[ 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: 3.34 MB, 400x300, 1f212b4e1cd29fa03218c49e75ec880f-147722965 (1).gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7005277 No.7005277[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>When standardized IQ tests were first developed in the early 20th century, girls typically scored higher than boys until age 14, at which time the curve for girls dropped below that for boys. As testing methodology was revised, efforts were made to equalize gender performance.
Why did they need to change IQ tests to make males and females scores more equal?

>> No.7005289

>>7005277
Because it does not fit the narrative.

>> No.7005296

>>7005277
Because they were trying to standardize the tests relative to our species. Not genders.

>> No.7005298

>>7005277
IQ is irrelevant. Doesn't matter what you "hurr I got a 140 on an internet iq test" say.

>> No.7005301

>>7005296
>relative to our species.
as opposed to what other specie for example?

>> No.7005302

>>7005301
Women.

>> No.7005303

>>7005296
can you please go shit up /tv/ or something

>> No.7005305

>>7005302
that's not a specie

>> No.7005306

>>7005303
I can. What's your point?

>> No.7005309

>>7005305
Neither is your mom.

>> No.7005310

>>7005306
thats great, leave the grown ups to talk, thanks

>> No.7005311

>>7005310
You were the one immediately derailing the thread. Please leave the shitposting to the professionals, thanks.

>> No.7005317

>>7005277
Why do you care so much about this? I mean, what do you really want to say? That women are dumb? Then say it, nobody cares about what you think about women. "Women are dumb" is not even the worst thing people say about them on 4chan. It's pointless.

>> No.7005322

>>7005317
why do you care if OP cares?

>> No.7005328

>>7005298
way to miss the point, asshole. bet yur iq is below 100

>> No.7005329

>>7005322
Because there are many threads on similar topics on this board that get pretty annoying as they all try to find an objective way to say that some ethnicity is inferior. And I just don't see how that would be helpful. It's just not interesting at all. I really wonder what these people think the implications of their arguments are.

>> No.7005331

>>7005317
Because science is about facts and truth - or the best approximation we can manage - not pushing misleading bullshit people will use to make policy the world over?

>> No.7005332

>>7005329
Pure ideology. Stop being such a ninny.

>> No.7005336

>>7005329
>I'm not interested therefore no one should discuss it
And you talk shit about THEIR ideology?

>> No.7005345

>>7005277
OP, I always thought it was because psychologists wanted to believe that IQ didn't change over the course of a person's lifetime.
Sure, raw intelligence changes, but IQ is the relation of raw intelligence to age.

>> No.7005368

>>7005277
who is this girl?

>> No.7005380

Because the primary purpose of iq is to diagnose developmental disabilities, and for that it needs to be normalized to give sensible results.

>> No.7005381

>>7005380
this. People on /sci/ seem to think that the IQ's primary purpose is to rank people.

>> No.7005391

>>7005380
Yeah that would work even if males and females had different means because you would compare them with their own gender's mean try again.

>> No.7005392

>>7005277

Because an IQ test is meant to be a generalized way of classing people based by intelligence in relation to one another.

The flaw in IQ tests is that questions can often have little to do with actual intelligence. This is why you can 'train' for IQ tests and get better results. This is obviously illogical. If the point of the test is to judge your innate intelligence in relation to your peers, you shouldn't be able to improve your intelligence after a week of study.

Now, its well known that men and women do not have the same brain processes. They are evolved for different tasks and social dynamics, as thousands of years of certain behavior have resulted in brains trained to think certain ways. I wont go into detail on this since i trust you to look it up yourself - but an example of this that can be seen in every day life is shopping habits. The cliche of men hating to go shopping with women is because men simply find what they want and leave with it, while women are far more likely to attempt to go to several places and then retrace their steps buying the best deal.

This is because males went out in hunting parties, found the thing, chased it until it was tired, killed it and brought it home. Women went out to forage. Picking every item on the way would have resulted in carrying thing unnecessary distances, and perhaps picking things that werent ripe or ideal compared to others. Instead locations were memorized, then on the way back to camp the best bounty could be picked and brought back. This one bit of behavior is the cause of quite a few other male-female cliches, such as the famous way that men remember directions better as simple instructions (left, second right, along for so many lanes) while women remember directions better in relation to other objects (Y is across the road from X, on the same road as Z etc.)

CONT:

>> No.7005396

>>7005380
Also by that measure black people are on average basically retarded (or, 'developmentally disabled' to borrow a euphemism).

>> No.7005397

>>7005392


There's quite a few other male-female brain differences that exist, which are genuinely interesting to read. Better spatial awareness for example is the domain of men, which might explain why parking is a stereotypically hard thing for women. Females have greater empathy and are known for talking out issues, while males tend to kill themselves via suicide far more frequently.

So, establishing that males and females think differently and have brains equipped for different things, the obvious conclusion to draw is that a test we already know is flawed is flawed further.

If questions are being asked in such a manner that males have an innate advantage in answering them, they are not doing their job. In the same way that a scientist measuring fitness via treadmill is not doing his job if he fails to notice that half of his test subjects have a foot better structured for sprinting.

If a male gets ten IQ points more than a women for no other reason than because he does better on questions that involve geometric shapes, that doesnt necessarily make him smarter. It could just mean his brain structure is better put together for answering that specific type of question.

The IQ test again, is meant to judge intelligence relative to your peers. If men naturally do better at it despite seeming no more intelligent than their female counterparts, its failing at its purpose.

The answer is to change questions around until male and female scores start to look around equal. You arent adjusting the scores - like you seem to be suggesting - you are adjusting the test until gender bias is less prevalent.

TLDR - Because IQ tests are basically a protoscience, and even the people who created them agreed they should be taken with a heavy grain of salt.

>> No.7005399

>>7005381
Not only /sci but even HR dept. in companies think so sometimes.

>> No.7005406

>>7005392
>>7005397
So what you're saying is that testing females for spatial reasoning skills is like coming to the conclusion that whales are weak because they can't bench press and we can?

>> No.7005417

>>7005399
only real shit tier companies, i have an IQ of 154 and the only companies i worked at i had basically no interaction with HR