Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > New study: Men more intelligent than Womenz

New study: Men more intelligent than Womenz
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 12:36 PM
 
A British born researcher at University of Western Ontario has conducted a new study which finds men are more intelligent than women.

The University of Western Ontario psychologist reached his conclusion after scrutinising the results of university aptitude tests taken by 100,000 students aged 17 and 18 of both sexes.
A focus on a factors such as the ability to quickly grasp a complex concept, verbal reasoning skills and creativity - some of they key ingredients of intelligence - revealed the male teenagers had IQs that were an average of 3.63 points higher. The average person has an IQ of around 100.
He said this helps explain the "glass ceiling" phenomenon.

What do you guys think? Keep in mind that this same psychologist produced a study which says that intelligence is influenced by race.

Men are more intelligent than women, claims new study | the Daily Mail
( Last edited by Kerrigan; Sep 14, 2006 at 12:45 PM. )
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 12:39 PM
 
Uh, 3.63 points isn't exactly a huge number. I'd be impressed if it was like 10.

What % of the average IQ is 3.63. Because I bet women see a bigger % differential in job situation than their IQ differential.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cooperstown '09
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 12:41 PM
 
I am so telling my wife about this...oh wait.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 12:43 PM
 
As Bill Cosby once said: we are dumb — but we are not so dumb.
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 01:05 PM
 
IQ tests are only useful to a certain point, and I don't think that point is detecting a 3% difference in two people's levels of intelligence.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 01:55 PM
 
Shocking! IQ test designed towards Men's aptitudes shows men to be more intelligent! News at 11.


Men and Women have different aptitudes (very broadly generally speaking).....so it's not surprising that a test could expose one sex as more intelligent
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 02:16 PM
 
No different human beings, different aptitudes.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 02:32 PM
 
dugg

oh, sorry
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 02:35 PM
 
I could not contribute anything here beasides snide remarks, so I thought, heck, I might as well refrain from posting.

No, wait, nevermind.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar
Uh, 3.63 points isn't exactly a huge number. I'd be impressed if it was like 10.

What % of the average IQ is 3.63. Because I bet women see a bigger % differential in job situation than their IQ differential.
An IQ test's standard deviation is usually 15, which, near the center of the normal curve, represents about a third of scores. So, near the center of the normal curve, 3-4 points is about a 5% difference.

This is not new. There's a ton of data on men's and women's IQ/standardized test scores, and lots of them show that men's are higher, but also more variable: there are more male geniuses, but also more male dummies. There are also reliable differences in different types of intelligence, with women usually doing better on verbal tests than men, and men doing better on visual/spatial tests. I'd think verbal skills would be more important on most jobs.

Rushton saying that this explains the pay differential is truly and shockingly absurd.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
An IQ test's standard deviation is usually 15, which, near the center of the normal curve, represents about a third of scores.
It represents two thirds if you go in both directions (in this case, from 85 to 115).
Rushton saying that this explains the pay differential is truly and shockingly absurd.
Well, yeah, but that's Rushton for you. Calling his methods 'sloppy' is charitable at best.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
An IQ test's standard deviation is usually 15, which, near the center of the normal curve, represents about a third of scores. So, near the center of the normal curve, 3-4 points is about a 5% difference.
There you go then. If one were to believe these findings, a woman is 95% as smart as a man, but is getting paid 75% of his wages.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 04:27 PM
 
This CAN'T be true. Look at Al Franken (the great Unpaid...LOL)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 04:29 PM
 
Christ, do you have to make everything politcal?

Edit: Oh yeah, he's banned form the lounge, I guess he does.
( Last edited by Dakar; Sep 14, 2006 at 04:55 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 04:35 PM
 
If [other] scientists had their way, Psychology would not be considered a "science" at all, but would be ranked somewhere above Creationism and below Performance Art.


V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar
What % of the average IQ is 3.63. Because I bet women see a bigger % differential in job situation than their IQ differential.
It's 3.63%

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 08:38 PM
 
Well, about 3.63%, since the article does say that the average IQ is around 100.

[/nitpick]
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 09:21 PM
 
That's nothing new. What that particular study doesn't show (and what many others have) is that while men are better at specialized areas of knowledge, women are better at understanding more generalized and varied concepts all at once.

Sexism aside, women make better secretaries and clerks because they can multitask a lot better than men. Most women can "know" many subjects at once better than most men, but most men can "know" an individual subject better than most women.

Of course, it really comes down to the individual.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 09:49 PM
 
And to bring even more controversy into the thread:
Religiosity and IQ
Several studies have investigated the relationship between intelligence and the degree of religious belief (excluding humanism), with most showing an inverse correlation between intelligence averages and the "importance of religion" to the testee.

Main article
Take that thread!

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 09:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -
It's 3.63%
Nah, it doesn't work like that: IQ is not a scale with a meaningful zero point.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 10:09 PM
 
Do not get me started.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 10:29 PM
 
I find any study favoring either sex as far as intelligence questionable at best... but hey I'll take anything these days. I don't know about any of you, but at my HS a lot of folks have this silly "girls are smarter" notion. Hell the "girls are better" notion, in general, is quite prevalent. Annoying as all hell.

As far as pay differential, I wouldn't look at intelligence to explain that. I'd look at performance differential.

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2006, 10:39 PM
 
Also the open secret about females is that they frequently engage in in-fighting at work, which could explain why some fail to reach a pay level equal to their ability.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 12:17 PM
 
Pfff, my hampstor has a higher IQ than most womenz. So what's your point again ?

-t
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 12:20 PM
 
If he was testing French Canadian Woman I can see his point

"Hello, what have we here?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Landos Mustache
If he was testing French Canadian Woman I can see his point
Monique ?

-t
     
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 03:25 PM
 
"The average person has an IQ of around 100."
Um, no. it is, that what defines the IQ result
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 03:29 PM
 
Men and women have the same intelligence quotient. If a test comes to another conclusion then it is not weighted correctly.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL
Men and women have the same intelligence quotient. If a test comes to another conclusion then it is not weighted correctly.


How do you know that, a priori?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
How do you know that, a priori?
You don't know that "a priori". You define it to be equal between genders.

Intelligence is a collection of different skills. It's known that for different skills there are gender differences, but if you combine them to form a single number how do you weight them "objectively"? You can't because there is no natural weighting attached to any skill. So you define that the average score to be 100, define it to be equal between genders, and define the standard deviation to be 15 (or 10). And then you weight the results of the subtests to match your predefined result.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 04:02 PM
 
It depends on circumstances; when a man sees a skinny blonde or brunette or red head with big breast, they stop using their head and prefer to use their penis.

There is a joke about men's intelligence.

Why do men call their penises, joe, jr, down there. They do not like a stranger take 95% of their decisions for them.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 04:09 PM
 
Hehehe.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 04:13 PM
 
Sorry, but that makes no sense. There's no reason to define it so that it's equal. If you do, it's meaningless. What about physical strength - do you define that equally between genders, and then adjust the scores when the results come back imbalanced?

No one who believes that the sexes are equal in intelligence would make it definitional - they believe the sexes are equal in intelligence because they give men and women the same tests and the averages come out to be about the same. Otherwise it's just cheating.

I've heard this same argument about racial differences in the US on standardized tests - the fact that there are differences means, by definition, that the tests are biased. I think that's nonsense. The reason there are racial differences should be obvious: some groups have been relatively advantaged and others relatively disadvantaged, and this has an effect on test performance. It would be astounding if it didn't.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Monique
It depends on circumstances; when a man sees a skinny blonde or brunette or red head with big breast, they stop using their head and prefer to use their penis.
Actually I prefer if she uses her head.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Sorry, but that makes no sense. There's no reason to define it so that it's equal. If you do, it's meaningless.
If you don't, you basically start with the assumption that one is more intelligent than the other. How is that MORE meaningful ?

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by what_the_heck
If you don't, you basically start with the assumption that one is more intelligent than the other. How is that MORE meaningful ?

-t
It's not an assumption if you let it free to vary between groups, it's only an assumption if you cheat and equalize them.

Let me put it this way: There's some evidence that men do better at visual/spatial tasks and women do better at verbal tasks. According to you and tetenal, that should by definition not be true. There must just be some bias in the tests. How can you ever discover genuine differences if you set everything equal a priori?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
No one who believes that the sexes are equal in intelligence would make it definitional - they believe the sexes are equal in intelligence because they give men and women the same tests and the averages come out to be about the same.
Averages don't come out the same incidentally. If I give them a math test, men come out ahead. If I give them a language test, women come out ahead. If I combine multiple test I have to carefully select/weight them to get the same average for both genders. It doesn't magically happen for a rondom collection of tests. It must be designed that way. Intelligence of men and women is equal by definition.
( Last edited by TETENAL; Sep 15, 2006 at 04:34 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Let me put it this way: There's some evidence that men do better at visual/spatial tasks and women do better at verbal tasks.
So, which of these is better and qualifies for "more intelligent" ?
If they are equal, then you have to do exactly what Tetenal said, a priori assume that in totality, men and women are equally intelligent.

If you decide to weigh that verbal tasks are less intelligent than visual/spatial tasks, you are biased and might as well not do any study at all. Just declare your bias and prejudices.

Originally Posted by BRussell
There must just be some bias in the tests. How can you ever discover genuine differences if you set everything equal a priori?
LOL, that's funny. So you want OBJECTIVE measures of how men are more intelligent, based on BIASED a priori assumptions.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 05:28 PM
 
Look, you're trying to predict some criterion - for example, standardized tests that people take in schools are usually trying to predict future grades. So you choose whatever best predicts grades, period. You don't say "well I want to set women and men equal so I'll fudge this and that." I've never heard of anyone norming scores in the fashion you two are suggesting (outside of practical decisions like admissions). It would just be cheating. People who study gender don't just define the sexes equally, they search for similarities and differences, sometimes finding them and sometimes not. At least outside of wymyn's studies departments that's how they do it.

Most people have found that men and women are roughly equal on criterion-based intelligence tests. That's an empirical finding, not an a priori decision. This guy Rushton claims something different, so the burden is on him to show how previous findings have been wrong and he's right. But I don't know any serious person who would say he's wrong by definition.

Again - what about strength? That's not so easily defined - there are different types of strength, isometric, aerobic and anaerobic, leg and arm and waist, etc. etc. Why not simply define strength as something equal between men and women, and then adjust scores as necessary to make it come out right? If you do it with intelligence, why not everything else?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Again - what about strength? That's not so easily defined - there are different types of strength, isometric, aerobic and anaerobic, leg and arm and waist, etc. etc. Why not simply define strength as something equal between men and women, and then adjust scores as necessary to make it come out right? If you do it with intelligence, why not everything else?
Bad apples to oranges comparison.

Strength can be measures in absolute physical terms. 1 newton is always 1 newton.
Intelligence can't be simply compared. It's based on assumptions and imposed, biased standards.

So, try again.

-t
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 06:04 PM
 
Oh... come on people...it's simple:

<sarcasm>
Men are smarter than women.
Whites are smarter than blacks.
Black men have larger penises.
Asians are better at math... but have poor eyesight.
Latins are better dancers.
</sarcasm>

Lame study... doesn't prove anything. Intelligence is completely subjective and can't be measured.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by what_the_heck
Bad apples to oranges comparison.

Strength can be measures in absolute physical terms. 1 newton is always 1 newton.
Intelligence can't be simply compared. It's based on assumptions and imposed, biased standards.

So, try again.

-t
I disagree, strength is just another biased test that males try to use to prove their superiority to women, and should be normed so that men and women are equal.

But here's another example for you: What about "emotional intelligence?" Lots of studies suggest that women are better than men at reading people's emotions and other kinds of interpersonal skills. Should we just define "emotional intelligence" as being equal in women and men, and then adjust scores from all research that finds differences? It seems to me that would be absurd, and artificially mask real differences that might exist.

No, you pick a criterion that best captures what you want to measure, and then design a test so that it best predicts the criterion.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 06:25 PM
 
The idea of "emotional intelligence" was created by people who have lot of that and very little of the real kind.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 06:28 PM
 
Psychology: the astrology of science. Nice for entertainment value, but otherwise worthless.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 06:32 PM
 
I thought astrology was the astrology of science.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
But here's another example for you: What about "emotional intelligence?" Lots of studies suggest that women are better than men at reading people's emotions and other kinds of interpersonal skills. Should we just define "emotional intelligence" as being equal in women and men, and then adjust scores from all research that finds differences? It seems to me that would be absurd, and artificially mask real differences that might exist.
That's a good point, makes me think. I dunno.
To some extent, it depends on what you include in emotional intelligence, and what you exclude.

Or, one could just dismiss EQ altogether as liberal propaganda

-t
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atheist
Oh... come on people...it's simple:

<sarcasm>
Men are smarter than women.
Whites are smarter than blacks.
Black men have larger penises.
Asians are better at math... but have poor eyesight.
Latins are better dancers.
</sarcasm>
Its funny, you lop those together in the same group... the implication clearly being that those are well established prejudices. As far as I know, men smarter than women is NOT a well established notion, quite the opposite in fact. I would put the women are smarter than men notion in that list, not the other way around.

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In the South
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2006, 11:35 PM
 
ya, righ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2006, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by loki74
I would put the women are smarter than men notion in that list, not the other way around.
Are you a woman ?

Not that I necessarily disagree, but it also seeems like that the own gender drives opinion. Not surprised.

To me, it's still apples and oranges. Even the distinction between traits that are considered intelligence, as compared to what's emotional intelligence. Some of these traits are borderline, so where to you draw the line ? Just where it's convenient, and supports your preconceived idea ?

-t
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2006, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by what_the_heck
Are you a woman ?

Not that I necessarily disagree, but it also seeems like that the own gender drives opinion. Not surprised.

To me, it's still apples and oranges. Even the distinction between traits that are considered intelligence, as compared to what's emotional intelligence. Some of these traits are borderline, so where to you draw the line ? Just where it's convenient, and supports your preconceived idea ?

-t
What the heck?

Nah, I'm a dude. One who is sick of hearing about how chicks are somehow superior. So ya I guess you could say my opinion is somewhat driven by my gender. Like I said, maybe its just the immature, insecure kids my school, or maybe (not likely) its my town... but I see a lot of that attutude. Hence, I think it is silly to lop the "men are better" notion with the others on that list. The others are very common prejudices, and I just do not see the "men are better" as that common of a prejudice.

"In a world without walls or fences, what need have we for windows or gates?"
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:53 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2