[Kerrigan]

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

[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.

[rickey939]

I am so telling my wife about this...oh wait.

[RAILhead]

As Bill Cosby once said: we are dumb — but we are not so dumb.

[Chuckit]

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.

[Dr Reducto]

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

[Monique]

No different human beings, different aptitudes.

[kernokerno]

dugg

oh, sorry

[turtle777]

I could not contribute anything here beasides snide remarks, so I thought, heck, I might as well refrain from posting.

No, wait, nevermind.

-t

[BRussell]

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.

[Millennium]

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.

[Dakar]

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]

This CAN'T be true. Look at Al Franken (the great Unpaid...LOL)

[Dakar]

Christ, do you have to make everything politcal?

Edit: Oh yeah, he's banned form the lounge, I guess he does.

[voodoo]

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

[- - e r i k - -]

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%

[Kerrigan]

Well, about 3.63%, since the article does say that the average IQ is around 100.

[/nitpick]

[olePigeon]

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.

[- - e r i k - -]

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!

[BRussell]

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.

[Andy8]

Do not get me started.

[loki74]

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.

[Kerrigan]

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.

[turtle777]

Pfff, my hampstor has a higher IQ than most womenz. So what's your point again ?

-t

[Landos Mustache]

If he was testing French Canadian Woman I can see his point

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

If he was testing French Canadian Woman I can see his point

Monique ?

-t

[TubaMuffins]

"The average person has an IQ of around 100."
Um, no. it is, that what defines the IQ result

[TETENAL]

Men and women have the same intelligence quotient. If a test comes to another conclusion then it is not weighted correctly.

[BRussell]

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?

[TETENAL]

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.

[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.

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.

[Kerrigan]

Hehehe.

[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. 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.

[BRussell]

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.

[turtle777]

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

[BRussell]

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?

[TETENAL]

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.

[turtle777]

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

[BRussell]

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?

[turtle777]

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

[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>

Lame study... doesn't prove anything. Intelligence is completely subjective and can't be measured.

[BRussell]

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.

[Chuckit]

The idea of "emotional intelligence" was created by people who have lot of that and very little of the real kind.

[voodoo]

Psychology: the astrology of science. Nice for entertainment value, but otherwise worthless.

V

[Chuckit]

I thought astrology was the astrology of science.

[turtle777]

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

[loki74]

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.

[KeriVit]

ya, righ

[turtle777]

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

[loki74]

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.