Why the scientific community ignore obvious sex differences in intelligence/iq?
>>17013309>>17013114
>>17013309Contemporary cultural belief in the west is that any difference in outcome between demographic groups is entirely due to some form of discrimination. Acknowledging differences between groups opens the door for those differences being acknowledged as a possible cause for differences in outcomes. That goes against one of the core cultural beliefs, one that is unquestionable, which means any research that contradicts it is by definition wrong in this context.
because there are no scientifically known ways to finally get you laidfor nowone day anonone day
>>17013340thanks for the rabbit hole, I love this blog comment from ari explaining that a feminist logic must be able to have valid inconsistencieshttps://archive.is/niuDh
>>17013360Why don't the error messages talk about ME?
>>17013309"The present study showed that Lynn’s developmental theory is borne out by the NLSY datasets but not theProject Talent dataset. In the NLSY79, there is a growth of the male advantage in g by about 4-5 points in theWhite sample and 4 points in the all-race sample across ages 14-22 years. In the NLSY97, there is a growth ofthe male advantage in g by about 2 points in the White sample and 2 points in the all-race sample across ages12.4-16.4 years. In the Project Talent, there is no gender difference in cognitive growth based on a large set of34 subtests. The magnitude of theaverage sex differences also varies across samples, models (HOF vs BF) and test composition."https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399203133_Mixed_evidence_for_Lynn's_developmental_theory_of_sex_differences_using_aptitude_tests"Ritchie et al'We also ran analyses adjusting for height, since overall body size may have influenced these differences. This attenuated all of the d-values, but males still showed significantly larger volumes for all subcortical regions except the nucleus accumbens. Post-adjustment d-values were −0.42 for total brain volume, −0.31 for grey matter volume, and −0.47 for white matter volume.' Thus, one may want to use the 0.42 d instead, which leads to a 1.9 IQ gap.""There is no consensus within the field of psychology on whether there are sex differences in intelligence. To test whether there are, 2,092 effect sizes were gathered that measured differences in mental ability between men and women, representing 15,990,325 individuals. Men scored 2.57 IQ points (95% CI [1.91, 3.23], I^2 = 98.2%, k = 47) above women on general ability tests within adults. Two of the three methods used to test the developmental theory of sex differences suggested that the male advantage in ability increases with age."https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/newest-results-on-the-sex-difference?utm_source=publication-search
"CogAT""VR0 is estimated as 1.22""Project Talent""VR0 is estimated as 1.16, and is significantly greater than 1.""National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 1979 (siblings)""VR0 is estimated as 1.23.""VR0" means "variance ratio at the intercept."https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/understanding-greater-male-variability
>>17013340The reason why leftism is third-worldism is that it's fundamentally the loser's ideology.Leftists believe that if one individual or group did well or won and the other did poorly or lost, then that's just because the big guy must have cheated.
>>17013309>Facebook boomer tier imageLow iq detected Also your experience with women seems very limited if you think all women think like that
>>17013365YOU MISSED THE BRACKET ON LINE 24 YOU FUCKING IDIOT
>>17013309>Why the scientific community ignore obvious sex differences in intelligence/iq?Essentially all science publications and main stream media are controlled propaganda outlets. Movies today show small stature non white 'females' easily defeating dozens of much larger 'men' and women are told they have been denied success because of men. Its part of a larger program to schew information to change the way people think and perceive the world. There are some channels of info with legit info and discussion but this thread will be pruned and I will be banned again for posting the obvious.
>>17013340mostly correct with the exception that when women (or other """victim""" classes) excel or do better than average, it's because they're just plain better humans and white men could learn a thing or two
>>17013309Man. Imagine being so butthurt over being a virgin to believe obvious misinformation lol
>>17013845what do you think is incorrect there?
>>17013309The IQ genes are in the Y chromosome.
>>17013360Not only did she end up getting a Ph.D. with that, she's now a professor of Computer Science at the University of Georgia and director of the Socially Responsible Tech Lab.
>>17013360>>17013898I can't believe this, I read it thinking it was some kind of biased critique against feminism, not a support of feminism written by a feminist, academia is in freefall.
>>17014053Wait, it's actually a feminist? I read it before and thought it was anti-feminist. Kek
>>17013309>Why the scientific community ignore obvious sex differences in intelligence/iq?
>>17014060The level of rigor in the social sciences, especially the grievance sciences, is incredibly low. The rewards on the other hand, if you play the game right, can be pretty high. That woman received a Ph.D. for middle school level "research" and now is a professor at a flagship university, where continues to push her ideological angle into a hard science (ok, semi-hard, it is CS after all). In the 1950s, a woman of her ability would top out at seamstress or secretary, if she was employed outside the household at all. Now she gets $146,587 per year to rage against men being competent software developers.
>>17013309they don't want to listen to their cunt wives bitchhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FgxacX72snA&ra=m
>>17014053the broader rabbit hole of "feminist logic" is fascinating and full of inadvertently hilarious paragraphs
>>17014060That's literally what I thought, unbelievable.
>>17014077What the fuck. This isn't even funny. She is literally attacking the very idea of truth and reason. The fact that someone gave someone a job to do this is frightening.
>>17013846Don't have the time, energy nor inclination to write 3 posts reaching the post limit refuting all the crap. Begin with the original alleged citations. You basement dwellers believe any graphic you see that has a citation if it meets your preconceived biases.
>>17013309Eggheads don't reproduce but they've accidentally become the sustaining pillar of all infrastructure and progress. This is a problem.It's unfortunate but you will be forced to interact with females. And no, there won't be any mandated state girlfriends for nerds, every selection process will still be relegated to petty social variables and power dynamics in the academic field.
>>17014136So, you can't. I thought so. Kek.
>>17013386>Leftists believe that if one individual or group did well or won and the other did poorly or lost, then that's just because the big guy must have cheated.Which is also female ideology, because they are made to look after babies and toddlers. That's their biological function.
>>17014136Just refute one single thing anon
It's extremely cute to see people obsessed with outgroup variation when the ingroup variation is 100x larger, its literally that "address me" elephant meme, the graph shows over 40% of men are more retarded than the average woman (probably includes OP), so much for being intelligent huh
>>17013309I am a time traveler from the year 3400. In the year 3400, the iq chart is the same as this one. Some retard has mandated that gfs must have the same iq as you. In my 70 IQ bracket, my 2 gfs are very happy. I also have a 145+ IQ gf, she does not have to follow the mandate because of her exceptional status. She hopes her breasts will become bigger, but it is not happening. The eggheads sent me back on this time travel mission, but I will be returning soon. If any retarts want to get together before I go, or other girls since there is no IQ requirement, send me an email.
>>17014098Welcome to Critical Theory, lmao. You're 20 years late to the party.It's all like this - they find some body of knowledge or practice that has been painstakingly developed over centuries or millennia, then accuse even the most fundamental elements of being some kind of social violence. Multiple new journals and subdisciplines spawn off the back of this "problematization', and they proceed to smear their shit and period blood all over the walls for $200k a year.
>>17014565what interesting information does in-group variance give you though?
>>17014609Bringing it up lets him cast the "stop thinking" spell.You're supposed to be dazzled by it and revert to explaining tail-end effects as purely economic factors.
This is me adding nothing to a useless thread.
>>17014564Okay. The source appears to be here.https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspxThe graphs were made in Excel using Normdist simply plugging in norm and standard deviation, then making inferences. Firstly IQ isn't normally distributed. Even if it was, this is a woeful misunderstanding of how standard deviation work—its a function of sample size of data. Digging up the reference finds >N=944 males, 924 femalesThis is an approximate 2% difference in N. This corresponds to a standard error difference in about 4-5%, purely from statistics. Now let's see what the paper found...>13.55 standard deviation vs. 14.54 standard deviationThis is approximately 7% difference. This is a crude and informal statistical sanity check. The conclusion is that the differences in distribution is determined primarily from sampling bias and NOT inherent performance differences between the two populations. Another way of saying this is that the plot is a very bad extrapolation of data making all sorts of faulty assumptions. And this is just one thing. Like I said. I'm not going to debunk it in its entirety. It's not worth the effort since I can already tell anyone who believes this bullshit or is too dense to understand what I've just wasted time saying. Whatever. It's my own fault for deciding to post this on 4chan lol
>>17014683Not to mention complete lack of credentials for this crackpot. Alas, it's the de jure methodology of retards here.
>>17014565Same criticism also applies to wage differences inside vs outside groups but that hasn't stopped an entire cottage industry from popping up around those stats
>>17014683why are you conflating standard error and standard deviation? They're different things
>>17014869As I said. Too stupid to get it even if I tried. That was the one effort post I'll make. You won't get another one.
>>17014683Intelligence is normally distributed.https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-educational-psychology_1925-01_16_1/mode/1up?q=Normal+distribution+"Differential regression to the mean results indicated that the factors causing the mean group difference acted across the cognitive spectrum, with high-scoring African Americans no less affected than low-scoring ones."https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/17"We tested this hypothesis by searching public datasets and the published literature for large representative datasets, 10 of which were found in 6 sources. Results indicated that the overabundance hypothesis was mostly unsupported by the data. Moreover, most datasets included approximately the same (or fewer) gifted individuals than would be predicted from a normal distribution."https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1932202X13507969
>>17014683>determined primarily from sampling bias"Madhyastha et al. (2009, Tables 3 & 6) analyzed the BCS and the NCDS data but found that the distortion, owing to differential attrition rates, on the male-female IQ is extremely small among adults. Even more troublesome is that Lynn & Kanazawa (2011, Tables 2-3) actually analyzed the NCDS among adolescents and found a very slight female advantage at age 7 and 11 but found a male advantage of 1.8 IQ points at age 16 as well as a consistently larger SD of males’ IQ regardless of age. Because the pattern is similar whether the entire sample at each wave is analyzed or whether a restricted sample that completed all surveys is analyzed, they effectively ruled out the attrition effect as a possible explanation for the developmental theory of sex differences. Taken together, it would seem that the impact of differential attrition is unlikely to account for much of the observed gender full scale IQ difference, because this gap typically amounts to 5 points (Lynn & Irwing, 2004)."https://open.substack.com/pub/kirkegaard/p/newest-results-on-the-sex-difference?utm_source=direct&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=227067145
>>17014869The SEM (mean in this case, not of measurement) is determined by SD /SQRT(n-1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error#Standard_error_of_the_sample_mean
>>17014873Leaving aside the fact that you seem to not understand the difference between standard error and standard deviation, by my calculating, the difference in standard error between N = 944 and N = 924 is actually 1.07%, provided that the two samples come from the same population (insofar as s/sqrt(924) is 1.07% higher than s/sqrt(944)). How did you get "about 4-5%'
>>17014984yes, and it represents the variance one gets in repeatedly taking means of samples of size n. Anon is then comparing it to actual underlying population standard deviation. Why?
>>17014984>>17014990also some absolutely basic statistics show that the male average IQ is about 4 standard errors larger than female average IQ which is absolutely statistically significant.
>>17014990Oh, I was pretty sure he tried to calculate it from the study n. Nevermind, yes, he's retarded.
>>17014995how do you mean? s/sqrt(n) is already the standard deviation of sample mean, not the variance
>>17014987Shouldn't you use the variance ratio?
Are "health" and psychology considered part of science?
>>17013309Kys antiblonde retard.
>>17015000idk why you deleted the post but >>17014998
Response:Because your ontological denialism is several orders of magnitude of intelligence below any woman who just naturally intuits things emotionally
>>17014987it's interesting that you apply this level of scrutiny to Anonymous, yet do not question where the standard deviations came from in the OP (original paper). curious how that works, isn't it?>if i like the conclusion, i accept the numbers>if i dislike the conclusion, i scrutinize the numbershmm.... HMMMMM whatever did you mean by this.... ::thinking::
>>17015572yeah because anon is in this thread and I'm genuinely curious where he got 4-5% from
>>17015576And the answer to that inquiry is, already provided in the response >>17015572Parse the words carefully. He's telling you how to see it and derive it yourself.
>>17015693what, the website with the graphic?https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspxor the original paper?https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Sex-Differences-on-the-WISC-R-1983-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen-Cecil-R.-Reynolds.pdfneither of those mention anything about thatbizarre cope post
>>17015697You're the smart one bro. Can't figure it out?
>>17015707kek
>>17014683>its a function of sample size of data.No, it isn't. Imagine having such a fundamentally incorrect understanding of basic statistics.The entire point of estimating the standard deviation is that you have something that should reflect the standard deviation of the full population.
