist?
Would Tesla have made a good poet?
In 1945 Bill Gates would have been an accountant with a tendency to daydream. In 1980 Audie Murphy would have just been an angry little drunk. Yet both stood head and shoulders above their own generation.
Very few people have such a wide, polymath, range of ability. I dunno, maybe DaVinci? Most of us have our high and low spots.
Pic related; it’s another stupid oversimplification.
nb4; I do great on the Standard IQ test; top 0.X% but it’s just not the whole story.

>> No.6127088

>>6127084
>muh feelings

I posted a fact. If you cannot handle facts, it's time for you to go back to /pol/.

>> No.6127094

>>6127087
>Would Shakespeare have been a good scientist?
No, because he was religious.

>Would Tesla have made a good poet?
No, because he was autistic.

>Yet both stood head and shoulders above their own generation.
How many times do I need to repeat this for illiterate simpletons like you? Intelligence is not synonymous with outstanding achievements. Intelligence means being talented in the entire range of cognitive skills tested in an IQ test.

>> No.6127097

>>6127004

That is absolutely not fucking true. There are clear differences between men and women in brain development (they are expressed to different hormones and form different types of hormone receptors) that heavily influence gender. Give a young (1 or 2 months after conception) female the right hormones, and 'she'll' be male, regardless of her 2 X chromosomes.

>> No.6127102

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons

"The average number of neocortical neurons was 19 billion in female brains and 23 billion in male brains."

>> No.6127107

>>6127102
>humans
>in a "list of animals"

Looks legit.

>> No.6127108

Here's the reason why a lot of women aren't engineers. Because a lot of them don't want to.

Go ahead and prove me wrong.

>> No.6127109

>>6127108
>implying free will

>> No.6127113

>>6127107
only a retard could misunderstand the definition of animal this bad

>> No.6127118

>>6127072
IQ doesnt purport to buttress any theories of intelligence

If you're interested in what intelligence actually is, g tells you absolutely nothing. Its a completely empty concept on that front.

All psychometricians claim IQ can do is predict. But even then the predictions are entirely random which makes them useless.

>> No.6127119

>>6127113
Exactly my point. The author of that list clearly doesn't understand science.

>> No.6127123

>>6127118
Intelligence is defined by IQ. Why do I need to repeat this? Please learn to read.

>> No.6127130

>>6127109
We do have free will.

This is America. Land of the free.

And that means free to people like me!

>> No.6127136

>>6127119
and only an egomaniac with multiple brain injuries (like you) could be illiterate enough to not read in context

>> No.6127141

>>6127136
>ad hominem

>> No.6127146
File: 43 KB, 480x360, depressed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6127146

>>6127072
>Tfw 98 IQ
>Tfw people still say that I am smart
Fucking liars.

>> No.6127204

>>6127094
>>>6127087 (You)
>>Would Shakespeare have been a good scientist?
>No, because he was religious.
Newton was religious. Einstein was a fence rider and Hawkins has flip-flopped a few times on the “G” question. S. Gould Was a flat-out thiest. But you are sooooo much smarter than any of them aren’t you?

>> No.6127210

>>6127072
if intelligence only means the number you score in some test that doesn't need to translate into the real world, then who cares about intelligence?

>> No.6127238

>>6127072
> Intelligence is not the same as success or achievements.

That is exactly why it means nothing.
All scientific measurements represent or reflect SOMETHING real, something that exists independent of human perception like kinetic energy or mass.
By this standard IQ is pure fantasy; completely meaningless.
Human perception about humans which is admittedly totally subjective?
This is pure nonsense.
Let’s talk about ghosts. At least that subject has a legitimate cultural basis. “Liberal arts” are at least a subset of primate behavior.
Talk about IQ is some deluded power fantasy for people who have nothing real to lean on.
Kind of like religion minus that legitimate cultural basis of course.

>> No.6127246

>>6127204
>But you are sooooo much smarter than any of them aren’t you?
Yes, I am.

>>6127210
>who cares about intelligence?
Intelligent people care because it confirms their superiority. Unintelligent people care because they are jelly.

>>6127238
>All scientific measurements represent or reflect SOMETHING real
Cognitive skills are something real. They can be tested objectively and they are of utmost importance in the academic context.

>> No.6127251

Dear OP… look around you… everything was made by men.

>>6127039
this poster has to be a female… can't even fucking read a chart and claims that the chart shows opposite from what it actually says. lmao

>> No.6127259

>>6127004
No this is not true.

http://vimeo.com/m/34465046
There is a mountain of evidence for mean differences between the sexes having an underlying biological cause which cultural influence simply modulates.

>> No.6127278

>>6127107
what's up? we are heterophagous, multicellular life with eukaryote cells with no cell wall and sexual reproduction. We fit the definition of animal.

>> No.6127290

>>6127087
Your post is broadly correct except your example of poetry is not very good.

We are not interested in artistic ability when it comes to IQ.
IQ is meant to be a measure of mental problem-solving ability through the use of logical deductive reasoning and the ability to easily pick up and understand abstract concepts and manipulate them in order to solve novel and unusual problems.


Also, I would say that although it is a simplification, IQ works remarkably well as a low-resolution test.

I mean we can be basically certain that a group of 100 people with iq scores of 130 would be able to massive outperform a similarly sized group with iq scores of 80 in just about any mental task you wanted to set them. The former group would almost certainly make a better group of doctors, management consultants, lawyers, scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians, bankers, generals, engineers...
People who matter, basically.

IQ can be thought of as a measure of, things like privileged upbringings being equal, how likely it is that you'll end up mattering at anything outside of sports or sex appeal.

>> No.6127297

>>6127080
>You are upset because you scored low.

hey, some of us are upset because we scored high, our parents knew about it and then they were all pressure and shit!

>> No.6127299

>>6127290
>implying IQ doesn't correlate positively with sports performance and attractiveness

>> No.6127302

>>6127299
>implying IQ doesn't correlate positively with sports performance and attractiveness

that would go opposite to muh anecdotal evidence, but it wouldn't be the first time. source?

>> No.6127311

>>6127251
>this poster has to be a female… can't even fucking read a chart and claims that the chart shows opposite from what it actually says. lmao

OK son, just make a good living, buy a nice car and keep up on the personal hygene and probably, someday, someone other than Coach will touch your penis.
Good luck champ!

>> No.6127330

>>6127299
I never implied such a thing.

The only way you could construe such a sentiment from what I said is if you use correlation and causation interchangeably.


There are very obvious third factors that explain this correlation, principally that successful people are able to choose physically fit, attractive mates, and IQ raises the likely good of an individual being successful.

>> No.6127365

>>6127246
>Intelligent people care because it confirms their superiority. Unintelligent people care because they are jelly.
but what are they superior on?
they're superior in a test that doesn't translate into the real world
they're superior in fantasy land