[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 107 KB, 800x825, keanu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
7252959 No.7252959 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

are men more intelligent than women?

>> No.7252960

There are more very intelligent men than there are very intelligent women.

>> No.7252969

It's an other kind of intelligence so you can't compare it. Men are better in math, science, CS, art, politics, etc. Women are better in Gender Studies and sucking dicks.

>> No.7252971

men are trying harder because they want to fuck the best women.
Most women dont have that impulse and they are less agressive (are trying less hard). There are exceptions on each side.

>> No.7252974


and what if you test small children?

>> No.7252976

Children are irrelevant.

>> No.7252991

But men are better at sucking dicks too. I mean, man can being a woman better than a woman.
Kinda silly but it is true. A man can understand what a man want and please him while a woman doesn't.

>> No.7252996

A homo only understands what a homo wants, not what men in general want.

>> No.7252997

Try measuring intelligence first and than examine the brain.

Anyways, it's more socially acceptable to males to be genius than females. Physical science is seen as a masculine pursuit.

>> No.7252999


>> No.7253000

*Physical science is a masculine pursuit

>> No.7253039
File: 56 KB, 1104x1184, real_gender_studies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I just made a diagram about how our society works. I think it will be of value for our discussion.

>> No.7253043

edgy but true

>> No.7253044

Yes, you don't need intelligence to gather berries.

>> No.7253056

Yeah, I'm sorry but I made it in Paint.

>> No.7253064

I was talking about the pedophilia

>> No.7253070


>> No.7253077

it depends on what you define intelligence as, there are multiple facets of intelligence. I think when you take in consideration the treatment of women for most of human history they're not necessarily as ''book smart'' as men, but i think there is a great shift taking place. More women going to university than men, more equality.
but then again this is a mongoloid sexist image board the answer is a given. I was solving some calculus problems in earlier threads and thought wow you guys are truly retarded

>> No.7253078

>tips the fedora

>> No.7253080

>Maybe if I deny the significance of IQ distributions, women will want to have sex with me

>> No.7253083

i'm a girl.
IQ doesn't measure inherent intelligence. There have been plenty of scholarly articles read about the Flynn effect

>> No.7253093

I suppose we should just throw out the SATs then, because they're basically an IQ test and like you said IQ tests are meaningless.

>> No.7253096
File: 17 KB, 810x431, women are sociopaths.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It doesn't matter how intelligent they are if they don't use their intelligence. They could be high IQ supergeniuses but it doesn't mean shit because they are immature sociopathic children whose life is devoid of academic ambitions and only consists of rejecting beta manlets and taking as much Chad cock as possible.

>> No.7253099


>> No.7253100


>> No.7253101


>not knowing anything about SAT or IQ tests.

Just because a test doesn't measure inherent intelligence (if there is such a thing) doesn't mean it doesn't measures ones willingness to learn.

>> No.7253102

"If woman were a thinking creature she would, having been the cook for thousands of years, surely have had to discover the major facts of physiology, and likewise gained possession of the art of healing."
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

>> No.7253113

no, men are just generally more driven, more curious and more willing to devote time to their interests

>> No.7253121

So if you devise a test and you figure out the scores correlate with SAT scores, with academic achievement, with midlife career income, and with reaction times, but you INSIST that it can't correlate with intelligence, then what the hell is the definition of intelligence?

>> No.7253123

My thesis is that there are staggering similarities between women and pathological liars. Women are equipped to lying, as it allows them a greater evolutionary chance of misleading men into caring for them and their offspring, even if the offspring was the produce of another man.


[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14615.full
>stereological and correlative light and electron microscopy to show that men have a significantly higher synaptic density than women in all cortical layers of the temporal neocortex.

[2] http://today.uci.edu/iframe.php?p=/news/release_detail_iframe.asp?key=1261
>The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter

[3] http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11655.html
>Specifically, liars had a 25.7 percent increase in prefrontal white matter compared to the antisocial controls and a 22 percent increase compared to the normal controls. Liars had a 14.2 percent decrease in prefrontal gray matter compared to normal controls.

>> No.7253135


Kek, for one sec you got me.

>> No.7253137


<<children are a mistake>> - hayao miyazaki

>> No.7253139

lol you think SATs are anything more than a corporate gimmick, they're supposed to measure college ''readiness'' along with the ACTs but it's been proven how a person scores on them won't be parallel to their college performance

>> No.7253143


you know this much about IQ tests but you haven't read anything debating what we mean by intelligence?

What kind of biased crap have you been reading?

>> No.7253144

<div class="math">

>> No.7253145

>poor test taker with sour grapes detected

>it's been proven how a person scores on them won't be parallel to their college performance
Counterpoint: no it hasn't.
See how easy it is to make claims with no sources?

>> No.7253147

Sorry I never took a "women are just as good as men but the patriarchy is keeping them down so let's invent alternative definitions for oppressive facts" class.

>> No.7253148

Sure nigga

>> No.7253150

no actually i scored really well on them enough so that i just tested into the higher calc classes and decided to be an engineering major instead of literature lel, my friend scored lower but she is really brilliant and has a higher grade in math than me also who is going to post sources this is common knowledge about the SAT do you want a thesis next

>> No.7253154

You're such a fucking moron hoping that I won't bother posting a link to an SAT to GPA correlation because there are literally too many to choose from.

Well joke's on you, I can just post the first one that Google gives me.

>> No.7253159


what are you talking about..? I'm not a feminist? you don't really buy in to this red-pilled "our DNA completely dictates our intelligence" crap, do you?

Lay off 4chan for a while. You need to come back to reality instead of listening to a bunch of neet white retards make inference off of biased assumptions.

>> No.7253161
File: 22 KB, 368x353, 1308228951110.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I'm smart because I do some undergrad's homework

If the people who posted in those threads were intelligent, there wouldn't be any discussion. A right answer is a right answer.

>> No.7253166

>it depends on what you define intelligence as,

How high is your spiritual IQ?

>> No.7253174

When did I ever say that DNA completely dictates our intelligence? The first thing I said to you is "IQ distributions are significant," which is exactly what we see empirically.

"The agreement [between the number of women mathematicians in the National Academy and Science and the number we would predict just from IQ distributions] is almost embarrassing."

Your willingness deny the consequences of slight differences in mean IQs is evidence that you are influenced egalitarian ideals that have infiltrated every academic field.

>> No.7253181
File: 84 KB, 1024x768, ay.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


It doesn't matter, you're all ants.

>> No.7253191

lol this is too good to be true

>> No.7253197


>posts sub-standard article
>still thinks the mean of IQ distributions aren't affected by the society the participants are a part of.

You really need to read better literature. If you tell women that women usually are worse than men at maths, they'll do comparatively (and significantly) worse. If you get them to read an article about how women are better than men at maths, they'll do just as well to better than men.

You reallllly need to read up on some of the experiments people do in this field. Not just the stupid as fuck ones with brain-scans and >hurr durr these differences in their brains we can see MUST account for the difference

>> No.7253199

and yet here you are fighting against people saying women are less intelligent

i guess it must be just you that does that

>> No.7253202


You haven't posted a single shred of evidence yet, sweetheart.

>> No.7253209


I'm saying there's so many morons on this site that just read they same biased crap as one another. Branch out once in a while and you'll see how ridiculous the arguments you and they make.

I dare you to read both books from simon baron cohen and Delusions of Gender by cordelia fine, and then come back and tell me who's less biased.

>> No.7253216
File: 3.68 MB, 4269x2324, Vatican_Altar_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Intelligence or IQ or whatever is a very vague concept. But you can compare the enrichments which men and women achieve to our society.
And I can say that (besides coffee filters maybe) there's nothing, literally absolut not a single thing in science, technology or art in the whole cultural history of mankind, which was made by a woman and which I would miss in my daily life.

>> No.7253219

>h-homos don't like their dicks sucked the same way us straight guys do!!
kek. Trust me babe. Give me 5 minutes with your dick and we'll see how true that is.

>> No.7253224

We just don't know.

>> No.7253226


I'm not going to spoon fed mate
honestly, Im trying to watch a movie. Pretty surprised I got involved in this on the chan lel.

get off 4chan fellas. people here are honestly fucking stupid, especially /pol/, this place is only good for shitposting on b/

>> No.7253227

now you're calling us biased even though all we do is cite articles and look at things objectively

i see there's no point arguing with you but hey keep fighting the good fight eventually you'll just up like sweden with their known gender equality and guess what known lack of females in math

>> No.7253239

end up*

>> No.7253248

I'll take that deal as long as I get to shoot you in the head afterwards you flamboyant faggot.

>> No.7253251


>> No.7253255

I bet against it!

>> No.7253257

god i love the damage control

>> No.7253259


>all we do is cite articles
mate, here's a book that has a been referenced the shit out of.

the only person to criticize it is the most retarded person in the field. it outlines the issues with current science on gender differences, including intelligence, interesting experiments.

mate, doing an MSc in mathematical physics, i belong here more than you.

>> No.7253260

sorry about the formatting, theres probably a better pdf online somewhere

>> No.7253267


god i love the bias.
>making assumptions that im truly not watching wolf of wall street, gtfo

>> No.7253272

idc if you're watching anything if you're going to involve yourself in a debate you should take responsibility for your arguments

i also did this >>7253220

while we were arguing but you don't see me spouting about it

>> No.7253298

Lady I congratulate you on being in the upper tail of the bell curve, but god dammit that does not give you the right to rabble off a bunch of anti-empirical post-modern egalitarian nonsense unopposed.

Let me throw you a bone. If humanity were a unisex species, with only females, then the genius females would have built up all the mathematical and scientific discoveries that the dual-sex humanity has achieved. In that sense men and women are "equally smart," but it probably would have taken them a few decades or centuries longer to get where we are today, all else being equal. But we're not a unisex species, and scientific faculty positions are determined by competition. And with just two or three extra IQ points on average, that's enough for the male gender to almost completely crowd out the female gender in scientific representation. It's not "culture telling women they're not as smart as they are," it's economics. Is this not a consistent hypothesis?

>> No.7253303


mate i linked you a pdf?

just because reading about some articles that concludes men are 'inherently' better at math makes you feel good, doesn't make it true. Other studies suggest the results aren't due to anything 'innate' at all, and these studies are often considered better quality. Read the damn pdf.

>> No.7253305

>MSc in mathematical physics
Ha, I' doing a MSc in pure math. I win

>> No.7253312

i'm not going to read the big ass pdf if you could link me where you're pulling evidence that would be very kind

also could you link this studies? i don't care about feeling good if i'm lying to myself

>> No.7253317

Their interests are a reflection of their intelligence.

>> No.7253320


I'm not a woman you stupid fuck

>it would have taken longer
see how biased you are?
I'm not arguing it's not a "consistent hypothesis", I'm arguing it doesn't explain the actual experiments done. Only the ones which were cherry picked to suit an agenda.



>due to socioeconomic factors. Voila

>> No.7253322

Basically it's saying "in some countries the pitiful female/male ratio in mathematics fields is like five times greater than the pitiful female/male ratio in other countries, therefore it's all cultural so woman must be equal after all."

>> No.7253323


>to suit an agenda,
fuck i really do sound like a woman. oh well, my girl friends hotter than me, it balances out

>> No.7253329


really not what it says. jesus i can't believe i used to be as biased as you fuckers

>> No.7253335

Jesus Christ dude you gave me an entire book, so I CTRL+F'ed for "intelligence" and read the relevant bit, pages 127-129. My summary is accurate.

>> No.7253338

>men score higher and lower on IQ distribution
>no women are just a smart
>why do the data show men smart ????

>> No.7253343

pretty much

but we're too biased to realise that i guess

>> No.7253356


did you read the damn thing? if men always had a greater IQ than women, why don't we see it across countries? Or is the fact that it can be explained by cultural differences, eg Japan hates chicks, so not many become mathematicians, but SK loves em and we see as many as men, totally irrelevant? that is what you call your bias, my friend.

>> No.7253358


>> No.7253363

who said men had greater iq? all data shows the higher iq the higher probability of being a male but the average iq is the same for both genders

>> No.7253364


>> No.7253366

Read this sentence
>men score higher and lower on IQ distribution
Now which part shows that women and men have different average IQs

>> No.7253369

Good post.

>> No.7253375


>> No.7253377


anon above was quoting differences in iq, wasn't sure if he was still around.

so more men at the top of math in japan, where they hate chicks, but not at all in SK? did this variability just disappear?

>> No.7253382

>As many men as women IMO participants in the IMO

>6 participants per year
>7 females participated from 1998 to 2008
Even if every person competed twice, that's only 7 females out of 34 total participants. That's not an equal number.

>> No.7253383


in iq mean*

>> No.7253388

*in South Korea

>> No.7253389

>super biased against women
>literally perfect egalitarian society where socioecomic factors are not in play

>> No.7253390
File: 32 KB, 740x308, purity[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

And all the time they show such fucking movies and comics and stuff, so that everyone thinks this would be reality.

>> No.7253397
File: 177 KB, 700x393, star_trek_eats_some_soup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>boys were overrepresented among the very best performers as well as among the very worst.[55][56]
>men score higher and lower on IQ distribution

>> No.7253398

Just gonna throw this out there cause the /r9k/ shit is retarded. The overall assumption that anyone who isn't a feminist or has a critical view of women, their place in modern society, and their effect on society in general, is some neckbeard neet from r9k is goddamn idiocy and is exactly why this gender thing is becoming more of an issue. When men bring up men's issues or are critical of feminism in general, it's INSTANT SHAMING TIME! It's a given that women do that, but when the white knights do that as well it's just sad and only serves to further the problems we are already seeing between genders societally.

>> No.7253400
File: 771 KB, 642x4332, girls-smarter-infographic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.7253408

Posting an image that says "women are psychopaths" is not "bringing up mens' issues," and a hyperlink to /r9k/ is deserved in that case.

>> No.7253411

>perfect egalitarian society
I didn't say that?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Korea

way to read only what you want to read, keep reading down to:
>Hyde and Mertz argue that boys and girls differ in the variance of their ability due to sociocultural factors.[41][60][61]

>> No.7253417


>> No.7253423

oh, and the point about some nations having greater variability for females, not males.

In your view how do you justify those results? random error? it just so happened that the countries that were most likely have a greater variability for women due to cultural factors ended up indeed having them? is this irrelevant to you?

>> No.7253429


>> No.7253432

wait really? can you link that data?

>> No.7253433
File: 65 KB, 154x253, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


lol nice try though

>> No.7253442

>4 out of 44 countries had greater variability for women

>> No.7253444

>I didn't say that?
You implied it, nigger.
>japanese women can't math because culture
>south korean women however are completely free from any sort of bias and have achieved equilibrium with genetic and epigenetic intelligence
Literally nothing about math
>>Hyde and Mertz argue that boys and girls differ in the variance of their ability due to sociocultural factors.[41][60][61]
Nigger you're trolling, did you read the source? Find me a single part of that article which at all suggests
>boys were overrepresented among the very best performers as well as among the very worst.[55][56]
>men score higher and lower on IQ distribution
is incorrect other than socio cultural can't know nuffin

>> No.7253446

As far as intelligence goes, it seems fairly obvious to me why, historically, things are the way they are and I can explain it like this:

Group a loves ice cream
Group b is kinda "meh" to ice cream.
Reasons are: Group a has a biological need for ice cream and also, just really fucking loves ice cream. Group b also has a biological need for ice cream, but loves it just a little less possibly.

The ice cream store only takes carved wooden bowls. The finer the bowl, the better and more ice cream you get. Group A, over generation after generation, becomes the finest wooden bowl carvers in the world, because they NEED ice cream, and love ice cream a lot, and always want the best ice cream. Group b gets ice cream whenever they feel like it, good and bad ice cream, so they give fuckall about carving bowls, and just generally aren't as good as group a at it, because there's no drive, and there isn't years of artistry involved.

It's really that simple, honestly. Group A is men, Group B is women, Bowls are resources, intelligence, creativity, invention, Ice cream is sex (either for pleasure or procreation, to extend the bloodline).

The difference now, and the reason men are slowly becoming more like "fuck you", is that Group B is starting to make bowls, generally aren't as good at it (probably not for biological reasons) and are like "WE CAN'T MAKE GOOD BOWLS CAUSE YOU KEPT ALL THE BOWL MAKING TOOLS TO YOURSELF!" And group A, still wanting the ice cream, is like, "sorry sorry, here's some premade bowls that are almost finished all you gotta do is sand them and we'll tell you your bowls are the best bowls ever! But a small part of group A is like, ice cream is kinda overrated, and fuck those bitches, I've been working hard on bowl-carving my whole life. grumble grumble. And Group B is like, "well you couldn't get ice cream even if you had the best bowls in the world, haha". And some of group A, still worshipping ice cream, is like, "yeah, you tell em sister!"

>> No.7253453

yeah sure mate, see the end of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689999/ for a review

> 4 out off 44
> hasn't noticed the sexism in the 40 countries pro males.

and see above for review of substantial evidence this is indeed the case. sorry anon, i was like this when i found out too.

>> No.7253456
File: 41 KB, 450x582, 1431204876075.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Males and females are not isolated populations, you winged fedora.

>> No.7253472

It may not be, although applied to real life, it is an interesting thought, and in my experience bears itself out in a lot of ways, but that's not the point. You know as well as I do, that this is how it works. If you do not support women totally and completely you are a basement dweller that couldn't get laid if he paid for it. It couldn't possibly be that your overall opinion is based on a shit-ton of real world experience with women, especially younger western women? Nahhhhh, you're just a fag who doesn't lift. It's pathetic, and only serves to point out that critical thinking has ZERO place in modern gender relations. This being a SCI and MATH board, you should all be railing against that fact. But you don't. And it's sad.

I was watching question time the other day and there was a panel of three men and three women discussing gender issues. When the women spoke, they said they wanted men to be more feminine and in touch with how they felt. When the men spoke, the women spoke over them and told them how they felt was wrong and they should feel the way the women think they should feel. This is endemic and pathological. Any thinking person can see that.

>> No.7253474

>Among the mathematically gifted, there may be as many as 2- to 4-fold more boys than girls depending on precisely where the cutoff is set. However, this gender gap, too, has been closing over time at all levels, including even in the IMO. Thus, there is every reason to believe that it will continue to narrow in the future. Moreover, the gender ratio favoring boys above the 99th percentile is not ubiquitous and correlates well with measures of a country's gender equity, strongly indicating that the gap is due, in large part, to sociocultural and other environmental factors, not biology or gender per se.
>strongly indicating that the gap is due, in large part, to sociocultural and other environmental factors, not biology or gender per se.
>women are probably almost as good as men in higher echelon maths

>as good so far
pick one and only one, I'm sorry, anon this argument is still as I posted here >>7253338 in every way. And I haven't even brought up my U CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN points.

>> No.7253478

oh good i'll be looking forward to the explosion of girls' achievements in math

>> No.7253482

implying what? I don't see the part where I said "isolated populations". Even if they are intrinsically tied together, it doesn't change the fundamentals of the analogy.

Also, does that mean I'm a flying atheist? Cause I hate flying and I am not an atheist. Just so you know.

>> No.7253487

Is that the right question to ask?

Women are wired to evaluate things with both sides of their brains. This is why they can tell you immediately how they feel about something, while men, who do not have as strong of a connection between the left and right sides of the brain, have to think about it for a bit.

Neither men or women are better or worse for it. They're just different, and sometimes, that means that some people, especially other genders, will be more effective in certain situations than others.

>> No.7253488

to add onto this i suppose this gender gap has only been relatively closed in the past few years or so as there has been no girls of note

>> No.7253493

>I don't know anything about the brain
fixed that one for you

>> No.7253495
File: 945 KB, 480x270, k.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.7253509

>make objectively terrible post involving the most cringe worthy term of the decade
>someone calls you dumb as fuck
>deploy anime gif

>> No.7253514

>2- to 4-fold
Like the >>7253174 said, the "profoundly gifted" is not the 99th percentile that would yield a 2- to 4-fold ratio (heck, most people on /sci/ are 99th percentile). The "profoundly gifted" is the 99.999th percentile, from which there is a 20- to 40-fold difference. If the best closing of the IMO gender gap at the moment exists in S Korea, which hasn't really closed very much, then that's not really any evidence at all that the gap will continue to close indefinitely.

We make more men and women every single generation; the males of one generation don't inherit the abilities of the males before them. They are taught those abilities, along with the girls (more so the girls are taught in this day and age - with the real college entrance gender gap).

>> No.7253522

Kinda slow on the uptake, aren'tcha, pal?

>> No.7253524

calm down, homo I'm just quoting the silly article he posted so I can call him dumb

>> No.7253528

>probably almost as good as

its saying theres most likely no inherent difference, stop holding on to your feel good ideologies.


there are references in the review?..
it takes years to become noticeable in maths, so yes, perhaps when people stop calling chicks dumb, and always trying to imply men are better it might be more equal, or even near completely equal in the future.

this is slightly almost irrelevant but the first woman to win the fields medal was quite recent.

Guys, instead of reading 4chan for all your scientific facts, go to things like racism review and actual peer reviewed journals where people actually know what they're talking about.

>> No.7253534

>its saying theres most likely no inherent difference, stop holding on to your feel good ideologies.
No it's not. There is nothing which suggests this curve will go on forever until we're equal, and there are quite a few things to suggest that men contribute more significantly to the field of mathematics

>> No.7253538

>First female Fields medal was quite recent
>bringing the actual Fields medal gender ratio very close to what would be predicted just by Gaussian distributions

>> No.7253542

probably, but your shitposting isn't exactly top tier anyways

>> No.7253543

to be honest i doubt most people care that much about gender differences in math

i was just attracted to this thread because i wanted to learn something

>> No.7253549

>suggest that men contribute more significantly to the field of mathematics

in the past.

so the equalization of womens rights in SK has not affected anything?..

the brain is a very poorly understood and complicated thing, the idea that in all its complexity and plasticity it can some how be hardwired for differing intelligences is a bit of a joke. it is just wayyy too sensitive to the environment for these differences not to be cultural

>> No.7253556
File: 256 KB, 1280x1001, tumblr_m5ti9uKtny1qgu9k8o1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I would actually be thrilled if the female population in my math department tripled or quadrupled. I just hate when good goys push this egalitarian bullcrap because it leads to feminism, and we all know what happens after that.

>> No.7253563

>in the past.
And in the present
>so the equalization of womens rights in SK has not affected anything?..
No, there are more capable females producing wealth all over the place
>the brain is a very poorly understood and complicated thing, the idea that in all its complexity and plasticity it can some how be hardwired for differing intelligences is a bit of a joke.
Also genetic intelligence is well documented

>> No.7253564

1. South Korea is an outlier
2. South Korea still has a substantial gender ratio

>> No.7253565


this thread has required reading, see above


mate, im against feminazis as much as the next bloke. but the fact is, with this particular point they hold a far more convincing argument

>> No.7253569

>with this particular point they hold a far more convincing argument

>> No.7253581

are there any girls here that can provide insight as to why there are less girls than boys in stem?

>> No.7253590

I think this will answer your question.

>> No.7253597




please no

>> No.7253604


Ignoring so much info, fuck sake


how do you mean where? you mean where can i show you a brief summary of the facts/ interpretting them?
the end of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689999/ for review

you seem to think that things like inequality and even cultural expectations aren't survey able and hence quantifiable.


lets keep on topic, we're talking about the difference between the average men and women. not men/women of different parents.

>> No.7253620


>posting a video of a pack of retards as some kind evidence that women are inherently less able to do well in math.

>> No.7253628

>ignoring so much info, fuck sake
South Korea IS an outlier, saying that SK women are liberated is a purely post-hoc observation. You could just as easily say that USA women are liberated because of the university entrance gender ratio favoring women. In fact if USA was an outlier in terms of female mathematics faculty, you would be making this exact case.

Was addressed here >>7253514

>> No.7253630

Alright let's play this through
>men and women are equal in intelligence
>no they're not, they never have been
>that's due to culture, see these studies which are soft science, but are still alright
>men and women are still not equal in .1% of math
>this article says they probably will be
>but they aren't and men and women have different IQ distributions
>but they probably will be because the brain is too complicated to evolve based on sexual dimorphism

Your point is a they probably will be, based on nothing except a curve which you assume will catch up.

>> No.7253636

I was just dismissing a retarded question of someone who wouldn't bother reading the beginning of the thread.

>> No.7253644

Men are slightly more intelligent on average but 10 times more daring than women

>> No.7253648


ahhh, so your issue is your undervaluing of relevant "soft" science, eg surveys and other pretty easily quantifiable things?


the suggested reason more women get in to college is because in our society it's not considered particularly masculine to sit around and learn and read in high school. Its far more masculine to hang outside and play sports, go in to trades, drop out early etc. which is something i for one, certainly noticed growing up, not that it stopped me in particular from trying.

>> No.7253656

>going to college isn't masculine
That's completely irrelevant for mathematics; 100% of mathematicians go to university.

>> No.7253662

My issue is your point is literally a maybe based on soft science extrapolation. >>7253514 has very valid points and you've failed to address the IQ distribution curve. And you're saying that it is more masculine for men to avoid college, but there are still more male mathematicians, doesn't this mean that males are beating culture out to join maths programs?

>> No.7253677

This red herring is just so ebig.

>> No.7253680


no shit sherlock

we were talking about why more women go in to college in general?

>doesn't this mean that males are beating culture

not at all? just because a larger amount of women go into university doesn't mean that female mathematicians (in particular) are bound to feel like they belong in maths. for an anecdote, my girlfriend won her physics high school prize, then when she considered which degree to take she took linguistics. She hated being surrounded by arrogant males in physics and in retrospect quite easily sees it had to do with what people around her were doing.

My point is based on soft science? yours doesn't explain why culture does appear to have massive amount to do with what we observe. And it's also not supported by the majority of academics (the people who actually KNOW about this stuff).

>> No.7253683
File: 109 KB, 500x725, BVfSHHb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

How is it a red herring if it's true?

>> No.7253689

>She hated being surrounded by arrogant males
Sounds like your girlfriend's sexism is holding her back.

>> No.7253693


please don't deliberately misinterpret people.

>> No.7253697

What the fuck are you talking about? All I'm saying is that men have more retards and more geniuses, and since the chance of a retard and a layman solving millenium prizes is about the same, you'll have more men in the upper echelon of mathematics which would explain the fact that there are more men at the top of fields which require mathematics.
>And it's also not supported by the majority of academics (the people who actually KNOW about this stuff).
>Say something which isn't politically correct
>get crucified

My original masters thesis still stands as follows: >>7253338

>> No.7253703

>Please don't invoke individual responsibility when I oh so desperately want to blame my own gender for my girlfriend's lack of ambition

>> No.7253721

>Say something which isn't correct
>get crucified
fixed it for you

this idea of maintaining politically correctness and it having disastrous effects on mainstream science is usually propagated by people who dont know nuffin about race, and the brain.

your masters thesis is that men score higher and lower on iq tests because they're men. if you actually went out of your way to read up on the explanatory power of recognising cultural differences and its effect you would see how silly you're being right now.

trust me anon, I used to believe the exact same thing and it took a lot of reading to get over it.

individual responsibility? it's all well and good to sit there and say that you would've been able to look over and above the stigma around being a girl in physics if you were one. but in reality, it truly does influence the decision maker and you should recognize this if you want to maintain a non-biased opinion about these things.

>> No.7253727

>your masters thesis is that men score higher and lower on iq tests because they're men. if you actually went out of your way to read up on the explanatory power of recognising cultural differences and its effect you would see how silly you're being right now.
Where can I read about how culture influences IQ tests in both positive and negative ways for a single sex?

>> No.7253735


I know that female that didn't even pass high school geometry.

>> No.7253738

>Why are men more intelligent than women?
fixed it

>> No.7253761


Theres heaps of info about the greater male variability hypothesis all over the web? just google it.
it was initially thought of as being innate, however recent studies/articles think its still much more likely to be due to cultural norms. Honestly, just google it.

>> No.7253763


>> No.7253771

Men get the shit end of the stick in school and still perform well in math and sciences.

My early math and sciences curriculum almost drove me away from the subjects because of my teachers focus on non-relevant skills (e.g. painting a picture of a mitochondria, making an artistic poster about long division)

>> No.7253776

*which I was explicitly told was to even out the grades for the less "inclined" students (read girls)

>> No.7253798

Links? I'm not finding anything but what I said and some maybes in terms of things we don't know about females

>> No.7253803

I have no sympathy for petty sob stories, of which I have heard dozens from girls who "had the potential" but chose freely not to do physics.

>> No.7253922

Stop throwing around the word 'bias' if you don't understand it's meaning.

>> No.7253932

Why doesn't he age

>> No.7253984 [DELETED] 
File: 20 KB, 570x181, 4_keanu-reeves.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

just here to post the keanu timeline

>> No.7253993
File: 78 KB, 1183x361, 4de914_2469016[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

just here to post the keanu timeline

>> No.7254008
File: 18 KB, 220x275, Commodore_Grace_M._Hopper,_USN_(covered).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>She was one of the first programmers of the Harvard Mark I computer in 1944, and invented the first compiler for a computer programming language, and the one of those who popularized the idea of machine-independent programming languages, which led to the development of COBOL, one of the first high-level programming languages.

Oh sweet, delicious irony.

>> No.7254107

Never heard

>> No.7254948

Define "intelligent"

>> No.7254951

The first high-level programming language (Plankalk├╝l) was proposed by Konrad Zuse in 1943. The first compiler was written by Grace Hopper, in 1952, for the A-0 programming language; the A-0 functioned more as a loader or linker than the modern notion of a compiler. The first autocode and its compiler were developed by Alick Glennie in 1952 for the Mark 1 computer at the University of Manchester and is considered by some to be the first compiled programming language. The FORTRAN team led by John Backus at IBM is generally credited as having introduced the first complete compiler in 1957. COBOL was an early language to be compiled on multiple architectures, in 1960.[2]

>> No.7254990

Because he doesn't emote. If you never move your face, you never develop wrinkles.

>> No.7255158

wrinles come from gravity as well

>> No.7255174

I lold

>> No.7255175

>there are multiple facets of intelligence
Only one brings home the bacon.

>> No.7255363

There doesn't seem to be sufficient data to say with certainty one way or the other.

>> No.7255378

In terms of IQ I think men get more variance, so there's more men with very high IQs but also very low IQs. Women are more balanced, with a more universal medium IQ. The mean IQ of both groups is similar. I'm generalizing of course.

>> No.7255388

There's also the issue of whether or not IQ is a valid measure.

I've known very stupid and very clever people of both sexes; not that anecdotal evidence is all that helpful (though you wouldn't think that to look at this thread)

>> No.7255423
File: 17 KB, 429x241, male_female_bell_curve_.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>The mean IQ of both groups is similar
A repeated lie may become the accepted view of people, but it will never make it truth.

>> No.7255428

mfw keanu is immortal

>> No.7255431


>> No.7255442

it really isn't and over 40 years we'll laugh as how we used iq as a universal standard for measuring intelligence

for god sake it was made by a psychologist in the 1800 for his schooltest

>> No.7255444

Short of getting a more accurate picture by printing the figure out, there looks to be a difference between the averages of about 0.5 "g" points there.
a) what is "g"?
b) is the difference statistically significant?

>> No.7255452

Look at the ratio.
There is less retarded men, more bright men, and the mean is half a standard deviation in favour of men.

There is no equality, no tradeoff, only female inferiority.

>> No.7255453

>There is less retarded men

>> No.7255458

That did not answer any of my questions.

>> No.7255502

Keanu is one of the few actors that truly respects the work of the people behind the scenes of hollywood movies, is it clear that during his everlasting life he came to appreciate the hard work so he decided to give away 50 millions pounds (out of 70) of his earnings from the matrix sequels. When asked about his act of generosity he said:
"Money is the last thing I think about. I could live on what I have already made for the next few centuries".
>next few centuries

>> No.7255517

Plus he had an absolutely horrible life, paved with misfortunes, as if he was cursed by god himself.

That being said, I'd like to buy him a coffee some day.

>> No.7255604
File: 270 KB, 1200x829, keanu reeves the philosopher.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.7255650

But they did get possession of the power of healing through being the cook.

>> No.7255696

his body looks like a 20 year old
I mean in smoothness.

>> No.7255707

<div class="math">\mathfrak{LATEX}</div>

>> No.7255723
File: 20 KB, 300x300, 1420022535839.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>women better at sucking dicks

detect the guy who has never had his dick sucked by a dude

>> No.7255742

Is that supposedly to be good?

>> No.7255880

On average, no.

>> No.7255881

/fit/ pls

>> No.7255888

Some men are smarter than some women. Some women are smarter than some men. That isn't hard to understand.

>> No.7255927

Yeah, but on average man are smarter. That's apparently hard to understand.

>> No.7255934

Why are you even posting on a science board if that's the kind of statement you're gonna make?

"Hey, guys, I'm currently researching the higher likelyhood of sub-saharan africans to be afflicted by Sickle-cell disease"

"Hurr some humans have it and some don't. It's not hard to understand."

>> No.7255948

[email protected] mentioning IQ and not executive functions.

>> No.7255998

Reminds me of
>There are attractive people from all races
>There are white criminals too
Meaningless, elephant in the room ignoring, shill statements

>> No.7256004

top kek

>> No.7256030

Evolution means that men are mentally better at some shit (rapid decision making, establishing dominance, etc.) and women are mentally better in other shit (overarching decisions and their implications, paleolithic sandwich making, etc.).

>> No.7256178

Men have more gray matter, women have more white matter. Men have larger amygdala.

Women are going to surpass men, overall, because our readiness aggression leads to poor attention span and is maladaptive in modern society. We may have more raw problem solving skills (cell bodies), but white matter's interconnectivity is better for non-Mad-Max scenarios.

All this crap about women being sociopathic reeks of butthurt. I have several genes associated with low MAO-A activity and estrogen is one of the recommended treatments against psychopathy. Women hardly kill each other. Men kill for control of the harem, not women.

>> No.7256328
File: 47 KB, 250x375, tumblr_mdwjgdzEoT1qa864p[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You read to much of these.

>> No.7256474

This Aussie cuck.

Mate mate mate maaaate.

>> No.7256779
File: 56 KB, 599x395, 1420308138538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>IQ not used for employment selection
>IQ not used for college admission
>IQ not used to separate groups for competitions requiring intelligence like "weight classes" in wrestling

>IQ used as a suggestion that the genders and sexes might not be completely equal in intelligence at birth and thus Affirmative Action is nonsensical
>mfw liberals claim this makes IQ a "universal standard for measuring intelligence"

>> No.7256782

*meant to say genders and races

>> No.7256786

I guess there are a lot of engineers on this board.

>> No.7257128

Pretty sure all statistics show women do a lot better in school than men these days

>> No.7257202

Where do all this idiots come from?

>> No.7257215

In general men are smarter in some ways. Like math and sharp decision making sure but that doesn't make them smarter. Women are good at analyzing things so they make good psychologists or they can excel in some fields of science or literature.

>> No.7257252
File: 117 KB, 640x640, fdfdfdfd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

define intelligence.

life is a bowling game. women play with the bumpers on, men play with the bumpers off. a lot of men hit the gutter and die. its hard to die as a woman because a man will probably take care of that woman. but men who hit strikes get the prestige of everyone

>> No.7257459

>only 3 in 25 engineers are women blah blah
Lol good

>> No.7257594


>> No.7257650

yeah, but you're an exception

>> No.7257815


I wonder how much the shill's average wage is these days.

>> No.7258984

There are very few women in engineering.

>> No.7260267
File: 35 KB, 652x511, 1388604536451.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You're clearly not good looking and have never been aggressively hit on by women.

>> No.7260448

>book smart
The book smart/street smart (or whatever you call it) duality is irrelevant. There are only bright people, and the rest. You, me and the rest of this board belong to the rest.

>> No.7260461

>You're clearly not good looking and have never been aggressively hit on by women.
...and that puts him in a group with 99% of all men.
Your experiences are not mainstream, Fabio.

>> No.7260465

Yeah, what a faggot.

>> No.7260798


Cruel, but mostly true.

When you think about it, there is nothing inherently bad about all this. We just have different roles; we will never be able to take care of a child like a woman can.
A woman can be smart, until she has a baby.
Honestly, the smartness in a woman may be one of the least important factor to me. I compete with other men, I don't want to compete with a woman; I want to share.

>> No.7260810

Yes. Women have their own separate chess championship because they always lose to men.

>> No.7260812
File: 118 KB, 599x520, IQ and majors.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>IQ doesn't measure inherent intelligence.
Mostly it does though, it also very well measures inherent ability.

>> No.7260824
File: 81 KB, 560x369, tits or gtfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>hurr durr these differences in their brains we can see MUST account for the difference
So, just toss out all actual science and go with philosophical psychological soft "science" mumbo jumbo? Tits or GTFO bitch.

>> No.7260846

>Women hardly kill each other. Men kill for control of the harem, not women.
Women's weapons are psychological.
Men's weapons are physical.
Wake up, it's never too late.

>> No.7260851
File: 1.29 MB, 664x2464, feminism fucking up education.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

AND here's the truth

>> No.7260855
File: 409 KB, 642x1920, feminists fucking up education 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Welcome to reality, sugar tits.

>> No.7260874

>gender fluid

AKA mentally ill

>> No.7261651

>IQ is an Autism test

IQ of 125 here, so it's not the 'lel low IQ butthurt' here.

>> No.7261658
File: 266 KB, 1334x694, 1409820532770.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Women are fucking dumb. If you don't think so, you're unscientific asshole who prefers religion over science.

>> No.7261675

you still want it ;]

>> No.7261679

>small children
There's no significant sexual dimorphism at that point. Any real differences would start to show up in middle school.

>> No.7261682

Since it's so hard to measure raw intelligence, a better question might be "Do men accomplish more valuable work than women?"

>> No.7261685

>the treatment of women for most of human history

The treatment of them? You do realize after hundreds of thousands of years they've JUST NOW started to do work and contribute?

Such entitlement to suddenly demand rights and preferential treatment without even catching up and contributing to society first.

>> No.7261687

Because only men are punished for not contributing

>> No.7261770

Intersting question, well I would say that gender has nothing to do with intelligents. As history has shown us both males and females have done remarkable things in the fields of math and science; but the sterotypical genius is often depicted as male. Mainly since there are more males in these fields.

>> No.7261802
File: 15 KB, 180x160, 10391463_10205510936476463_8313805907530072634_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

thats why u are all virgins lol

>> No.7261908

An individual couldn't possibly be an exception to the rule you replied to.
Good job.

>> No.7261912

I wonder what's going on in this thread?

>> No.7261913

125 is pretty much average by STEM standards :(
Low when it comes to ever achieving anything great, intellectually.
>tfw my IQ is only 125 too

>> No.7261933

>but you don't see me spouting about it
well, actually you just did spout about it

>> No.7262125

you can share with a smart women.
her beeing smart doesnt mean you compete.

also her beeing smart doesnt mean shes an edgy feminazi / egocentric biznez woMAN

>> No.7262144

you either dont understand the flynn effect, inherent intelligence or your critical reasoning abysimal.

probably 1).

the flynn effect describes that IQ levels increase wth generation.
therefore, to keep 100 beeing the standard, things have to be adjusted every so often.

so if you want to compare relative IQ (i.e. how exceptional a value is) between generations, you need to compare IQ (=old) with adjusted IQ (=new), instead of IQ (=old) with IQ (=old)

>> No.7262152

this post refers to a subgroup in women.

they are a minority.
whether their jaded world views are now more accessible and, due to social media mechanics, encounter much less discourse, and/or are glorified in a social phenomon known as '(extreme) feminism' or not.
certainly in the western society it is more accepted/common to have traits and persue activities that make one more akin to these toxic behaviours. nontheless that is not what most are like. nor is what they are happy/fulfilled with/at.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.