women have 20% fewer neurons than men, that means they have 20% lower IQ than men
>>16275361While I grant your general point, it may not be a linear relationship.
>>16275366why?it’s obviously linear due to limited 3d space which limits the connections between neurons at the same proportion for a brain of any size.
>>16275373>why?Well, are we assuming that 0 neurons means and IQ of exactly zero?It seems to me that a creature could have quite a few neurons, but still have an IQ of about zero.So maybe you instead say it's linear, but the y-axis crossing is not at zero. That means we would need negative numbers of neurons to get to zero IQ, but that's impossible.Basically I'm saying that women might be only 5% lower than men, on average, despite having 20% fewer neurons.(Alternatively, having 20% fewer might mean their IQ's are only half ours.)What I was granting is that I agree that having fewer neurons probably does mean they are less intelligent. Unfortunately, academia refuses to test IQs after adolescence—probably because when they do, they keep finding that men ultimately grow up to be smarter than women.
>>16275361That's great and all, but in the real world men tend to only score 18 points higher on the SAT verses women, which is a 2.3% difference.The neuronal cell-count issue probably has to do with women having fewer total cells verses men, and men have more muscle than women (which requires direct neuronal integration into the brain), and women have more adipose cells which aren't integrated into the brain.
>>16275373>>16275361There are animals with larger brains and more neurons than humans. None of them are smarter because the composition and organisation of said brain matter plus body-to-brain ratio is just as important as total neuron count.
>>16275800They are smarter than YOU though
>>16275804That’s besides the point!!!
>>16275513The difference in real-world achievement is massive though.
>>16276082Thanks to the patriarchy.
why don't you just look up the average IQ of a man and compare it to the average IQ of a woman? you can verify this empirically and skip any guesswork
>>16275513>In the real world men tend to only score 18 points higher on the SAT>Of course we don't test them after adulthood because it would show that men's IQs grow to be significantly higher.
>>16275513Well, judge intelligence by tests is stupid. Also men outperform women in their 20s but sat is done in whe they are 18yo(the Time when women are developed but boys aren't)
>>16275361This makes roasties seethe
>>16276220No, women are just stupid
>>16276220if women are smart, how did "the patriarchy" ever come about to begin with?
>>16280594It benefited roasties, because they were not required to work
>>16275361Small brain girls
>>16281513
>>16282923Asian skull isn't asian but African
