Who says that high IQ (above 2-3 SD) is correlated to accomplishment? Plenty of other characteristics that can be attributed to males that might be more highly correlated and better predictors than than an IQ over say 160. After going through the mental/hormonal/physical differences, then one can look the cultural differences within major cultures and again come up with lists of factors that likely correlate better for male accomplishment than IQ above 2-3 SDs. Finally one can look at the fem literature for sets of cultural handicaps supposedly placed on women to get a another set of factors that might be better than high IQ.
Think threshold, one needs a certain level of IQ for accomplishment, but at some point higher might get in the way of accomplishment within a society (anti-social, non-empathetic etc.).
I'm actually somewhat surprised with the data in that at an IQ of 130 its just a 2:1 ratio.
IT doesn't seem like that in academic and intellectual circles. MOre like10 to 1 at best.
Are there smart and talented women out there? No doubt. But they actually seem rarer than those numbers, partially no doubt due to other sex related factors such as motivation, temperament and specific cognitive abilities skews in the underlying IQ measurement.
Anybody who is observant would notice this basic trend in a university setting. There are few really smart women compared to men, but many more moderately smart ones.
At the other end, there are a lot of seemingly complete male idiots, while even the more limited females seem to have a basic level of common sense. Just day to day reality.
So many women argue that they have a "right" to do what men do, to pursue male accomplishments, to change the world. They make themselves miserable becoming half-men.
You don't need a genius IQ to see that women come ready equipped to change the world, irrevocably. It's called a uterus.
Again, why does anyone think that IQ plays a large role in how a female thinks versus how a man thinks? Absent using some threshold, (an IQ of 70 will sound like a Forrest Gump whether male or female, but say anyone 100 or over?) why wouldn't other criteria matter more than IQ in how males versus females behave? Isn't that the whole hypergamy idea? Instinctively/hormonally or whatever, a female tends toward certain behaviors we describe as pursuing the alpha? Don't you think these characteristics might matter more in a societal setting of working in a company as well as in a village and do more to inhibit accomplishment. Add in cultural idea differences, and one shouldn't expect anything similar at all.
@1. Good question. Does IQ correlate to accomplishment? It seems a predisposition to DOING instead of just THINKING would be the determining factor in accomplishment.
When it comes to accomplishment the most important factor imo is the capacity for relentlessness.
The modern world is built on the majority of men to working 50/50/50 - fifty hours a week, for 50 weeks a year for 50 years (or broadly the equivalent). IQ is a force multiplier for relentlessness.
The second generation of 'empowered' women are about to retire and I see no evidence that the mass of women are either willing or capable of working 50/50/50. Even if the IQ balance favoured women it would still have little effect on the sum of their accomplishments. You won't to win the race if you can't (or wont) stay the course.
It's rare that I've met a woman I'd consider actually intelligent. They're very good at following orders and working straight forward tasks, but intelligent discussions usually feel like talking to a teenager, no matter how old they are.
@Double E. The point is, this chart only shows that men have higher IQs than women, which we already knew. It says nothing about accomplishments, male or female. They are two separate things therefore this chart proves nothing in regards to accomplishments.
@Tom KThe point is, this chart only shows that men have higher IQs than women, which we already knew. It says nothing about accomplishments, male or female. They are two separate things therefore this chart proves nothing in regards to accomplishments.
First of all, the fact that men have higher IQs than women is hardly widely accepted. It's actually outright rejected by large portions of the population, so evidence of this fact is meaningful in and of itself.
Secondly, the term "accomplishments" Is so damn vague and obtuse that it is essentially meaningless. You are basically saying, "yes this proves men have higher IQs, but it doesn't mean they are better at doing certain things that I (or somebody else) think are important"
Again, so what? If you want to see who is stronger, you test for strength, If you want to see who is taller, you test for height. And if you want to see who is smarter, you test for intelligence.
If you want to know who is better at accomplishing some random metric that you personally think qualifies as an accomplishment, then do a test for that; but just looking at an existing data set and whining, "yeah, but what are they doing with their lives?" is just feminist bullshit. Stop worrying about trying to make a value statement out of everything and just accept data for what it is.
All I am saying that while a guy at IQ 135 will likely accomplish more than a guy at 100 or 90--see Herrnstein and Murray-- there is nothing to say that over some threshold number to be a good engineer/doctor/businessman that IQ adds to accomplishment (meaning success). When you think that a survey shows that the average top college professor has an IQ in the 130s, one can posit that at some point a higher IQ doesn't directly correlate with more accomplishment and may in fact hinder it. (from Murray's On Education- minimum for engineer or doctor 120, to be a good one need 130s) Chateau Heartiste has some PUA scale where an IQ higher than 140 is negative because of the observed lack of social skills.
Secondly, other attributes that differ between males and females, although rarely acknowledged in polite company, often relating to hormonal differences in development, plus instinctual differences (hypergamy), plus cultural differences (mean girl little princesses) could all easily outweigh IQ differences in why women do not show accomplishment at the same rate as males. I'm sorry but the testosterone drive to risk taking and completing tasks in males, as well as the hunter group bonding over differences for tasks exhibits by males and reinforced in most high school sportsplay (getting over differences to win the game/work the hunt for the mammoth-- settle into heirarchy) could easily explain the differences more than innate IQ.
@1. Good question. Does IQ correlate to accomplishment? It seems a predisposition to DOING instead of just THINKING would be the determining factor in accomplishment.
It is highly correlated to accomplishment within relatively complex professions such as science, law, medicine, technology, etc. It is still fairly correlated in relatively simple fields, merely less so. The ASVAB exists for a very good reason.
See chapters 1 and 2 of The Bell Curve for details.
-- there is nothing to say that over some threshold number to be a good engineer/doctor/businessman that IQ adds to accomplishment (meaning success).
Higher IQ directly causes higher accomplishment within any field. The observed problem is that people with high IQs often fail to matriculate into the professions and remain in them. But whatever they end up doing, even if it's bagging groceries, they will tend to do better than their coworkers and peers.
I'm surprised no one has commented on the norming of IQ tests to permit women to score higher.
Dr. Arthur Jensen, in Bias in Mental Testing, states:
"The most widely used standardized tests of general intelligence have explicitly tried to minimize sex differences in total score by discarding those items that show the largest sex differences in the normative sample and by counterbalancing the number of remaining items that favor either sex. This is true, for example, of the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler scales of intelligence. Such tests, therefore, obviously cannot be used to answer the question of whether there is in fact a true difference between males and females in general intelligence."
Above taken from: http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/sexdiff.html
I think that at this point we need evidence to continue any discussion on whether or not IQ above a relatively high threshold adds anything to achievement. I used 2-3 SD, 130-145 as the threshold. The stereotype of the too smart professor/scientist in the 4-5+ SD range-- very brilliant but not able to do much, or the failed genius because he could not cope with things--another stereotype, likely have their basis in experience. Unfortunately, there is little data out this far and I do not know of any studies that are decent--the politicization of science has taken hold in this field so most of what is out there is dreck for tenure or political means.
My supposition is that after a point, added IQ doesn't really add much because of marginal returns for accomplishment. But that higher IQ adds issues with personality and drive. This implies that accomplishment is not just the few S. Hawkings doing theoretical stuff. Although I think that most theoretical stuff isn't done by the 160+ club (4+ SDs). At least by the papers and such that make it out there and get noticed it doesn't correlate. (What was that survey for the IQ of professors at top colleges?)
Of course not everyone above the threshold acts like the characters/idiot savants on the TV show Scorpion. Many of those above the threshold think they are somewhat normal and able to function. Drive, motivation, divine providence, who they know, and many many other factors may account for a Trump or H. Norman Schwarzkopf, or whoever one wants to hold up as accomplished.
Of course to the main question of this thread, I am suggesting that for males vs females, other factors than IQ such as hypergamy (whether instinctive/hormonal,or cultural) among others are far more important to female accomplishment than if her IQ is 120 or 145.
@Double E. Really? You're going to try and shame me? LOL! Now who's dishibg out feminst bullshit?
My point, and your diatribe said nothing to disqualify it, is that this chart said NOTHING about accomplishment, only that men score higher on IQ tests than women, which fact, interestingly, you dispute. There was NO data presented to demonstrate any correlation between IQ and accomplishment. Your verbal diarrhea notwithstanding.
I've made my point. You've made yours. I'm done. God bless you in all your future endeavors.
It's possible to compare methods for estimating Spearman's g, and decide which are best at capturing the hidden variable. But this work would be pointless, because Griggs v Duke Power instructs us that all groups are identical.
When you think that a survey shows that the average top college professor has an IQ in the 130s,
College professors are a poor group to make any arguments about, because the most important qualification for the job is not a high IQ but rather a desire for a non-competitive environment where the appearance of intelligence is rewarded. Also a high tolerance for bureaucracy. They're a self-selected group that proves nothing about the average person with a 130-ish IQ (which I think is probably a little too high for the average prof, certainly when you take into account social studies profs I'd guess the average in the low 120's).
It's possible to compare methods for estimating Spearman's g, and decide which are best at capturing the hidden variable. But this work would be pointless, because Griggs v Duke Power instructs us that all groups are identical.
@Double E. Really? You're going to try and shame me? LOL! Now who's dishibg out feminst bullshit?
I'm not trying to shame you. I simply stated facts. If you feel shamed by the truth, then you need to re-evaluate your position.
My point, and your diatribe said nothing to disqualify it, is that this chart said NOTHING about accomplishment, only that men score higher on IQ tests than women, which fact, interestingly, you dispute.
I disputed no such thing, use some reading comprehension. I disputed your implication that people already know or accept that men score higher than women. Now maybe when you said 'we" you meant ONLY me and you, but the point stands that 'accomplishments' aside, proof that men do in fact score higher on IQ tests is useful because not everybody knows or accepts that as fact yet - not even everybody reading this site.
There was NO data presented to demonstrate any correlation between IQ and accomplishment. Your verbal diarrhea notwithstanding.
I know, and as I have already said, my response is "so what?". It's a chart of one measured metric in support of something we already can observe.
We already KNOW of the "historical dearth of female accomplishment", to use Vox's phrase, in relation to men. Are you disputing the fact that pretty much everything significant in human history, good and bad, has been done by men?
So now this post shows data of a particular measured difference between two groups that we already know have a big variance in "accomplishments" (by almost any definition) so it automatically correlates to that anyway.
I'm not trying to shame you. I simply stated facts. If you feel shamed by the truth, then you need to re-evaluate your position.
The complaint about being "shamed" is a very strong Gamma tell. Normal men don't really use that phrase. Especially considering your response. Why on Earth did he think you were trying to "shame" him anyway? Must've been the word "whining".
@Jack The complaint about being "shamed" is a very strong Gamma tell. Normal men don't really use that phrase. Especially considering your response. Why on Earth did he think you were trying to "shame" him anyway? Must've been the word "whining".
Yeah, it reminded me of when you tell a women "No, that's not correct." and they respond with "why are you calling me stupid?!"
"The complaint about being "shamed" is a very strong Gamma tell. Normal men don't really use that phrase. Especially considering your response. Why on Earth did he think you were trying to "shame" him anyway? Must've been the word "whining".
Yeah and an even stronger tell of a woman trolling! I can't even imagine a real man even thinking in terms of "shaming" unless he's truly a male feminist, at which juncture he is no longer a real man.
Yeah and an even stronger tell of a woman trolling
Jack's Theory of Gamma: a male brain that for some reason (low T at a critical development juncture, lack of male role models, other ideas welcome) hasn't developed male thought patterns. So you have female solipsism, hypergamy, and security-based thinking coupled with the higher aggression of a male brain.
So yeah, hard to tell the difference between a female troll and a Gamma. Not always any easier if then include a selfie either.
Jack's Theory of Gamma: a male brain that for some reason (low T at a critical development juncture, lack of male role models, other ideas welcome) hasn't developed male thought patterns. So you have female solipsism, hypergamy, and security-based thinking coupled with the higher aggression of a male brain.
Perhaps since female is the default developmental path, it's a baseline mode of the brain, even in males. So male brains can be trained/developed to use female thought patterns/behavior as the default, where the reverse would not be as successful.
What is the conversion rate of Gammas to Delta+? Curious now how permanent that state is.
Perhaps since female is the default developmental path, it's a baseline mode of the brain, even in males...
There's a spike in testosterone somewhere in the first couple of years for baby boys, coinciding with a major phase of brain development, then it tapers off until puberty. The thought is, this spike prepares the brain for future high levels of testosterone. Perhaps that T-spike is missing in Gammas.
What is the conversion rate of Gammas to Delta+? Curious now how permanent that state is.
I'm curious about this too. If the above speculation is true, it would seem pretty permanent, but then again, newer research seems to indicate the brain restructures itself far more than previously thought. At any rate, I hope it's not permanent, and I'd encourage Gammas to assume it's eminently fixable.
Gammas are fixable because they're anxious. The human brain has two phases of tangled neurons, because once you figure out your social rules, then the unused paths get pruned -- so you're born with one profusion that gets pruned when you figure out childhood, then you get stupid again at puberty and have to figure out adulthood.
Gammas never actually figure out adulthood until they're not gammas, so I would argue that they are probably still in that chaotic entangled neuron phase and therefore teachable (even into their late 20s), unless they've somehow managed to find a habit that works for some definition of success for them.
Now that I think of it, I'm sure that gammas can be changeable into their thirties. I know an example, which is me, since it took me awhile to grow up into a delta. So, theoretically, the adolescent profusion of entangled neurons could persist for decades. There is no hard limit that I know of, so we should all be optimists.
I'm curious about this too. If the above speculation is true, it would seem pretty permanent, but then again, newer research seems to indicate the brain restructures itself far more than previously thought. At any rate, I hope it's not permanent, and I'd encourage Gammas to assume it's eminently fixable.
I think necessity has a way of triggering that sort of growth. Part of the West's problem is that we're rich enough to dilute and nullify that necessity, coupled with a (feminized) culture that wants to make everything easier.
There's a lot less navel gazing when action is necessary for one's daily bread.
Nobody's too broken to fix.
I believe that too, if only because of Christianity. Where men fail, the divine works miracles.
high IQ is simply a tool - and doesn't automatically equal high accomplishment. To do that, you need focus, hard work, and good character. You can be a great athlete - fast, strong, and quick. But if you choose the wrong sport, refuse to work hard, don't train intelligently or let yourself get fat or drugged out you will be mediocre.
Its not just that women are underrepresented at the High IQ levels, their "will to succeed" is much lower. This isn't because of the "patriarchy" but because most women simply don't care to spend their lives obsessing over how to make a billion dollars or how to cure disease X or write software program Y.
What many people also fail to realize is that the 115 IQ woman with 2 degrees, earning $150,000 as a random government administrator of some kind, hasn't really "accomplished" any more than a 150 IQ guy who works as a pizza delivery driver and plays video games all day.
46 comments:
Who says that high IQ (above 2-3 SD) is correlated to accomplishment? Plenty of other characteristics that can be attributed to males that might be more highly correlated and better predictors than than an IQ over say 160. After going through the mental/hormonal/physical differences, then one can look the cultural differences within major cultures and again come up with lists of factors that likely correlate better for male accomplishment than IQ above 2-3 SDs. Finally one can look at the fem literature for sets of cultural handicaps supposedly placed on women to get a another set of factors that might be better than high IQ.
Think threshold, one needs a certain level of IQ for accomplishment, but at some point higher might get in the way of accomplishment within a society (anti-social, non-empathetic etc.).
This of course is a hate fact which means that SJW's hate that this article is fact.
The comment section on this is gold - best so far:
"Well, somebody has to make the sandwiches..."
Truth hurts! But only the one's who can't handle it or who's ideology doesn't allow it.
Thank your for that post - and great link!
from http://freedompowerandwealth.com
I'm actually somewhat surprised with the data in that at an IQ of 130 its just a 2:1 ratio.
IT doesn't seem like that in academic and intellectual circles. MOre like10 to 1 at best.
Are there smart and talented women out there? No doubt. But they actually seem rarer than those numbers, partially no doubt due to other sex related factors such as motivation, temperament and specific cognitive abilities skews in the underlying IQ measurement.
Anybody who is observant would notice this basic trend in a university setting. There are few really smart women compared to men, but many more moderately smart ones.
At the other end, there are a lot of seemingly complete male idiots, while even the more limited females seem to have a basic level of common sense. Just day to day reality.
So many women argue that they have a "right" to do what men do, to pursue male accomplishments, to change the world. They make themselves miserable becoming half-men.
You don't need a genius IQ to see that women come ready equipped to change the world, irrevocably. It's called a uterus.
Any man who talks with "intelligent women" ultimately gets the impression that the intelligence either just isn't there in the same way a man's is.
Can you subtract the sex norming and get the real numbers for this?
Again, why does anyone think that IQ plays a large role in how a female thinks versus how a man thinks? Absent using some threshold, (an IQ of 70 will sound like a Forrest Gump whether male or female, but say anyone 100 or over?) why wouldn't other criteria matter more than IQ in how males versus females behave? Isn't that the whole hypergamy idea? Instinctively/hormonally or whatever, a female tends toward certain behaviors we describe as pursuing the alpha? Don't you think these characteristics might matter more in a societal setting of working in a company as well as in a village and do more to inhibit accomplishment. Add in cultural idea differences, and one shouldn't expect anything similar at all.
@1. Good question. Does IQ correlate to accomplishment? It seems a predisposition to DOING instead of just THINKING would be the determining factor in accomplishment.
When it comes to accomplishment the most important factor imo is the capacity for relentlessness.
The modern world is built on the majority of men to working 50/50/50 - fifty hours a week, for 50 weeks a year for 50 years (or broadly the equivalent). IQ is a force multiplier for relentlessness.
The second generation of 'empowered' women are about to retire and I see no evidence that the mass of women are either willing or capable of working 50/50/50. Even if the IQ balance favoured women it would still have little effect on the sum of their accomplishments. You won't to win the race if you can't (or wont) stay the course.
Anybody willing to chart a graph with three curves based on the above table?
@1 Who says that high IQ (above 2-3 SD) is correlated to accomplishment?
that's like saying "yes men are stronger than women on average, but who says they are going to do something useful with that strength?"
Technically true, but who gives a fuck? The turtle can win the race when the rabbit is sleeping too. what's the point?
It's rare that I've met a woman I'd consider actually intelligent. They're very good at following orders and working straight forward tasks, but intelligent discussions usually feel like talking to a teenager, no matter how old they are.
@Double E. The point is, this chart only shows that men have higher IQs than women, which we already knew. It says nothing about accomplishments, male or female. They are two separate things therefore this chart proves nothing in regards to accomplishments.
All men, whether of low, medium, or high IQ, know that smart women are thin on the ground.
I found it interesting that the lines cross at 115.
@Tom KThe point is, this chart only shows that men have higher IQs than women, which we already knew. It says nothing about accomplishments, male or female. They are two separate things therefore this chart proves nothing in regards to accomplishments.
First of all, the fact that men have higher IQs than women is hardly widely accepted. It's actually outright rejected by large portions of the population, so evidence of this fact is meaningful in and of itself.
Secondly, the term "accomplishments" Is so damn vague and obtuse that it is essentially meaningless. You are basically saying, "yes this proves men have higher IQs, but it doesn't mean they are better at doing certain things that I (or somebody else) think are important"
Again, so what?
If you want to see who is stronger, you test for strength, If you want to see who is taller, you test for height. And if you want to see who is smarter, you test for intelligence.
If you want to know who is better at accomplishing some random metric that you personally think qualifies as an accomplishment, then do a test for that; but just looking at an existing data set and whining, "yeah, but what are they doing with their lives?" is just feminist bullshit. Stop worrying about trying to make a value statement out of everything and just accept data for what it is.
I'm actually somewhat surprised with the data in that at an IQ of 130 its just a 2:1 ratio.
I'm not. That's just midwit. It isn't even nominally genius. There are plenty of women who are merely bright.
this chart proves nothing in regards to accomplishments.
And a knife sticking in someone's back doesn't prove he's dead either, but it might go a long way towards explaining why he doesn't have a pulse.
History proves a dramatic difference between men and women in accomplishments. That chart is just Exhibit A in explaining why. .
All I am saying that while a guy at IQ 135 will likely accomplish more than a guy at 100 or 90--see Herrnstein and Murray-- there is nothing to say that over some threshold number to be a good engineer/doctor/businessman that IQ adds to accomplishment (meaning success). When you think that a survey shows that the average top college professor has an IQ in the 130s, one can posit that at some point a higher IQ doesn't directly correlate with more accomplishment and may in fact hinder it. (from Murray's On Education- minimum for engineer or doctor 120, to be a good one need 130s) Chateau Heartiste has some PUA scale where an IQ higher than 140 is negative because of the observed lack of social skills.
Secondly, other attributes that differ between males and females, although rarely acknowledged in polite company, often relating to hormonal differences in development, plus instinctual differences (hypergamy), plus cultural differences (mean girl little princesses) could all easily outweigh IQ differences in why women do not show accomplishment at the same rate as males. I'm sorry but the testosterone drive to risk taking and completing tasks in males, as well as the hunter group bonding over differences for tasks exhibits by males and reinforced in most high school sportsplay (getting over differences to win the game/work the hunt for the mammoth-- settle into heirarchy) could easily explain the differences more than innate IQ.
@1. Good question. Does IQ correlate to accomplishment? It seems a predisposition to DOING instead of just THINKING would be the determining factor in accomplishment.
It is highly correlated to accomplishment within relatively complex professions such as science, law, medicine, technology, etc. It is still fairly correlated in relatively simple fields, merely less so. The ASVAB exists for a very good reason.
See chapters 1 and 2 of The Bell Curve for details.
-- there is nothing to say that over some threshold number to be a good engineer/doctor/businessman that IQ adds to accomplishment (meaning success).
Higher IQ directly causes higher accomplishment within any field. The observed problem is that people with high IQs often fail to matriculate into the professions and remain in them. But whatever they end up doing, even if it's bagging groceries, they will tend to do better than their coworkers and peers.
I'm surprised no one has commented on the norming of IQ tests to permit women to score higher.
Dr. Arthur Jensen, in Bias in Mental Testing, states:
"The most widely used standardized tests of general intelligence have explicitly tried to minimize sex differences in total score by discarding those items that show the largest sex differences in the normative sample and by counterbalancing the number of remaining items that favor either sex. This is true, for example, of the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler scales of intelligence. Such tests, therefore, obviously cannot be used to answer the question of whether there is in fact a true difference between males and females in general intelligence."
Above taken from: http://www.polymath-systems.com/intel/essayrev/sexdiff.html
I think that at this point we need evidence to continue any discussion on whether or not IQ above a relatively high threshold adds anything to achievement. I used 2-3 SD, 130-145 as the threshold. The stereotype of the too smart professor/scientist in the 4-5+ SD range-- very brilliant but not able to do much, or the failed genius because he could not cope with things--another stereotype, likely have their basis in experience. Unfortunately, there is little data out this far and I do not know of any studies that are decent--the politicization of science has taken hold in this field so most of what is out there is dreck for tenure or political means.
My supposition is that after a point, added IQ doesn't really add much because of marginal returns for accomplishment. But that higher IQ adds issues with personality and drive. This implies that accomplishment is not just the few S. Hawkings doing theoretical stuff. Although I think that most theoretical stuff isn't done by the 160+ club (4+ SDs). At least by the papers and such that make it out there and get noticed it doesn't correlate. (What was that survey for the IQ of professors at top colleges?)
Of course not everyone above the threshold acts like the characters/idiot savants on the TV show Scorpion. Many of those above the threshold think they are somewhat normal and able to function. Drive, motivation, divine providence, who they know, and many many other factors may account for a Trump or H. Norman Schwarzkopf, or whoever one wants to hold up as accomplished.
Of course to the main question of this thread, I am suggesting that for males vs females, other factors than IQ such as hypergamy (whether instinctive/hormonal,or cultural) among others are far more important to female accomplishment than if her IQ is 120 or 145.
@Double E. Really? You're going to try and shame me? LOL! Now who's dishibg out feminst bullshit?
My point, and your diatribe said nothing to disqualify it, is that this chart said NOTHING about accomplishment, only that men score higher on IQ tests than women, which fact, interestingly, you dispute. There was NO data presented to demonstrate any correlation between IQ and accomplishment. Your verbal diarrhea notwithstanding.
I've made my point. You've made yours. I'm done. God bless you in all your future endeavors.
There was NO data presented to demonstrate any correlation between IQ and accomplishment. Your verbal diarrhea notwithstanding.
Are you really going to double down on your assertion that there's no correlation between IQ and accomplishment?
It's possible to compare methods for estimating Spearman's g, and decide which are best at capturing the hidden variable. But this work would be pointless, because Griggs v Duke Power instructs us that all groups are identical.
When you think that a survey shows that the average top college professor has an IQ in the 130s,
College professors are a poor group to make any arguments about, because the most important qualification for the job is not a high IQ but rather a desire for a non-competitive environment where the appearance of intelligence is rewarded. Also a high tolerance for bureaucracy. They're a self-selected group that proves nothing about the average person with a 130-ish IQ (which I think is probably a little too high for the average prof, certainly when you take into account social studies profs I'd guess the average in the low 120's).
It's possible to compare methods for estimating Spearman's g, and decide which are best at capturing the hidden variable. But this work would be pointless, because Griggs v Duke Power instructs us that all groups are identical.
@Double E. Really? You're going to try and shame me? LOL! Now who's dishibg out feminst bullshit?
I'm not trying to shame you. I simply stated facts. If you feel shamed by the truth, then you need to re-evaluate your position.
My point, and your diatribe said nothing to disqualify it, is that this chart said NOTHING about accomplishment, only that men score higher on IQ tests than women, which fact, interestingly, you dispute.
I disputed no such thing, use some reading comprehension. I disputed your implication that people already know or accept that men score higher than women. Now maybe when you said 'we" you meant ONLY me and you, but the point stands that 'accomplishments' aside, proof that men do in fact score higher on IQ tests is useful because not everybody knows or accepts that as fact yet - not even everybody reading this site.
There was NO data presented to demonstrate any correlation between IQ and accomplishment. Your verbal diarrhea notwithstanding.
I know, and as I have already said, my response is "so what?". It's a chart of one measured metric in support of something we already can observe.
We already KNOW of the "historical dearth of female accomplishment", to use Vox's phrase, in relation to men. Are you disputing the fact that pretty much everything significant in human history, good and bad, has been done by men?
So now this post shows data of a particular measured difference between two groups that we already know have a big variance in "accomplishments" (by almost any definition) so it automatically correlates to that anyway.
I found it interesting that the lines cross at 120.
Regards,
Seo Anyaran
I'm not trying to shame you. I simply stated facts. If you feel shamed by the truth, then you need to re-evaluate your position.
The complaint about being "shamed" is a very strong Gamma tell. Normal men don't really use that phrase. Especially considering your response. Why on Earth did he think you were trying to "shame" him anyway? Must've been the word "whining".
@Jack The complaint about being "shamed" is a very strong Gamma tell. Normal men don't really use that phrase. Especially considering your response. Why on Earth did he think you were trying to "shame" him anyway? Must've been the word "whining".
Yeah, it reminded me of when you tell a women "No, that's not correct." and they respond with "why are you calling me stupid?!"
"The complaint about being "shamed" is a very strong Gamma tell. Normal men don't really use that phrase. Especially considering your response. Why on Earth did he think you were trying to "shame" him anyway? Must've been the word "whining".
Yeah and an even stronger tell of a woman trolling! I can't even imagine a real man even thinking in terms of "shaming" unless he's truly a male feminist, at which juncture he is no longer a real man.
Yeah and an even stronger tell of a woman trolling
Jack's Theory of Gamma: a male brain that for some reason (low T at a critical development juncture, lack of male role models, other ideas welcome) hasn't developed male thought patterns. So you have female solipsism, hypergamy, and security-based thinking coupled with the higher aggression of a male brain.
So yeah, hard to tell the difference between a female troll and a Gamma. Not always any easier if then include a selfie either.
So yeah, hard to tell the difference between a female troll and a Gamma. Not always any easier if then include a selfie either.
I see what you mean: http://i0.wp.com/theden.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/scalzi.jpg?resize=640%2C480
Jack's Theory of Gamma: a male brain that for some reason (low T at a critical development juncture, lack of male role models, other ideas welcome) hasn't developed male thought patterns. So you have female solipsism, hypergamy, and security-based thinking coupled with the higher aggression of a male brain.
Perhaps since female is the default developmental path, it's a baseline mode of the brain, even in males. So male brains can be trained/developed to use female thought patterns/behavior as the default, where the reverse would not be as successful.
What is the conversion rate of Gammas to Delta+? Curious now how permanent that state is.
Perhaps since female is the default developmental path, it's a baseline mode of the brain, even in males...
There's a spike in testosterone somewhere in the first couple of years for baby boys, coinciding with a major phase of brain development, then it tapers off until puberty. The thought is, this spike prepares the brain for future high levels of testosterone. Perhaps that T-spike is missing in Gammas.
What is the conversion rate of Gammas to Delta+? Curious now how permanent that state is.
I'm curious about this too. If the above speculation is true, it would seem pretty permanent, but then again, newer research seems to indicate the brain restructures itself far more than previously thought. At any rate, I hope it's not permanent, and I'd encourage Gammas to assume it's eminently fixable.
Nobody's too broken to fix.
Gammas are fixable because they're anxious. The human brain has two phases of tangled neurons, because once you figure out your social rules, then the unused paths get pruned -- so you're born with one profusion that gets pruned when you figure out childhood, then you get stupid again at puberty and have to figure out adulthood.
Gammas never actually figure out adulthood until they're not gammas, so I would argue that they are probably still in that chaotic entangled neuron phase and therefore teachable (even into their late 20s), unless they've somehow managed to find a habit that works for some definition of success for them.
Now that I think of it, I'm sure that gammas can be changeable into their thirties. I know an example, which is me, since it took me awhile to grow up into a delta. So, theoretically, the adolescent profusion of entangled neurons could persist for decades. There is no hard limit that I know of, so we should all be optimists.
unless they've somehow managed to find a habit that works for some definition of success for them.
So to make it explicit, a guy like Scalzi is a lost cause. It's neuroscience.
I'm curious about this too. If the above speculation is true, it would seem pretty permanent, but then again, newer research seems to indicate the brain restructures itself far more than previously thought. At any rate, I hope it's not permanent, and I'd encourage Gammas to assume it's eminently fixable.
I think necessity has a way of triggering that sort of growth. Part of the West's problem is that we're rich enough to dilute and nullify that necessity, coupled with a (feminized) culture that wants to make everything easier.
There's a lot less navel gazing when action is necessary for one's daily bread.
Nobody's too broken to fix.
I believe that too, if only because of Christianity. Where men fail, the divine works miracles.
high IQ is simply a tool - and doesn't automatically equal high accomplishment. To do that, you need focus, hard work, and good character. You can be a great athlete - fast, strong, and quick. But if you choose the wrong sport, refuse to work hard, don't train intelligently or let yourself get fat or drugged out you will be mediocre.
Its not just that women are underrepresented at the High IQ levels, their "will to succeed" is much lower. This isn't because of the "patriarchy" but because most women simply don't care to spend their lives obsessing over how to make a billion dollars or how to cure disease X or write software program Y.
What many people also fail to realize is that the 115 IQ woman with 2 degrees, earning $150,000 as a random government administrator of some kind, hasn't really "accomplished" any more than a 150 IQ guy who works as a pizza delivery driver and plays video games all day.
Great chart, its why I ask smart men for advice or another objective view if I'm stumped, dense or just MPAI - which is often.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.