Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Men and Women Badly Estimate Their Own Intelligence

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the lake-woebegone-effect dept.

Education 928

theodp writes "In investigating the question of whether men are smarter than women, British researcher Adrian Furnham came up with some startling results. His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ, but women underestimate their own intelligence while men overestimate theirs. Surprisingly, both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations — both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers. And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters."

cancel ×

928 comments

They believe it because it's true (0, Troll)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346698)

Odds are your father or grand father are smarter than their partners. Sure you mom may have a vast wealth of knowledge about shoes or Oprah but that's not of any real use.

Re:They believe it because it's true (2, Funny)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346718)

Odds are your father or grand father are smarter than their partners. Sure you mom may have a vast wealth of knowledge about shoes or Oprah but that's not of any real use.

I'll have you know that maybe wars are won and lost based upon shoes! [history.com]

Re:They believe it because it's true (3, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346814)

TFS:

"Surprisingly, both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations -- both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers. And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters."

Well duh, that's what happens when people grow up in families with 14th-century gender roles. TFA:

What about the kids?
If there are children, [both] men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters.

Same idea there, and I suppose the divide is exacerbated by pop culture. Women are frequently depicted as being able to succeed based on their appearance as well as more negative traits. Sexual promiscuity is assumed to be a synonym for "empowerment". That moves the focus from intelligence and personality to "I can be rich if I release a sex tape". Even the "wholesome" teenage role model Miley Cyrus has been reduced to pole dancing. [smallscreenscoop.com] It's a shame given the number of female pioneers [wikipedia.org] of geekdom. [wikipedia.org]

Re:They believe it because it's true (3, Interesting)

WaywardGeek (1480513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347018)

There may be more to it... Evolutionary pressure pushes men to sleep around, while women are the nest builders, even today. Guys look for young "hot" women and watch a lot of porn (I liked your link to Miley Cyrus pole dancing), because men want to leave their seed with a woman who will be around a long time to raise above-average kids physically (I'll bet her kids will be very healthy and good looking). Men rape women, not the other way around, because it succeeds in spreading their genes more widely, with nothing but a single night's work, while women have to actually birth the child and usually raise them. A lot of this may influence attitudes towards the relationship between men and women. A hot dumb drunk blond really gets my attention at the bars, and I don't think it's just me. And for a guy, I'm a nest-builder.

Re:They believe it because it's true (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347120)

Even the "wholesome" teenage role model Miley Cyrus

Stop right there.

Exactly what part of Miley Cyrus is "wholesome"? There's so much psycho-sexual pathology going on in the whole Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus phenomena that I'm betting there will entire textbooks written on the topic.

There will be an entire appendix just on Billy Ray Cyrus' uber-mullet vs Hannah's hooker wig.

The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1...

Re:They believe it because it's true (-1, Troll)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347254)

Even the "wholesome" teenage role model Miley Cyrus

Stop right there.

Exactly what part of Miley Cyrus is "wholesome"? There's so much psycho-sexual pathology going on in the whole Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus phenomena that I'm betting there will entire textbooks written on the topic.

There will be an entire appendix just on Billy Ray Cyrus' uber-mullet vs Hannah's hooker wig.

The Miley Cyrus sex tape will be released in 3...2...1...

I'm just curious if you realize how deeply misogynistic a person you are? Most people like you aren't aware of it, I get the impression, in fact they're argue rather strenuously that they're the exact opposite, but I curious if I'm right in that or if you're actually aware of and comfortable with the fact of your misogyny.

Re:They believe it because it's true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346904)

I'm a woman, and I'm smarter than you. Asshole.

Re:They believe it because it's true (4, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346938)

But you can't figure out how to log in.

Re:They believe it because it's true (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346996)

I can post as an Anonymous Coward and claim I have more special powers than Jesus and Superman combined. Naturally, until I prove it, no one would take me seriously.

Re:They believe it because it's true (0, Offtopic)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347162)

Hey, if they can take Jesus seriously without physical evidence, they can take you seriously too! You clearly don't have the right stuff to build your own cult.

Re:They believe it because it's true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347100)

Indignantly responding to an obvious troll doesn't, well, support your point much.

All I have to say is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346702)

DUH

If women are so smart . . . (5, Funny)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346710)

Why isn't anyone raving about the Twitter feed called Shit My Mom Says?

Re:If women are so smart . . . (3, Funny)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346724)

Because old people [libraryvoice.com] don't rave.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (0, Offtopic)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347016)

Off topic and random. Last week I was on a bus from the US and I was talking to this older couple in their late 40s early 50s. And they were telling me that they went to a rave a few weeks ago in Toronto. It was strange. But then Torontonians would have thought it was cool anyways.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347144)

I was talking to this older couple in their late 40s early 50s.

Ouch.

You just spoiled my Sunday.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347246)

Raves were where 20-somethings hung out in the 90s. They're all 40-somethings now.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346754)

Being intelligent is different than acting intelligently. Women definitely play down their intelligence, and men let them. Which causes all kinds of havoc like when the women's movement decides that it's OK to not include non-monetary income so that they can claim discrimination or can suggest that equality means that in the more esoteric and technically advanced fields it needs to be 50%. Even if the total degree count ends with them getting twice as many. And pay no attention to the changes in education that "fix" the inequality problem by creating a new inequality that's facing the other way.

Or that despite having more votes than men, it's somehow men's fault that we haven't had a female President and few female Senators. Subscribing to a lower set of standards is convenient when demanding reparations, but it's not the way to actually earn any sort of meaningful respect. What happened to women a century back and earlier has precisely nothing to do with the present day.

Women aren't stupid, but there's a shocking lack of interest in actually using any of it.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (3, Insightful)

WaywardGeek (1480513) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346806)

Here in North Carolina, women try to act dumb. Actually, there's nothing hotter than a good-looking drunk dumb chick. I met my wife in a bar, and we discussed physics and religion and still managed to get to a first date, but the funny thing is on other occasions I'd pretend to be a pilot, and she'd pretend to be a dumb blond stewardess. Actually, around here some of the guys try and act dumb, too. We've got a strong anti-intellectual culture. One thing that's a sure turn-off to a southern man is a woman who thinks she's smarter than him.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347150)

on other occasions I'd pretend to be a pilot, and she'd pretend to be a dumb blond stewardess.

She does that with you too?

I thought I was special...

Re:If women are so smart . . . (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347194)

So, I take it your wife is good looking.

You have summarized very well the situation.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (3, Insightful)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347224)

Actually, there's nothing hotter than a good-looking drunk dumb chick.

:%s/hotter/more annoying/

Re:If women are so smart . . . (1, Insightful)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346884)

What happened to women a century back and earlier has precisely nothing to do with the present day.

Do you honestly feel that the bias against females in the workplace or academics has been alleviated? It continues to this day. You can't fault a female for trying to hide their intelligence. A large part of American society still frowns upon the outward expression of intelligence (as many of us here may have experienced) of any kind. For women much more so. This feels like a very glib interpretation of the plight of the women in the modern age. Criticizing misguided attempts at forcing equality does not mean that inequality does not exist.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346980)

Perhaps if women (who complain about this) should get off the self-pity train and do what the rest of us do when we feel like we aren't getting a fair shake: square off, prove up and go down in flames if necessary. I'm pretty sure it was Dear Abby who said that nobody can take advantage of you unless you allow it. There's no bias against women in the vast majority of workplaces or academics. The only bias that exists is that people generally respect and trust coworkers who are straightforward in their interactions and behave in predictable (or predictably unpredictable)- and people who don't speak up because they are afraid of being shot down are not being straightforward, and doubly so when they finally get fed up and have a meltdown. It's got nothing to do with peepees and 'jay'jays.

In other words: lead, follow or get out of the way: the choice is yours.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347050)

Not at all, when men's issues are taken as seriously as women's are in the US, then you can call it a glib interpretation.

Try finding room at a shelter if you're a man that's been abused in general, especially so if the abuser is a woman. Or having to wait in line after the women have had their shot at the local homeless shelter. Good luck getting the police to protect you from an abusive woman. Or how mysteriously 1/5 of boys being sexually abused is conveniently rounded to virtually nothing when 1/3 of girls being molested is rounded up to most. Here's a hint those numbers are probably almost identical, women just don't admit that that happens to men as well.

It's really easy to claim that women are getting an unfair deal when you write off all the things which men have to put up with. Men are subject to conscription when there's a draft, women aren't. Men don't get any say in how a pregnancy turns out, but are still required to pay up in full, even in cases where the woman intentionally got herself pregnant. Including a shockingly common occurrence for her to stick him with the tab fore somebody else's kid.

The bias isn't going to go away until, women as a group decide to grow up and take responsibility for the crap they do to men. Men have taken much more responsibility for what they've done than what women have. Blaming men for things like female insecurity over looks, is just bigoted, that's not something that has anything at all to do with men, that's something that women do to each other.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347068)

That's easy to explain.

The folks at the top of the totem pole don't want any competition.

That's the way it's been since the days of cave-men, to the indians, to the times of lords and kings and peasants, even to this day, and probably will continue on when George Jetson is still kissing Spacely's butt.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (-1, Flamebait)

shiftless (410350) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347180)

A large part of American society still frowns upon the outward expression of intelligence (as many of us here may have experienced)

LOL. Or at least, that's what you tell yourself. Americans don't as a whole or as individuals frown on intelligence, what is frowned on is dweebs with no social skills--who aren't hated for being intelligent, but for being pedantic, insecure, self righteous, weird ass mother fuckers. Whereas the men who are not only intelligent but also look halfway presentable, project themselves with confidence, and are pleasant to be around, are liked and respected by their peers and they have women chatting them up left and right. Let's face it--it's not about anti-intellectualism, it's about your poor attitude, your irritating personality, your poor personal hygiene and shitty clothes, or that extra 150 lbs of fat you haul around, or a combination of the above.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347252)

Do you honestly feel that the bias against females in the workplace or academics has been alleviated?

What I've seen in academics is that there's a bias in favor of people who "front load" their careers - work real hard until you get tenure and then sit back and let your post-docs and grad students and secretaries do all the work. If you go off and do other stuff early in your career then your "productivity" (papers published per year) isn't going to be competitive.

So, a woman in academia has to choose: postpone family until early 40's (and risk birth defects), don't postpone family but miss out on actually being a mother (babies raised by nanny or even day care), or give up on a high power tenured faculty position.

Bottom line, the bias against women in academia isn't due to assumptions about intelligence but instead due to a strong emphasis on promoting people with a high rate of publication (average publications / year).

Re:If women are so smart . . . (1, Flamebait)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347004)

See, you're missing all of this. It's not like, you remove the glass ceiling and poof women are equal. It's not like, you put in a bus line in your city and people use it. People take time to change, and take an especially long time to change culture, which is why our American society doesn't elect a female president.

The problem, which this article shows in fact, is not that people are equal, because they are... rather, no one thinks that they're equal, and they then act upon those beliefs.

So, women are just as smart as men, but everyone thinks that they aren't, and act like they aren't, which causes the de facto situation to be that women are treated as stupider than men.

Another good example of this behavior is that if a bunch of people all believe in magical beings and act as if those magical beings exist, it doesn't matter if those magical beings do exist, because socially and publicly one must treat them as extant.

People's irrational beliefs still have real world consequences and power in social and political worlds. It's like why people in America will typically tell you that Ebonics is a lazy form of Standard American English, when it is actually a different grammar that has some expressions that are not expressible in SAE.

So, we're in a situation where a large group of Americans speak a reasonably mutually intelligible different language, yet are treated like they're inferior because they speak it, because the whole culture tells them that it is inferior, and they start to believe it themselves... even when it's not true.

So, get off your misogynist horse and realize that we need to change our culture before women will be treated equally, and that means taking your bigot opinions and stuffing them with the rest of the filth that your body produces.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347122)

Hypocrite much?

It's not bigoted. You conveniently left out the part where spousal abusers that happen to be female are treated far less harshly than males are. And that the police rarely enforce the law when it's the women that's doing the beating.

Despite the fact that spousal abusers are just as likely to be women and that the abused are just as likely to be men, there are very, very few resources that are available fore men that are in that situation. Trust me on this, I know from personal experience that women can get away with hitting men in public and people don't do anything about it.

Perhaps you should shove your bigoted views so that we can actually get some sort of progress. It's easy to claim the moral high ground when you conveniently pretend to be stupid.

Which is sort of ironic, since you've just proven my point, women are held to a lower standard, and these sorts of ignorant bitchy outbursts just reinforce the idea that women can't form a cogent argument.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (4, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347058)

Or that despite having more votes than men, it's somehow men's fault that we haven't had a female President and few female Senators. Subscribing to a lower set of standards is convenient when demanding reparations, but it's not the way to actually earn any sort of meaningful respect.

To assume that it's a "fault" that you haven't had a female president or that "meaningful respect" is a serious driver is very male-oriented thinking. Thing is, women aren't defective men, they're their own people with their own motivations. Only about 20% of women are motivated primarily by extrinsic factors such as pay and status, compared to about 60% of men (source: Susan Pinker's The Sexual Paradox [susanpinker.com] . Women are far more likely than men to be motivated by intrinsic factors such as feeling that their work is doing some good.That means that fewer women reach the top because most women would rather be doing something they enjoyed. (For what it's worth, women consistently score higher than similarly qualified men for job satisfaction -- Pinker again. There's more than one glass ceiling, but we don't notice the job-satisfaction one because we choose male-oriented measures of success.

There is another reason fewer women reach the top, though: although the average intelligence of men and women is about the same, the variance is significantly higher in men. So women are right: if somebody does something really dumb then it probably was a man. But the other side of that coin, which women tend not to like so much, if that if somebody does something really smart, that probably was a man too

And for those whose mouse is hovering on the "flamebait" button, remember that this is about averages. Nothing I've said means that a woman can't be stunningly intelligent and can't be driven by money and power -- just that they tend to be less extreme and more sensible.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347152)

Or that despite having more votes than men, it's somehow men's fault that we haven't had a female President and few female Senators. ... What happened to women a century back and earlier has precisely nothing to do with the present day.

What ignorance.

In 220 years, there have been 38 female Senators.
Of those 38, slightly over 1/3rd were appointed, not elected.
None of them were in office until after 1920.
Why 1920? Because until then, women were not treated as equal citizens.
Hell, there are still States that have never elected a female Senator.

I could give you other examples, but it suffices to say that the
inequalities and prejudices of the past almost always linger far into the future.

Re:If women are so smart . . . (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347010)

Why isn't anyone raving about the Twitter feed called Shit My Mom Says?

Because everyone knows that in nature an angry mother is something you don't mess with!

IQ != Intelligence (5, Insightful)

Peteskiplayer (1032662) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346730)

IQ is more a measure of your 'working' memory and capacity to quickly understand new topics, it doesn't necessarily to what a person would call 'intelligent'. Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.

Re:IQ != Intelligence (3, Insightful)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346870)

Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.

That's because having a high IQ (a nebulously defined quantity anyway) or being intelligent has no bearing on the ability to lead, being a puppet, or even having the ability to speak without sounding like a chimpanzee. Indeed, I find many charismatic, smooth talkers to be shocking simple-minded.

Re:IQ != Intelligence (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347022)

Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.

That's because having a high IQ (a nebulously defined quantity anyway) or being intelligent has no bearing on the ability to lead, being a puppet, or even having the ability to speak without sounding like a chimpanzee. Indeed, I find many charismatic, smooth talkers to be shocking simple-minded.

Here's to HOPING that someday that may CHANGE.

Of course, smooth-talking a bunch of medieval religious fanatics bent on getting their own weapons of mass destruction of hasten the coming of the 12th Imam is a lot more difficult than convincing a bunch of shortsighted and shallow thinkers to give you $300 million so you can buy your way to a leadership position.

Re:IQ != Intelligence (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347036)

Indeed, I find many charismatic, smooth talkers to be shocking simple-minded.

You just described my boss. Thanks.

Re:IQ != Intelligence (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347106)

It is true that IQ has little bearing on the ability to lead or be a puppet (emotional and ethical characters) but it is most certainly not nebulously defined in the actual professional research community.

It is roughly the primary principal component of performance scores among various types of skills, quantifying the notion that "if you do well on A B and C you have a higher than chance probability of doing well on D", and IQ is the measurement of how far you are on that axis. That this phenomenon exists and is scientifically repeatable is beyond a doubt.

This is why things like "throwing a ball" are not part of IQ tests because research shows that the predictive correlation is negligible for that: "IQ" thus measures that group of performances in certain categories which vary together (probabilistically over large populations).

Re:IQ != Intelligence (5, Informative)

evanbd (210358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346962)

Of course, IQ does a remarkably good job at what it's intended to do: correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence, in the context of a statistical study. Sure, there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ; on average, though, it works well.

This is yet another case of people who know what IQ is actually supposed to be used for using it that way, and then the uninformed public complaining that it doesn't perfectly match something else.

Did you have some alternate metric that this study could have used in place of IQ that would do a better job?

Allegedly... (4, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347064)

Allegedly GWBush has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+)

(Allegedly there, I FTFY.) That's alleged by people who allegedly have an allegedly low IQ themselves (well at least 80-, allegedly) and will, I allege, show up shortly to allege otherwise. I'll also allege that I'd like to hear what new alleged topics Bush allegedly had the capacity to allegedly understand.

They allegedly always allege that Bush was allegedly smarter than Obama (allegedly our new president, although he allegedly has some alleged paperwork problem allegedly involving his alleged birth in the State allegedly of Hawaii- allegedly one of the States which are themselves alleged to be United- that magically [allegedly] transports his alleged birth to the alleged nation of Kenya as if that would allegedly make them alleged victims even if it were allegedly true in the alleged first place).

Now before anyone allegedly jumps on me, please allegedly remember that I allegedly only alleged these things were alleged, so I'm allegedly sorry.

Re:IQ != Intelligence (2, Insightful)

Eevee (535658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347104)

Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.

Let me see. For eight years, he did whatever he wanted with no regards to what anyone else would say, left the consequences for his successor to clean up, and 'one-upped' his dad by killing off Saddam. His friends made enormous amounts off the government in no-bid contracts that will never be investigated. The administration showed an almost unbelievable amount of utter disregard for the the constitution but never had to face the courts. Yep, that sounds like he was too stupid to plan things out.

Re:IQ != Intelligence (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347128)

And you think he did all of this alone?...

(for the record, I don't think you'd find any one agent who orchestrated those things, that's not how successful group work)

Re:IQ != Intelligence (1)

zorro-z (1423959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347166)

It always strikes me that, just as the SAT is primarily a good test of how well you will take the SAT, the IQ test is primarily a test of how well you do on the IQ test. In other words, don't read too much into it.

I always disliked the idea of what I term 'Big I' Intelligence; the notion that a single measurement can capture an individual's total mental capacity. I'm much more fond of Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences). To broadly summarize, the idea is that a person may be better in one thing than another; a genius in math, for instance, but mediocre at writing. Or a physical genius- Michael Jordan, for instance- but not terribly good at science. And so forth.

To apply it to TFA, the average woman's particular set of intelligences are likely to be different from those of the average man. This is not meant as an insult, and there are surely exceptions (my Aunt Sharon is as brilliant a science + math teacher as I've ever known). As a society, we tend to place more value on those intelligences which tend to be more sterotypically male, while de-emphasizing those which are sterotypically female.

As usual, YMMVW.

Re:IQ != Intelligence (2, Insightful)

Boronx (228853) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347214)

The perception of George Bush as stupid is more a reflection of the very human need to believe that the King is not evil, and blame his advisors for leading him astray.

Women have better observational skills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346732)

Women underestimating their intelligence proves their own theory while us males overestimating our intelligence also proves their theories. Another case where women are always right even when they are wrong.

Re:Women have better observational skills (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347094)

When asked this question, Shaw's wife said men were obviously smarter because he married her and she married him.

You're forgetting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346734)

That intelligence != knowledge

Re:You're forgetting (5, Insightful)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346888)

That intelligence != knowledge

I prefer ignorant != stupid. Ignorance can be fixed by gaining knowledge or understanding. Stupid is the inability to learn.

Well, Duh (4, Insightful)

hedgemage (934558) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346736)

Only recently have we even acknowledged that women are not inherently inferior to men, so is it so much of a surprise to learn that there is a strong cultural gender bias in favor of men being superior in intelligence?
In my own family, my mother is a medical doctor, while my father never made it through college, and despite this reversal, I have caught myself falling into the same traps and patterns that society at large puts out as truth that women are inferior to men in certain fields of study, if not all intellectual pursuits.

Re:Well, Duh (1)

somewhere in AU (628338) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346786)

Also.. what if your your mother persevered but your father couldn't be bothered (at the time, due to other pursuits, distractions, circumstances).. take it all into account before comparison of recognised qualification as total measure of "intelligence"

Re:Well, Duh (0, Flamebait)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346788)

You fell into the trap and pattern of sounding like a bitch.

Re:Well, Duh (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346892)

Physically women will never be equal to men. It's in out genes to be able to bulk up more. The downisde is that we generally don't live as long.

Mentally woman have the ability to be equal to men but I think, because of how long men and women have had certain roles in society, it will still be some time until we get more girls interested in things like Math, Science, Programming, etc.

It can be a struggle to get younger males interested in those things since society, in general, is dumbing down.

You will always get boys and girls that break out of the norm (that's always been the case) but in general the feeling seems to be that math and programming improve your changes of getting married or having babies and therefore isn't necessary to girls.

Mind you, I'm living just above Essex, so people I get to observe probably aren't the best candidates.

Re:Well, Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346972)

I don't think the problem is getting girls interest, but rather keeping them interested. There's a big turn around around 12/13, IIRC, and just from personal experience I can tell you that at that point the perception that girls *shouldn't* be good at those things (unless they're total loser freak bitches) becomes quite pervasive.

Re:Well, Duh (2, Interesting)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347116)

Physically women will never be equal to men. It's in out genes to be able to bulk up more..

That may be genetic selection due to culture. Men don't choose women who are bigger than they are and women don't date short men.

Re:Well, Duh (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347216)

But he wasn't arguing that woman are equal; he was arguing that they are not inferior.

Huge difference, especially in context of a study that looks at perceptions.

No, "equal" is not the same as "not inferior". Sure, we're different, not equal, certain things work better in certain scenarios, worse in others (you provide your own example at the beginning), but that doesn't mean one is universally inferior to the other.

Re:Well, Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347028)

That's because you are a weak mindiidiot too.

I think (2, Insightful)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347136)

we go out of our way to always make it sound like the sexes are equal. We can't ever just say a negative we have to find some way of qualifying it. For example the article says that men are better at spatial recognization but then says but women are better at "emotional intelligence". Since when is emotional a type of intelligence? The way I've seen the term used it has been to mean being able to correctly identify what you or others are feeling. Well good for you. It is similar to awarding points for being able to identify smells. "Sure your son is as dumb as a brick but his aroma intelligence is off the charts."
Also, they can't say that the way an average man thinks makes him more suited for work life and the way a woman thinks makes her more suited for nurturing tasks. When they want to say something like that they have to find a way around it by saying something like "men tend to have a logical/rational thinking process, whereas women tend to have a more empathetic thinking process". emotion != intelligence/reasoning. One is subjective and one is objective. I can reason with you and prove that my ideas are right, however I can't ever prove to you that my feelings are right. One way you are open to being persuaded the other way you just state that you have a right to feel that way and so what you've chosen to do is right.
These are also obviously averages. I personally think my mother is more intelligent than my father, even though my dad finished highschool and my mother dropped out. Similarly in university I took physics and I think the girls in the class were on average smarter than the guys. This could be due to a selection bias though: for a girl to go into physics she has to overcome the society stereotype that it is a men's profession and women can't do it, so it could lead to only the most gifted women trying the field.

The important point here (4, Insightful)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346750)

both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations

What's important is not reality but our perception of it. Men 1 - women 0.

Variance is the key (5, Interesting)

nawitus (1621237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346752)

Men have more variance in IQ, that's why there's more very smart men than very smart women. Of course, there's more very stupid men, which is reflected in crime rates etc.

Re:Variance is the key (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346896)

Men have more variance in IQ, that's why there's more very smart men than very smart women. Of course, there's more very stupid men, which is reflected in crime rates etc.

You got a citation for that, or are you just BSing?

Re:Variance is the key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346926)

You got a citation for that, or are you just BSing?

Umm, it was in TFA already.

Re:Variance is the key (5, Informative)

Scott Tracy (317419) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346960)

Actually he does - it's in the linked article, on the first page:

"Although [men and women] are on average the same, the people at the very top and the very bottom of the IQ bell curve are more likely to be men."

Re:Variance is the key (2, Interesting)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346968)

The variance has more to do with the test grading criteria I think. I have heard my professors at my school tell us that women score higher on average, but tend to have less very high scores. Their reasoning is that women tend to be less aggressive and declarative of their opinions in papers. Excellent mastery of the material, less willingness to make very large assertions. Big declarative papers are a gamble. If you get it right, you get a killer score. If you get it wrong, you get a really terrible score.

Re:Variance is the key (5, Funny)

c_sd_m (995261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347174)

IQ tests are mostly multiple choice. Coloring the bubble more darkly doesn't get you extra points if you're right.

Re:Variance is the key (4, Informative)

c_sd_m (995261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346976)

From TFA: "Although [men and women] are on average the same, the people at the very top and the very bottom of the IQ bell curve are more likely to be men."

Re:Variance is the key (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346922)

Men have more variance in IQ, that's why there's more very smart men than very smart women. Of course, there's more very stupid men, which is reflected in crime rates etc.

did it hurt pulling that piece of information out of your ass?

err sorry I meant [citation needed], of course.

Re:Variance is the key (0, Troll)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347020)

Read the article before commenting.

In other news (1, Funny)

farlukar (225243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346756)

Research finds that it takes a slashdot drone 23 months to report a story.

If it thinks like a duck (0, Flamebait)

ancientt (569920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346760)

Here is a thought, if women and men think that in themselves, their children, their parents, and their grandparents that men tend to be smarter than women, it could mean that the test, rather than all those people, is biased.

I have this keen insight thanks to Mr. Y chromosome. Of course I blame poor grammar on the same thing.

I'm smarter than your mom (-1)

clinko (232501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346766)

+1 Insightful

Re:I'm smarter than your mom (2, Funny)

c_sd_m (995261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347184)

That's what she said! Uh, you said. Hmm, works either way.

IQ testing is bad testing (1, Informative)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346774)

There are so many theoretical & methodological problems IQ testing. Any analysis with IQ scores as a data set in inherently flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.

Re:IQ testing is bad testing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346912)

No kidding. This is just what I thought when I read this article. Intelligence: Not a scalar, hard to measure. Direct comparisons are very difficult.

Re:IQ testing is bad testing (1)

Paradigma11 (645246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347012)

intelligence can be measured as a scalar if the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasch_model [wikipedia.org] fits. It is very hard to construct a test that is robust across the different subpopulations (men/women, ppl with high scores/low scores...). Most tests currently in use are constructed with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_test_theory [wikipedia.org] tough.

Re:IQ testing is bad testing (3, Interesting)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346916)

There are so many theoretical & methodological problems IQ testing. Any analysis with IQ scores as a data set in inherently flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.

The problem with IQ testing has nothing to do with the science. The reason IQ is vilified is because of the unpalatable and highly inconvenient results that has been established time and time again over the last 100 years of intelligence research.

Re:IQ testing is bad testing (2, Informative)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347048)

Wasn't the point of the study. The perception bit was the interesting part.

Also, if you ever made an accurate IQ test that showed one gender on top. It would never ever see the light of day.

Re:IQ testing is bad testing (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347092)

Personally, I think there's been an effort to discredit IQ results in general, and I think you've been convinced by the campaign to discredit the very concept of IQ. Additionally, the article summary states, "His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ". But, maybe I'm misunderstanding you -- maybe you think that studies that show "men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ" are actually flawed because men really are superior to women in intelligence. I suspect you're not actually arguing that, but unless you're arguing that men and women don't have similar intelligence levels, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in your comment.

Different intelligence: (3, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346798)

I recall reading an article earlier (no idea where it is now) that looked at exactly what the different genders "know" and are "smart at". Men generally fared well in the more science and maths based questions, while women fared significantly better at sociology and understanding emotions in others. Assuming this is true (and it seems accurate based on the people I know) then this may support the "men think they are smarter article". People generally associate intelligence with the sciences, while paying less detail to other parts that make up a persons intelligence. I would say that if the association with sciences and intelligence wasn't there, women would certainly see themselves as being quite smart. After all, how many women would say "oh, yes, my partner is so much better than me when dealing with an emotional crisis over the phone" and by the same token, not many males would say "My partner is certainly smarter than me, she knew just the right thing to say when I was arguing with my brother...".

Re:Different intelligence: (1)

Turzyx (1462339) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347084)

Erm, in my experience, the people least likely to remain objective in an emotional crisis is a female.

Another problem is that any measurement scale just isn't broad enough to correctly capture intelligence differences on a wide range of subjects. For example, my wife will spend hours watching reality TV and she 'hates' the news, yet, she will spend whole weekends engrossed in period drama, reading books, or researching history on the internet.

It all depends on how you measure intelligence, and, like TFA said, the IQ of both sexes is roughly equal, it's just that perhaps more men put it to noticable uses - for all I know, my hairdresser could be calculating the exact follical trajectory for a perfect styling or integrating my hair line to calculate the total (h)area.

Re:Different intelligence: (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347220)

It all depends on how you measure intelligence, and, like TFA said, the IQ of both sexes is roughly equal, it's just that perhaps more men put it to noticable uses - for all I know, my hairdresser could be calculating the exact follical trajectory for a perfect styling or integrating my hair line to calculate the total (h)area.

No, that's exactly what I mean. I am guessing you are male, you see intelligence as being logical, being able to calculate things, doing maths and science. The article I refer to basically split up intelligence into "classical intelligence" (which meant the sciences) and "emotional intelligence" which meant being much more insightful into how other people are reacting, thinking and so forth.

To put it another way, Men are interested in the HOW. Women are interested in the WHY.

Looking at a historical example, lets take a war. Men will want to know HOW an invasion was performed, what sort of strategy was used, the units involved and the outcomes. Women would be much more interested in what drove the country to invade, how it impacted the country being invaded.

Your wife hating the news simply means she hates the "how". News generally just says what happened. Period drama doesn't focus so much on the how, but much more on the why. Now do you see what I mean?

Re:Different intelligence: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347242)

Men generally fared well in the more science and maths based questions, while women fared significantly better at sociology and understanding emotions in others.

Unfortunately for women, emotional intelligence doesn't build rocket ships.

Also, they don't care (5, Insightful)

graffitirock (1481313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346818)

Believe it or not, I live with a women and she could care
less about an IQ test. I would also like to go on record as
saying that she is much smarter than me Iloveyouhoney.

Obviously (4, Funny)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346828)

Clearly this is the case. Men haven't been able to win domestic arguments since clubbing and dragging was considered a valid way to conduct discourse.

Re:Obviously (4, Funny)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346966)

Ah, the good old days! (-:

Re:Obviously (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347156)

It has been a terrible 40 years.

Violently unsurprising (1)

John Guilt (464909) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346854)

Male primates seem more interested in territory than females, very generally speaking (we're talking about two, highly-overlapping, Gaussians, with peaks more than a but less than two away, not two spikes three away).

Believing you're smart, and acting on it, can be considered as a claim to an higher amount of psychic territory. Social forces are such that women have been less likely to use intelligence as a basis for this for this, but I think that's changing...but I wonder how a sample of "Mad Men"-era housewives would have treated assessing their own 'prettiness' or 'perkiness' compared with their husbands' self-assessments.

It can also be a tactic for feeling better about your own place in the actual hierarchy, even as it breeds resentment (it doesn't work for me, but I see people seemingly sustained by the 'knowledge' that they're smarter than everyone else).

Women can also be extremely concerned about hierarchy, but again there seem to be differences in how they get their places in it, less 'Look at me, I can make an intensely loud threat-display!' than 'Girls, you all know how much I've groomed all of you....'

Hmm. Maybe a woman conducted the study. (0)

jmbeck15 (1674782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346944)

It's not that I think you intentionally screwed up the results, darling. It's just I'd feel better if a man looked over the numbers real quick.

Support AI research for equality! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30346956)

Skynet would make sure everyone knew their proper position on the intellectual ladder.

IQ != Common Sense. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30346970)

In my own personal findings, I've found that most hyper-intellectuals don't have a lick of Common Sense. It's funny how God works that way. And no, I'm not talking about a brilliant mind with an eccentric tick or two that us lowly 140IQ "idiots" can't even begin to fathom, I'm talking about downright stupidity in some of the most obvious and basic ways.

Take money management for example. Brilliant individual, six-figure salary to boot, and so damn broke he/she can't afford to change their mind. Freaking kills me.

Of course, going along the debt theory, our own Government must be made up of some of the most brilliant minds in the world...

Re:IQ != Common Sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347160)

Because that was on topic?

Extroverted people are rated as 'smarter' (5, Interesting)

The Famous Druid (89404) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347032)

Another study of teachers, asked to estimate the IQ of their students, found they overestimated the IQ of extroverted kids, and underestimated the IQ of quiet kids. Males tend to be more extroverted than females, so that could explain the perception of males as 'smarter'.

I dunno about that (1, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347044)

I've always assumed that my mother was probably smarter than my father, or at least more educated. She went to Princeton, and my dad went to a public school in Florida. She studied Romance Languages, particularly French and Italian, and currently has a masters in Spanish. She used to be an investment banker with a Japanese company, and as she speaks 7 languages, was heavily involved in a lot of deals. My dad was an airline captain for many years, and he's good at maths and stuff though. On my dad's side, my grandfather was a navy pilot with a civil engineering degree, and my grandmother was a calculus teacher though. On my mother's side, my grandfather had a business degree, also from Princeton, and my grandmother was a model, and I don't think she went to college.

So, in my family its evenly matched (and perhaps actually stacked in favor of the women). However, that's just one more anecdote and not a real data point.

YUO FAIL IT?! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347060)

If you answered bben many, not the

TFA's generalization isn't scientific (1)

kylebarbour (1239920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347076)

Surprisingly, [both] men and women perceive men being smarter across generations. Both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers.

The second sentence doesn't necessarily support the first. There's a lot of things that could be going on here, like valuing male relatives more, for example, or the participants' views could be affected by their belief in familial gender roles. Family is special - you can't just say that since people feel this way about their relatives that they feel this way about all men and women.

It might be true, of course, but this doesn't prove it.

Just a difference in peer responses.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30347086)

When woman want to show their interest or admiration in a man they tend to compliment his abilities to solve their problems. ("Oh, could you figure this out for me? Could you help me fix my car?"). When men want to show their interest in a woman we compliment their attributes ("You are so lovely in that dress... You would make such a good mother...)
I have known many drop-dead gorgeous and intelligent woman - most of whom are aware of men (and women) looking at their beauty well before they even notice a brain, if they ever notice. And they did tend to underestimate their intelligence, even when I would ask advice on problems of them.
On the other hand I have been contacted by women from my past who indicated how much they liked me - but all they complimented me on was my intelligence, so how was I to know that I was attractive? I would wonder if the same polls would find men underestimating themselves in the physical realm, with woman overestimating themselves... Provided you could get more than bragging from the men polled.

Personality types (1)

robwgibbons (1455507) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347112)

If you're familiar with the Myers-Briggs/Carl Jung personality type system, I believe it can apply to this discussion, in connecting certain personality types with society's views of "intelligence." For example, I am an INTP (a "Thinker"), and consider myself to be fairly intelligent. Most who are familiar with the system would also agree that INTPs tend to exhibit traits typically viewed as "intelligent." However, I am constantly reminding my girlfriend, who is an ISFJ (a "Nurturer") that she is a very intelligent person. She seems to have an ingrained notion that she is less intelligent than others around her, and a general lack of self-confidence when it comes to intellectual pursuits. She is actually much better than I am at various mental tasks, specifically factual memory, recalling dates, multitasking, numbers, etc. My understanding is that the same societal and environmental influences which contribute to the development of one's personality are the same that give that person their sense of self-understanding, and transitively their sense of self-worth and intelligence. I may have a more developed "intuition" trait, which allows me to make conceptual connections very easily (ie. inventing, engineering, programming), but I will never be quite as good at recalling dates, or at being very aware of my immediate surroundings as she is.

Ohhh i love a good man basshing (1)

random string of num (1676550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347114)

"... they don't do as well at uni any more don't live as long have a weaker immune system and now they think they are smarter! the over paid evolutionary throwbacks, why don't we get rid of them all and move on as a race" I hate articles like this, there are so many, and yes I am a man, Until we start treating each other (the sexes) as equals, and recognising the differences (there are some) then we cant move on and away from the inequality of the past. this kind of sensationalist journalism, just polarises the sexes. I meen the title says it all, "he's not as smart as he thinks" so provocative where they could have gone for the more positive "she underestimates her intelligence" - but this is less catchy

Bold = Smart (4, Interesting)

brit74 (831798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347124)

I think in general, people perceive that bolder, outspoken people are smarter - as if their boldness comes from understanding and knowledge. I also think that men (by virtue of testosterone) tend to be bolder than women. This get misperceived as intelligence, thus men are generally perceived to be more intelligent.

Idiots not qualified to estimate own intelligence (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347138)

The idiot is called an idiot for a reason. You don't walk up to someone who spends their spare time lighting their farts and ask them to assess anyone's intelligence, least of all their own.

Well (1, Flamebait)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30347192)

One possibility is that men really are smarter, just that IQ tests don't measure the most important aspects of intelligence.

Homo Sapiens are high end apes that have evolved some crucial abilities. The most important ability of all is the ability to use tools.

Even more important than that is the ability to INVENT NEW TOOLS. Our entire civilization exists because of bright men in the past who invented and engineered the technology we have today. Ironically, civilized trappings such as feminism and political correctness are only possible at all due to technology.

Anyways, as far as I know, men have done around 95-99% of the inventing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Furthermore, in many situations in real life, it's usually a male co-worker that invents a new solution to a technical problem. IQ tests can only measure the ability of a person's brain to apply existing, canned solutions to problems.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...