is IQ the reason why women are outperforming men in every way possible /sci/?
>>16906714Cute bait. Most of /sci/ can't read a chart any better, though. Must be the estrogen mimickers.
>>16906717>Cute baitexcept it isn't. show that chart to any woman and tell her that the average woman is smarter than the average man and observe her reaction
Both curves are centralized on abou the same score (horizontal line), about 100this means the average is the samethe difference between the curves is that there are more average women than average men (% of population, vertical line) and less gifted women than gifted men, and less cognitively impaired women than men.
>>16906714>social media screenshot threatdeserves an automatic bananother thread to hide from the catalog with shift + left click
>>16906714Women might need a higher IQ more than ever now to catch up from those awfully repressed Middle Ages. The funny thing is if I did something quantum that advanced the male side, then I would get female presents to equalize it. You can't get too far ahead of yourselves.
>>16906714I genuinely don't know if this bitch is being serious or just ragebaiting
>>16906714Heh, the probability distribution function of male IQ doesn't even empirically follow a Gaussian distribution.The first moment is clearly not fixed at 100. It should have lower variance and negative skewness compared to the female distribution.This is pure feminist propaganda with nothing to do with science.Just a fake statistic, that's all.
>>16906714>"Average chick is smarter">Curve shows they are the same, except most midwits are femaleCase in point.
>>16906762fewer
>>16906714Women contribute to science more under patriarchy
It's the psychopathy and the lack of accountability in a woke world. Easier to manipulate as well.Next caller
>>16906714Lol
Women are more consistently intelligent than men Men are more variable. There are pros and cons to each side of this. Women will generally just be better multi-taskers. I'd generally trust a woman behind a desk or computer.
>>16906714actual proof that intelligence is literally autism
>>16906762Which makes sense because there must be a biological lower limit of IQ where the woman cannot take care of her children any more and their survival is in danger.
>>16906762>Both curves are centralized on abou the same score (horizontal line), about 100Except those aren't even accurate curves. The average for women is a few points lower, which translates to a huge difference in proportions towards the tails and boils down to women being roughly as likely to be imbeciles but highly unlikely to be geniuses.
>>16913330>Which makes senseNo, it doesn't.>there must be a biological lower limit of IQ where the woman cannot take care of her children any more and their survival is in danger.That limit is lower than the one where a man cannot take care of his woman, especially in an actual human society where taking care of children is a communal effort. Midwit normies should never be exposed to any terminology or themes related to evolution. It causes you to hallucinate like biological chatbots.
>>16913366A male fox will never mate with another female fox if his dies. A female fox will mate with another male fox if hers dies.
>>16913429You can make up retarded stories all you want but the bottom line is that your head canon makes no sense and is also empirically false because OP's chart is fake and women have a lower average IQ.
>>16913366>That limit is lower than the one where a man cannot take care of his woman, especially in an actual human society where taking care of children is a communal effort. Midwit normies should never be exposed to any terminology or themes related to evolution. It causes you to hallucinate like biological chatbots.You realise that all our DNA is from millions of years of evolution, the last couple thousand years haven’t made a dent.
>>16913491See >>16913366>Midwit normies should never be exposed to any terminology or themes related to evolution. It causes you to hallucinate like biological chatbots.Except I amend the "midwit" remark. You're an absolute nigger-grade fuckwit.
>>16907167DAMN
>>16906714>another iq thread
>>16906714women are more conscientious thats why lmao but theyre dumb as fuck so no problem solving ability in terms of innate ability
>>16906714Men are more unstable than women. As ironic as it sounds.
It's a good thing that women are working more and taking careers seriously, it stops the rise of image obsession and doom scrolling social media. And getting them to manage and spend their own money rather than relying on men to be their surrogate fathers eases some of the tension between men and women. The fact they are stopping having children is the issue, and they are spreading the idea. The younger women fighting for promotions can be dick heads though. Men will just argue, women get jealous, competitive and start character assassination campaigns. I actually find the older women who have been my managers to be pretty good desu.
>>16906714>bell curve has the same centroid meaning both curve has same mean valueThis graph not only shows shes wrong but also women are the midwit gender by distribution desu.
>>16913366''biological chatbots'' LMFAO
>>16906714>says average chick is smarter than average dude>shows two distributions which have the same averageIt seems Aly Drummond is somewhere in the left tail
>>16906851>IQ doesn't even empirically follow a Gaussian distributionSince the Gaussian distribution ranges from negative infinity to positive infinity, it obviously cannot. The only question is if the Gaussian distribution is a good approximation or not.>The first moment is clearly not fixed at 100.The "first moment" is just the average. Whether it is at 100 or not we cannot tell because the x-axis doesn't have any units.>It should have lower variance [...] compared to the female distribution.Why? The point being claimed is that men have *higher* variance.>negative skewness compared to the female distributionHow so? Negative skewness would mean the long tail is to the left
>>16906714Yes but science has become one big giant pussy so now male genius is tanking
>>16915369Woah why are you talking like me? Lmao
>>16922355Kys
>>16906714No, DEI initiatives are.
>>16906714IQ doesn't measure intelligence. None of the "high IQ" societies (mensa, triple 9, intertel), have even a small share of top performers in any domain that requires intelligence
>>16925046Mensans are underperformers relative to their intelligence (that's why they're Mensans). https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2022/08/the-mensa-fallacy/
>>16925049>Mensans are underperformers relative to their intelligence (that's why they're Mensans)they're underperformers relative to their >expected< intelligence, which has been exclusively divined via IQ. Either way, there's something "special" about mensans that makes losers congregate there... perhaps that something is the obvious: a faulty and incorrect test of intelligence.
>>16925052>General intelligence doesn't perfectly correlate with absolutely everything good, so IQ is faulty or something!Really?
>>16925055General intelligence correlates with virtually everything. High IQ correlates with virtually nothing. Get it?
>>16906714>your average chick is smarter than your average dudedo they not teach what average is in america? not to mention how much it's skewed if you exclude rural areas
>>16925059Taleb is basically wrong about everything. https://archive.is/kzy5i
>>16925062taleb is a gigantic faggot but this article manages to be less convincing than even him. you gotta be blind or intentionally misleading if you intend to tell me that this blue line has a consistent correlation of 0.3 above 100 iq. pic absolutely related
>>16906714Men are simultaneously stupid and genius. Women are just women.
Male Idiot Theory is why men succeed at science so much. It’s just a fact that men are more likely to engage in risky behaviour without any apparent payoff — but what if it DOES payoff?
>>16912916>Women will generally just be better multi-taskersthen why cant they hold a conversation and not bumb into me on the street
>>16906714>is IQ the reason why women are outperforming men in every way possible /sci/?no; an excessively male-centric society based on male excellence unironically results in the inevitable destruction of shit like central banking, predatory lending, and currency inflation, thus there is a multi-billion dollar arm of the establishment whose overall mission is to convince men that they're unhappy because they're failures and not because there's a system of oppression enslaving everyoneI've met a lot of extremely smart women, in fact most of the figures and mentors in my life that I highly respect are women because of my industry. That said, they are, in general, very credulous by nature and are not particularly good at divining relatively simple second-order concepts like "why would a car dealership voluntarily buy my car back from me after two years if it wasn't a good deal from them, and am I getting scammed?"
>>16906714Derp
>>16906714lol
Imagine thinking Elon Musk is some sort of geniusDisgusting
>>16930373inshallah she will have my children
>>16927374>in fact most of the figures and mentors in my life that I highly respect are women because of my industrywhat is your industry? prostitution?
>>16906714>"% of Population" on the y-axisIs this bait or is she so stupid that she can't even properly read and understand a simple Cartesian graph?
>>16913363Women's brains peak at 11, after that is all the way down thanks to hormones doing their thing.
>>16926588High risk, high reward. Simple as.Nobody cares about the losers that die in a ditch is absolute poverty.
