There are:- More dumb men then dumb women.- More average women then average men.- More smart men then smart women.thoughts?So, the male Genius curve is a minority. which explains that throughout history, geniuses have always been rare and special. They cannot represent the "masculine" in essence.
>>16476322>They cannot represent the "masculine" in essence.If the male population distribution is characterized by more extreme cases, then retards and geniuses are what makes males "masculine" compared to women.Fascinating as you come to the exact opposite of the logical conclusion. I bet you're a woman.
>>16476347I'm not the OP, but I think what he/she meant is that geniuses are an extreme. and extremes are not good for forming medians. I mean, in all of history not even 20% of men were geniuses. the average is what matters. and the average is that men are a little dumber
>>16476347>If the male population distribution is characterized by more extreme cases, then retards and geniuses are what makes males "masculinehowever, you conveniently ignore the average
>>16476347You use terms such "male-dominated" or some degenerate thing like that to denote the prevalence of a few men at the top of the Gaussian curve, but your connotative implication is that the few characterize all men, when that is NOT the case. It would be equally factual to point out that the base of the Gaussian curve is populated almost entirely by men.
>>16476322But you don't have skew there, and like any human data, IQ is skewed.
>>16476347Lmao>>16476372
>>16476391IQ is a joke. it doesn't mean anything.
>>16476395But I would sure look for high IQ person, if I wanted somebody who could recognize anagrams./thread
>>16476347even assuming that distribution is true, people are calcualted by integrating area under the curve, not the height of the average.
>>16476409two Gaussian distributions with the same mean and different standard deviations, dumb
>>16476374>>16476380Reading comprehension issue?
Isn’t this more or less confirmed by the total amount of mental illness and autism in men? There’s a lot more in men than in women.
>>16476395IQ is a narrow assessor of something that is very real—that of productive intelligence.
>>16476395midwit liberal spotted gfy
>>16476322"There are no female "Isaac Newtons" for the same reason there are no female "Jack the Ripper." Women don't operate at the "extremes" of IQ and are extremely risk averse, so even if they're capable of doing something challenging, they won't even bother. The also don't care about "Great" issues, having a "Life's Work", or anything much beyond the edge of their yard and the end of the week. Trial and error combined with effort is how you actually achieve something of note. Not by taking a test, or playing safe.
>>16476611now tell mehow exactly does this refute the study?
>>16476900There's no point in having a 20mph brain, if you only drive 10mph. At that rate, even an NPC that can drive 11mph will literally and figuratively get further and farther in life, especially as time goes by. Combine that with a much more rigorous work ethic and you'll have far more to show for your work than someone who is "really smart", but does nothing. There's also the fact that women have never actually accomplished ANYTHING on their own without the help of men. Not once. Not ever. Not a single building. Not a single statue. No monuments. No tombs. Literally "no things" to show that 50% of the population ever existed. Not to smart, or interesting, if you ask me.
>>16476372>in history>the average is what mattersThe only men that are worth recording into history are the exceptional men, the decidedly non-average. Kings, conquerors, great poets and philosophers. Fascinating as you come to the exact opposite of the logical conclusion.
>>16476322Explained by XX vs XY chromosomes. There is more potential for variation in two mismatched chromosomes than in duplicated ones and the Y chromosome has a high mutation rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#High_mutation_rateIt's like you didn't even take biology.
>>16476322this is not even truethe variability only arises when testing prepubescents, cuz many boys still havent started developingonce you test adults, the standard deviations between genders is the exact samebut men have a higher mean
>>16476347>then retards and geniuses are what makes males "masculine" compared to women.Yes, somewhat. You have scientists and world leaders and also have bums and retards who do stupid shit. Why do you think most inventors are men and most murders are men? One of the defining features of men is their wide net over society that practically built it. However that doesn't fully define masculinity, you're narrow minded.>>16476391If you have a large enough sample the curve will approximate a normal bell curve, which has minimal if any skew.
Y chromosome leads to more trait variability in males. This includes height as well as IQ.
>>16476347You was debunked here>>16477778
>>16476347>>16477431Best case scenario - a baitotherwise - full on mental retardation
I've tested around 140 IQ, learned Japanese and Sanskrit, and research is my only passion in life. But I swear to God, all my friends have been low IQ. Not in a "fun chill normie" way, but like guys with developmental disabilities, a redneck who got his ass kicked and the video went viral on WorldStar, meth addict who had a stroke, guy who's been unemployed since the 80's, homeless stoner who slept on a minigolf course, etc. It's like they have one component for really, really steep intelligence baked into them, but it's tucked way far in the back, invisible on IQ tests, and cannot be summoned at will. It just randomly comes out and blows your mind. Just noticing some pattern that no one else would.
>>16477377>There's also the fact that women have never actually accomplished ANYTHING on their own without the help of men. Not once. Not ever. Not a single building. Not a single statue. No monuments. No tombs. Literally "no things" to show that 50% of the population ever existed. Not to [sic] smart, or interesting, if you ask me.I mostly agree, just because "Women bumping up against the glass ceiling" is not something people seem to witness in real life, despite everyone claiming that it happens. Ramanujan was born in some dumpy hostel in India and taught himself maths from textbooks. Actually, we see geniuses discriminated against by institutions all the time & rediscovered by posterity because they said "You don't respect my work? Fuck it, I don't care. I'll produce a masterpiece and toss it in my bottom drawer, you can discover it after I die."
>>16476322Thing that always skews studies on intelligence (and related things) that's hard to correct for is men take a /lot/ more childhood head injuries than women.
>>16478370>cannot be summoned at will. It just randomly comes out and blows your mind.such as
>>16478441Classic example is wordplay. Mentally stunted people and the insane are very very good at it, for reasons that are not quite clear.
>>16476372Why does the average matter? Or the median, for that matter? When do you encounter the "average" man or woman? Never. They do not exist. You can form a judgement about anyone you meet's intelligence almost immediately which overrides whatever idea of the average you might have.
>>16476322you know that depending on which specific variables you test for in iq tests then men are either average approximately equal to women or they are like 5 iq points higher.the eventual score is highly dependent on how you bias the tests.
>>16478393>I mostly agree, just because "Women bumping up against the glass ceiling" is not something people seem to witness in real life,I saw a wonderful quote recently.>a glass door might seem like a ceiling if you spend your life horizontal.
Women doomed for mediocrity for the whole story. Wonderfull.
>>16478760communism is feminism, it seeks equality by making everyone equal it's much easier to do this by dragging down the best than raising up the worst
>>16476322Ah yes, psychology, the "science" which consists entirely of fabricating weak evidence to confirm the biases of upper-middle-class white men.
>>16478779iq is under psychometrics though?
>>16478779Upper class white men who are providing all your funding*Now chop chop, go write me a study about how women prefer green m&ms on tuesdays /sci/wagie. Sorry, I meant Dr. /sci/wagie
>>16478779Go back to studying critical nigger theory.
>>16478740Hello OPYes and?
>>16478744>>16478393Avarage QI:
>>16478926>Avarage QI:I'm sorry master, I must cultivate deeper.
