Why the scientific consensus says that women and men have the same iq if imperial data contradicts this statement?
>>16845334IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure how good you are at taking IQ tests. Furthermore, you are making an ASSUMPTION that your sample represents the population. Try again, loser.
>>16845344>The thread about iq not intelligence>The fact that 90% of studies show that men have higher iqSo low intelligent
>>16845348>Men are better at an arbitrary testSo what? I can construct a test that women are better at. You are obviously implying that IQ measures intelligence, otherwise your data is meaningless.
>>16845351Reread the original thread, honey
>>16845356>Concedes that IQ doesn't measure intelligence therefore making the test meaningless >Thinks there is a "scientific consensus" on a meaningless testOh dear, that is rather embarrassing
>>16845360Your logic is broken.If something doesn't exactly measures all of intelligence, it doesn't mean it's useless. IQ is the metric that correlates with many important things, therefore isn't useless.Educate yourself, take some logic classes
>>16845334>>16845348you can't even shitpost with graphs that agree with each other.
>>16845370>Concedes that IQ tests only measure a subset of intelligence, making them just as irrelevant as any other arbitrary test>Assumes correlation = causationOh dear, that is rather ironic!
>>16845375In this case causation is real. Not just assumption, it measures some aspect of intelligence >>16845373First is among college students, the second is among the general population from 50+ studies
>>16845344Imagine having such a low IQ and inferiority complex that any mere mention of IQ even without referring to intelligence triggers you this much. Lol
>>16845376>In this case causation is real.That's called an assumption>It measures some aspect of intelligenceSo does any test
>>16845384You didn't give answer to the original question. I don't care what you think of the test.Let's start again:Preposition 1= consensus says something is the same Preposition 2= actual data from different sources says otherwise What you get honey?P2 ¬P1
>>16845370You're overstating its importance.
>>16845387>Preposition 1= consensus says something is the sameThe "something" here is intelligence >Preposition 2= actual data from different sources says otherwiseThe "something" (implicitly) here is IQ. Since IQ ≠ intelligence there is no contradiction.
>>16845392>That postNo comments
>>16845395To twist the knife even more. Your OP claims (without evidence) that the scientific consensus is that there are no IQ differences between men and women. This is not the scientific consensus. You made that up. Feel free to quote, in full, any sentence from any study you found and I'll explain to you how you misread it. I'll accept continuation of no comments as a formal concession. Your move, chief.
>>16845344>woman is hysterically unable to stomach realityhe's something worse, whose essential spirit we all know is righthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdV63cggmBwbut you're probably one of the smart ones if you are stubbornly arguing with men on /sci/
>>16845392>>16845396And afrter that women want same rights
>>16845392Ok, so on what basis does """the consensus""" assert that women are as intelligent as men? How did they measure this? :^)
>>16845433By grades in gender studies
>>16845389I said no shit about importance
>>16845344Shut the fuck up you dumb nigger faggot Iq tests are the epitome of science and measuring your raw ability to make a discovery
G--_---n aborted _ew
>>16849050Was ist das
>>16845830Yes you did. Imagine being so unintelligent you don't understand your own argument
>>16845433By not finding conclusive evidence of statistically significant differences in intelligence between sexes. Attempts to find differences are consistently null.
>>16845888cope
>>16845344>IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure how good you are at taking IQ tests.Why are some people better at taking tests?
>>16850255because they retake it
>>16850262Wrong
>>16845334You would be correct in a vacuum where cows are perfectly spherical
>>16850666citation needed
>>16849491sybau
>>16845334>imperial dataESL retard
>>16851017>t. ESL cuck who cares about this stupid language more than his own
>>16845888trips of truthand the way you worded it was based as fuck lol
>>16845392The consensus also says that IQ and intelligence are the same otherwise everyone wouldn't be using IQ as a measure of intelligence.
>>16845334The sex difference in IQ also varies between race.I think whites have the biggest gap
>if you can't undermine the data undermine the methodology>if you can't undermine the methodology undermine the concept>if you can't undermine the concept undermine the definition>in the end create a rival unfalsifiable theory, pretend its true trough consensus and demand the opposition falsifies itthe modern left 'science' in a nutshell
>>16851364>The consensus also says that IQ and intelligence are the sameNo. Unless you mean /pol/consensus, which nobody but /pol/tards take as true.
>>16851409Example no.1>intelligence quotient doesn't measure intelligenceNo doubt this person will pretend intelligence can not be measured. This is obviously false, you can easily discern an intelligent man from a retard which means you can measure it. He will in turn follow this by undermining the definition of intelligence. "What is even intelligence?". Perhaps even an appeal to a different kind of 'intelligence' such as 'emotional' intelligence.
>>16851413You don't even know what g-loading means, or how IQ is relevant. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>>16851414Why would I be emberrased when you have no counter argument and immidietly resort to a feeble attempt at mockery?
>>16851417>Why would I be emberrasedKek. This shit writes itself.
>>16851200Lolmad
>>16851438Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, or the horse laugh) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.
>>16851440You are esl cuck
>>16849459How was the intelligence tested?
>>16851451PCA.
>>16851460On what data?
>>16850255>Why are some people better at taking tests?They follow orders. They study more. This isnt general intelligence, it measures qualities you want in employees.Intelligence isnt being good at following orders and reading manuals
>>16851547That anon you replied to was obviously talking about IQ tests specifically, not typical classroom regurgitation tests.
>>16851513Test batteries.
>>16850666Why?
>>16845334It's more about politics than science
>>16851547>Intelligence isnt being good at following orders and reading manualswhat is it?
>>16845344>Furthermore, you are making an ASSUMPTION that your sample represents the population.There is a vast field of study - inferential statistics - on how and what one may infer about a population based on a sample. A sample doesn't necessarily need to be representative. Individuals don't even need to be sampled with equal probability. There are statistical methods to circumvent this requirement; the Horvitz-Thompson estimator is a basic example.
>>16849459Differences in mean, or differences in distribution? Those are not the same thing.
>>16853946Both.
>>16853998A bit of googling suggests that it is far from agreed that the variability is the same
>>16854002You're not even using terms correctly. You don't understand what you're talking about.
>>16854017are you being pedantic because anon said variability instead of variance?
>>16854164No. I'm being pedantic because saying the sexes score "the same" is imprecise, and occurs nowhere in the literature. Although, yes, that is also bad.
>>16845373Learn to read
>imagine simping this hard for women in a Mongolian chant singing forum You know they can't see you do this, right? They're not going to have sex with you for white knighting.
>>16845334>(((scientific consensus)))ll>l3l
>>16856141It's not about defending women. It's about attacking your dishonest misinformation
>>16845334I thought the average IQ was 100
>>16856350It is. Average as in, mean across a general population.
>>16856350Thesw are results for college students
>>16845344You are stuck at your present mediocre IQ. Dilate forever lol.
>>16845396damn, you really are gay as all fucklike, can't stop thinking about dicks and cum and farts and shit and sphincters gayyuck dude
>>16857233Weird way to concede. I begrudgingly accept your crash out.
>>16857352there you go again with the gay shitwhy do you act as if you're always mere moments away from gargling cum ?
>>16856290But this is not misinformation but true facts
>>16845334Why does the scientific consensus say that IQ peaks at 18 when empiric data contradicts this statement?
>>16845351Can you, hun?
>>16851408High iq (and thus smart) post
>>16858705>IQ peaks at 18Consensus say it peaks at 30, when most of cool scientists did their discoveries. 18 year old brain is still developing, kek.Remember bros, if schills tell us that young people are smarter, we have pike iq at 18, boomers are dumb etc. This is only done to brainwash us into spending money for some useless shit or to join some law-violating activity. In both cases later we will regret.
>>16858715IQ test scores peak at 18
>>16858681Wrong. >>16858705This isn't true and is weaponized learned helplessness
>>16858719>This isn't trueIQcuck detectedit is very true, undisputed, and exposes IQ for the scam it is
>>16858715Source?
>>16858738>t. Low IQ Lol.
>>16858717Source?
what doe science say is average iq for men, and stdev? and average iq for women, and stdev? how rare is 130 iq man and 130 iq woman?
>>16860581>how rare is 130 iq manRare>130 iq woman?Exceptionally rare
>>16845334>5% chance of IQ >140Callin' cap on that one m8
>>16858705Why does seeing intellectually disabled people make me sad bros. My life sucks enough that's what I should be sad about.
>>16860695quantifications pls?
>>16845351>never does OP mention intelligence>bring in intelligence to the discussion anyway>ANYWAY DOESN'T MATTER, YOUR ARE OBVIOUSLY IMPLYING THAT IQ MEASURES INTELLIGENCEFemale (or tranny) intelligence, everybody.
>>16861657You mean IQ, surely. But you're a dishonest faggot who couldn't explicate the difference, nor are you conscious of how you've conflated the two while writing a comment pretending you're not.
>>16861712No, I mean intelligence. You being completely fucking stupid and unable to follow a train of thought might be more or less related to your ability to solve standarized tests (which I'm sure you're also terrible at, hence your bias against it)
>>16862170Wrong
>>16858705IQ peaks at 24, when your genetic capabilities reach the apex
>>16845334Because "scientific consensus" just means biased western scientists.
>>16862334BTW, isn't IQ normalized by age groups and even by generations? Like 10 year old would be considered smarter then 20 year old with the same exact result? Also, I heard that non-normalized IQ has grown since 60s, but recently started to creep down.
>>16862341I'm your omega
>>16845334>Why the scientific consensus says that women and men have the same iqbecause in this case, science acted as a servant of politics, because the decision to finance science is made by politicians.I believe that in most cases women and men have different IQ levels. Women spend too much time with young children and watch too many TV shows with low word density and silly texts. Only if the husband's mind is weakened by tobacco and/or alcohol and/or narcotics and/or has brain damage from fighting, then is there a situation that the wife is smarter than her husband.
>>16845334Don't worry about it.IQ is a biased Patriarchal measurement of intelligence anyway.I still wouldn't trust a woman to solve a puzzle but it is what it is.
>>16845334Anyone that's been through divorce understands woman are too intelligent.
>>16863871Being assholes doesn't mean intelligent
>>16845334Wonen are stupid
>>16863862>IQ is a biased Patriarchal measurementCitation needed
>>16845344IQ tests attempt to measure something that is very real. It’s the most assessable type of intelligence. Standard. One based on reaction time. Ponderous thinkers who like to take time digesting information are not going to do well on it. Artistic IQs are not going to be measured well.
>>16845334women are 5-10 points lower with variance in iq more dumb more smart no mean its a myth>>16845344stfu dumb fucking nigger>>16849456iq matters a lot imagine being a midwit w no intuition cause your dumbfuck ass lacks LLI and WM by 5 fsiq points lmao
>>16867777Checked
>>16845334The ratio on your graph shows why. If you run into someone with 130IQ it's twice as likely to be a man than a woman. You meet 7 men with 145IQ for every one woman.
>>16867753>Ponderous thinkers who like to take time digesting information are not going to do well on it. Artistic IQs are not going to be measured well.If they're intelligent in general, they will usually do well on the test. The main exception is when someone has a deep intuitive intellect but shit working memory. That's usually a result of conditions like long-term depression or some kind of damage. People like that can have profound insights using deeply integrated information yet appear slow-witted. It's not an "intelligence type", just what happens when naturally smart people are crippled by external factors but not enough to rob them of their natural prowess.
>>16845334>Why the scientific consensus says that women and men have the same iqit does not say that, it is just agreed that the difference is not entirely biological but also social therefore it can be equal in certain conditions.
>>16868201>it is just agreed that the difference is not entirely biological but also socialWrong. It's agreed upon that the difference is biological by everyone except retards and the Social "Science" cult.
>>16868202IQ is both environmental and biological, not entirely biological.https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10877903/
>>16868207>IQ is both environmental and biologicalThis does not mean what you think it means. It's also relevant and does not support your false statement.
>>16868212Do you think a person with lead poisoning would function mentally the same way as someone without it?
>>16868214Do you think women are subjected to lead poisoning more often than men? Fucking imbecile. Learn the difference between "intelligence depends on the environment" and "differences in average intelligence stem from differences in environment".
>>16868207Environmental means epigenetics which is biology.
>>16868207>cross-sectional
>>16851367No
>>16845344According to IQ test takers, men and women are different. According to reality, men and women are different.
>>16845334>Posting about pseduoscience on sci>>16845344yes>>16850255Test taking is influenced by so many environmental, social, political, and economic factors that are not controlled for. If you grow up in a first world household; have access to shelter, nutrition, and education; and have the time to study and not working to support your family; etc, etc; then you will do better on tests. More or less, IQ tests are just an indirect measurement of your bank account.Sure, there may be natural ability, but that ability is qualitative and cannot be measured quantitatively. Questions about such ability are in the form of "what can you do?"
>>16845334>imperial datadude most of the world has moved on to metric data
>>16870960how are you studying for an IQ test?
>>16870973thinkin really hard
simps and jews
>>16845334>if imperial data contradicts this statement?cause metric data doesn't
