How can this be explained?
>>17007309highly gifted men reject manhood because society is patriarchal, which means highly gifted men are threatening to society unless they reject manhood
>>17007309Those are some really wide confidence intervals for the gender specials. Maybe worth looking into.
>>17007309men vs womencant hide from genetics
>>17007317Yeah it's weird how they only appear with the weirdos.
>>17007309>n=16
>>17007309first of all reject trannies and enbies due to low sample sizes. secondly, compare only cis men and cis women. a difference appears to exist. thirdly, fix the y-axis and begin it at zero. fourthly, the difference in points is about 60. fifthly, this is approximately 3-5 percentile points. in other words, the effect size is small. lastly, small effect sizes, while statistically significant, are not large enough to care about (that is, other factors have stronger effect sizes).to briefly reframe this in the correct way: the statistically significant difference between men and women is found due to exceedingly large sample sizes. small effect sizes can be resolved. if you compare sat scores by family income, or by whether a practice sat was taken, you'd see this effect size by gender is completely washed out. it exists, but it's not meaningful since it doesn't exist in isolation. and the other factors that it exists with completely dwarf this impact. if you want to hate on women, you should make sure your data is ironclad and not easily seen through as misrepresentation of data. t. male physicist who fucks women(females)
>>17007396can i watch
>>17007309you can see from your own stupid graph that all the genderbenders are so few that their error bars could put them nearly anywhere.
>>17007414>t. trans man
>>17007309I have no idea what a trans woman is or a trans man.
>>17007309men are smarter than women.
>>17007309"Some studies have indicated that there may be intelligence differences between different sexual orientations or gender identifications. We investigated whether intelligence was predicted by sexual orientation and gender identity in a large sample of dating site users from OKCupid (N = ~36,866). In our regression model, we found that homosexuals were slightly below heterosexuals in intelligence, β = -0.07 (corrected -0.09), while bisexuals were slightly higher, β = 0.17 (cor. 0.22), and people with less common orientations were much higher, β = 0.73 (cor. 0.93). There was no interaction between orientation and gender. Furthermore, women obtained lower scores than men, β = -0.14 (cor. -0.18, - 2.67 IQ), and individuals who adopted non-binary gender identity had about average intelligence, β = 0.03 (cor. 0.03). It was found that non-binary gender identity predicts substantially higher intelligence when analysed alone, but this was mediated by its statistical association with rare sexual orientations. Results were discussed in the light of a development of Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Interaction hypothesis and the Cultural Mediation hypothesis."https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381111819_Intelligence_is_associated_with_being_non-binary_and_unusual_sexuality_Rare_sexual_orientation_gender_non-conformism_and_intelligence_in_a_large_dating_sample
>>17007317>>17007377Are you trolling, or do you not understand how sample size acts on confidence-intervals?
>>17007396>fix the y-axis and begin it at zeroThe SAT has a minimum score of 200. Also, "scholastic aptitude" (speeded general-crystallized) is interval-scale, not ratio-scale. A true zero is meaningless. Is -30 Fahrenheit (or Celsius) -2 times as warm as 15 Fahrenheit (or Celsius)?
>>17007401yes.
>>17007706I don't think anyone's seriously questioning why it happens here. But that they are there is something to seriously consider when trying to draw conclusions from the given data set.
>>17008033>Yeah it's weird how they only appear with the weirdosIs demonstrating that their intuition is that the larger CI shouldn't be occurring for the smaller sample size groups.
>>17008164Autists and not understanding sarcasm. Name a more iconic duo.
>>17007309Smart people will understand that placing yourself into a vague, unfalsifiable DEI category is a simple way to dramatically increase your chances of success. Claiming to be gay on any application that asks is the easiest and if you aren't already doing it you're just dumb. Claiming to be a tranny might require slightly more commitment if there's an interview. Claiming to be black is the ballsiest depending on how much of a mutt you are.
