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!

Report Claims Men More Intelligent Than Women

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the written-by-men dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 1523

Jeremy Dean writes "In controversial research reported all over the place, Richard Lynn, the emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University claims that, on average, men are more intelligent than women. Let battle commence! As the research is not yet published there's nothing more to go on than the press reports. The co-author of the study, Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, is apologetic about the findings. In the BBC News report he states that the paper will go on to argue that despite their disadvantage in IQ, there is evidence that women utilise their (lesser!) talents better than men. This simply begs the question of what use IQ tests are if they don't predict anything in the real world."

cancel ×

1523 comments

Let me be the 1st (3, Funny)

achew22 (783804) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404033)

Well, I'm going to be one of the 1st to say that I've known this for a long time

*SMACK*

Girlfriend: "Get back in line you stupid male."

Me: "Yes ma'am"

Re:Let me be the 1st (1)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404126)

xactly.

We all think it, but most are intelligent enough not to say it. Most...

Re:Let me be the 1st (5, Funny)

macdaddy357 (582412) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404148)

Bitches be stupid? We don't need no mofukkin' scientist to tell us dat shizzle!

Since I'm a smart man... (5, Funny)

MrP- (45616) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404035)

...Let me use a not so smart term to describe my reaction:

Duh!

(I'm sorry ladies, but you probably wont understand anyway.)

Re:Since I'm a smart man... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404068)


It's comments like that, that make up 99% of the *SINGLE* guys on slashdot....go figure!

Re:Since I'm a smart man... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404168)

gag one:

I, for one, welcome our new male overlords.... wait..."new"?

gag two:

If only there were some sexy chicks to say say gag one without the last bit, but I am afraid the situations a lot more grim that that. For one, no women will say that. And two, even if they did, it wouldn't be to anyone on slashdot.

gag three:

You know how there is a "womyn's room" in every uni? The idea being it's women without the "men". I want you to set up a "myn's" club in your local uni - our catchphrase will be "putting the myn back in womyn". Spread the meme.

</male crypto-fascist patriarchal bigotry>
</all that is funny and amusing>

wait... second closing tag is redundant.

try teh veal!!1

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404036)

2nd failure pr0st today?
gnaa propz

Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404041)

Every woman on earth believes that men should be able to read minds. Every man knows this is impossible. Ergo, we are more intelligent.

Now if we could just find a way to explain this to the ladies, there'd be much less unhappiness in this world.

Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404116)

Oh, you mean you really *can't* read minds? Silly men. I guess we gals just take that ability for granted.

Re:Obviously, we *are* more intelligent (3, Funny)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404136)

But I think that women are far more cunning.

Of the married people I know, about 95% of the women are 'in charge.' Maybe the guys walk around and think they are running the show, but when it comes down to it, it is typically the woman.

It's probably a good thing too...I would do far more stupid stuff if my wife wasn't there to tell me what a stupid idea it was.

On the other hand, I would have a lot more fun...

It's like your mom telling you to wear a sweater. It's not fun, but you'll be a lot more comfortable if you listen.

Uh oh! (4, Funny)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404042)

In other news:
Richard Lynn, the emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, will never get laid again.

Re:Uh oh! (2, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404078)

again?
 

Re:Uh oh! (1, Redundant)

the_mind_ (157933) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404086)

again?

Re:Uh oh! (1, Redundant)

trippinonbsd (689462) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404111)

Mod parent +5 Redundant!

Re:Uh oh! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404175)

Don't tell the mods how to do their job. How would you feel if I told you how to do your job?

Mod parent -5 Asshat

Re:Uh oh! (1)

tarawa (215365) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404118)

Is that an example of the ladies making better use of their lesser talent? :P

Let us put man and woman together, (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404145)

to see which one is smarter.
Some say man, but I say no,
De woman run de man like a puppet show.

KFG

Re:Uh oh! (5, Interesting)

arbitraryaardvark (845916) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404161)

Based on reading the article, it isn't clear the women were given any incentives to do well on the test. No cookie, nothing. What I deduced was that women are smarter, and thus more likely to game the results, appearing a little less smart than they are.
In a competitive social environment, there is a tactical advantage to being a little smarter than people think you are. Apparently women are a bit more in touch with this strategy. Run the study again, but tell them there's a $100 payoff for scores over 125, and watch the scores jump.
I might be wrong, but it's testable.

Re:Uh oh! (3, Insightful)

Digital Pizza (855175) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404170)

As they say: "Treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen"; therefore this guy probably gets laid all the time (although he did make the mistake of apologizing.)

(Will this post survive the political-correctness police? Lets watch...)

Oh boy... (5, Funny)

LiNKz (257629) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404043)

...I can only imagine how many women are going to protest this. On the same key, if there was a report that said women are smarter then men, most likely we would just accept it, or ignore it, and continue to put together the desk without directions.

Double Standards.

Re:Oh boy... (1)

log2.0 (674840) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404084)

It's so true. From my experience women tend to be smarter in certain areas. We already know most of this anyway.

Exactly, (1)

wardomon (213812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404046)

what I keep telling my wife.

Battle? (5, Insightful)

desplesda (742182) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404047)

Why exactly do we have to battle at all? What's the reason to have any sort of contest over which 'side' is 'better' than the other? It just seems like a waste of energy to try and 'prove' that one sex is in any way superior to another. We are who we are, and most of our achievements aren't due to how our brains and bodies are wired at birth, it's what we do with our brains and bodies.

smarts is measurable? (0)

SparafucileMan (544171) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404050)


hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

bullshit.

if it was, people could be predicted, models could be measured, etc.... but they can't.

this is ridiculous. intelligence. bah. ask einstein what intelligence is. he would say: "what the fuck u talking about?"

remember: in einsteins last days he said, basically, "oh fuck, i'm a moron. i've always thought so."

intelligence is not measurable because that would require the brain to completly know itself, which, as we know, due to Turing/Godel/etc, is justn ot possible.

the real numbers are not countable. god, get a clue.

Re:smarts is measurable? (1)

i41Overlord (829913) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404070)

Somehow your post managed to negate any point you were trying to make.

Re:smarts is measurable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404081)

intelligence is not measurable because that would require the brain to completly know itself, which, as we know, due to Turing/Godel/etc, is justn ot possible.

And yet, you've quite clearly established your intelligence with that bit of reasoning...

uh oh (3, Funny)

slashdotnickname (882178) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404051)

here come a bunch of overrated "+5 funny" jokes to prove the study wrong

Just in... (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404052)

Chocolate is better than Vanilla!

On the bottom is better than on top!

Red is better than Purple!

Being a complete dipshit is better than being an utter and complete moron!

Why can't I get paid to spout idiotic claptrap all day?

Re:Just in... (5, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404115)

Why can't I get paid to spout idiotic claptrap all day?

You haven't made management yet?

KFG

Re:Just in... (2, Informative)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404130)

Why can't I get paid to spout idiotic claptrap all day?

Because apparently you don't know the difference between opinions and measurable data. Whether or not the conclusion in TFA is correct, at least it's possible to measure intelligence.

It is not possible to scientifically measure whether one color or flavor is "better" than another; the closest you could get is polling ice cream lovers to see which flavor is more popular.

The good professor (5, Informative)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404055)

It seems he's not a stranger to controversy:

The professor has caused outrage in the past with claims that white people are more intelligent than blacks and that criminal traits are genetically inherited.

Re:The good professor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404088)

I'm not sure if I get what you're trying to say, but I think it's that this man is exactly right.

I don't understand the politically correct uproar (2)

Brataccas (213587) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404058)

The study is about intelligence difference "on average". It says nothing about any particular individual. If you make hiring decisions or appointments based on these findings, you'd be a fool. Why would this study be anything more than a curiosity to anyone?

Reports? (4, Funny)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404060)

As the research is not yet published there's nothing more to go on than the press reports

But, by god, we aren't going to let that stop us, are we?!

Re:Reports? (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404094)

Stop trying to cloud the discussion with facts!
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster have mercy upon you.

Mod parent (1)

jonathanhowell (673180) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404062)

First time I've seen a parent topic that needs to be modded "Flamebait"

... look around more :) (1)

mister_llah (891540) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404080)

This one is more obvious... but many articles that are essentially flamebait make it up here all the time...

Re:Mod parent (1)

igny (716218) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404085)

You must be new here.

Re:Mod parent (2, Insightful)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404144)

Yeah, especially after RFTA'ing.. you really just wanna piss on the head of this guy. He also claims that White people are more intellegent than black...

Re:Mod parent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404165)

Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and we'll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

well (1)

Ed Thomson (704721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404065)

duhh!

Some Researchers Aren't Getting Any Tonight... (3, Funny)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404066)

Phew, some male researches are not getting "any" from their wives or significant-others for the next week! :)

Chill (1)

MrNonchalant (767683) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404067)

Honestly, who cares. I'm willing to bet the real difference is very little to none. Could everybody stop fighting over whose more intelligent? I'm tired of hearing that women are more intelligent and I don't put much stock in this study either.

Re:Chill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404187)

I'm tired of hearing that women are more intelligent and I don't put much stock in this study either.

Yeah, that's really profound. I'm tired of people saying "I'm tired of ..." (or "Who cares?") without any kind of a comment/argument/insight on why that is. This site is not a billboard, don't post just to have something posted up, write a comment to get a conversation or a discussion going.

Even worse, how can you say "I don't put much stock in this study" without any information about it at all?! What did you base your opinion on? Hell, say something that means something!

The women know who to blame... (1)

quickbasicguru (886035) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404072)

The blondes, there IQ is so low it can bring down the females' average IQ.

Re:The women know who to blame... (2, Funny)

DanielNS84 (847393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404163)

their*

Re:The women know who to blame... (1)

macdaddy357 (582412) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404180)

Shouldn't that be "their IQ", not "there IQ"? Some guru you are!

Next study.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404073)

that a certain race is more intelligent that others.

Racist and sexist researchers....why don't they try to find a cure for cancer of something.

P.S. But we *are* smarter :-)

Re:Next study.... (1)

vitamine73 (818599) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404104)

Actually from TFA:

The professor has caused outrage in the past with claims that white people are more intelligent than blacks and that criminal traits are genetically inherited.

The quote is from the third one [independent.co.uk] , but they all mention this!

Apologetic CoAuthor? (1)

Rasta_the_far_Ian (872140) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404074)

"The co-author of the study, Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, is apologetic about the findings"

I wonder if Dr. Irwing would have been apologetic about the findings if the results had gone the other way?

Of course this will spark controversy. (1)

Yhippa (443967) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404076)

I guess I don't have the statistical understanding to know if these tests are fully accurate, but aren't there biases in these IQ tests (like the SAT) that would nullify these claims?

How can anyone create an unbiased test (and know so) to be able to prove that men are smarter than women?

Re:Of course this will spark controversy. (1)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404135)

What do you mean, bias? If women are equally intelligent, they should be able to complete the same intellectual tasks with the same speed and accuracy. Unless you mean that women do things differently, and propose making them take a separate test...in which case we are now trying to compare peaches and bananas. Which may just be the case anyway.

Re:Of course this will spark controversy. (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404189)

How can anyone create an unbiased test (and know so) to be able to prove that men are smarter than women?

It's actually pretty straightforward.

You have a set of questions with easy ones everyone gets, harder ones many people get and difficult ones that only the top scorers get. If you have a question with an aberrant distribution of correct answers (where low scorers in group A consistently get it and high scorers in group B don't), it's a biased question and should be pulled.

That's why the claims of bias in the SAT are nonsense. (Notice that those claims are invariably illustrated with the same example ("regatta") from the 1950s?) Whatever the value of the SAT is at all, there's no question it's internally consistent. The only plausible bias that timed standardized tests are intrinsically biased against some group or another, which is possible, I suppose.

IQ does predict stuff in the real world (5, Interesting)

orz (88387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404077)

This simply begs the question of what use IQ tests are if they don't predict anything in the real world.
I have not read the article yet, but the last study I read that dealt with IQ (the controversial study on Ashkenazi genetic diseases and intelligence) cited some sources saying that IQ testing is the best known predictor for salary, family stability, and a whole bunch of other things.

EQ (emotional intelligence) (2, Interesting)

johnrpenner (40054) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404079)


IQ is only part of the picture.
some people consider 'EQ' (emotional intelligence)
to be a greater predictor of 'success in the real world'.
regards,
j [earthlink.net] .

Re:EQ (emotional intelligence) (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404186)

How is EQ objectively defined and measured?

Re:EQ (emotional intelligence) (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404196)

> some people consider 'EQ' (emotional intelligence)
to be a greater predictor of 'success in the real world'


And what does that say about the sad state of the 'real world' ?

I'm telling you, it's all part of the vast feminist conspiracy!

Of course *you'd* say that (1)

zephc (225327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404082)

you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!

How can this be controversial? (4, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404090)

I hate how people get all pissed off and offended by "controversial" studies like this. If the study was done correctly, then there's really nothing you can do except shutup and live with it or do your own study that proves it wrong.

If the study was done correctly, then getting offended by the results is like getting offended when somebody says "The sky is blue." You just look like an idiot, no matter what gender you are.

sterotypes (0)

unk1911 (250141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404091)

it's all stereotypes people, get over it...
women are just as smart as men, just less boastful about it. men are just more aggressive and dominating..

--
http://unk1911.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

I hate people who stereotype (1)

MacFury (659201) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404172)

I hate people who stereotype! They're all alike!

I might agree... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404096)

I might agree, but my wife won't let me.

I am a MAN. (3, Funny)

DroopyStonx (683090) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404098)

I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn.

That's what kind of man I am.

You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us.

It's science.

(Obligatory Ron Burgundy)

Even If True (2, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404099)

Even if true, it would still be a generality. It doesn't mean that you are smarter than whoever is in the car beside you at the stop light.

Wow.. amazing. (2, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404102)

There have been so many studies showing women have better interconnection between their right and left brains and better verbal skills than men.

The popular theory (which is considered pretty darn solid) is that over thousands of years women have been more closely tied to the children, and been more closely involved in teaching them, therefore requiring better verbal and descriptive skills.

As descriptive skills involve producing a concrete definition for what often is abstract, it can be applied elsewhere, such as producing concrete solutions for abstract problems. I suspect that if social structures were less discouraging, women would most certainly be the best in fields such as urban planning and computer science.

Disclaimer: I am male

see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404103)

There is a reason we make more per hour.

In other news (1)

tardigrades (841826) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404106)

In other news... My manager knows nothing about IT. I'm smarter than him. What should I do?

Maybe the laundry.

My point, define smarter? Better at math or science? Or street smarts or farming or what?

Men might be more intelligent (1)

Ed Thomson (704721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404107)

but women are better at having babies.

PC Nazi's in 3...2...1... (2)

i41Overlord (829913) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404109)

PC crusaders won't let a little facts get in the way of their blindly emotional outpourings.

Even if a study proved beyond a shadow of a doubt something which is not "PC", you'd have people disagreeing with it simply out of emotion.

It's doubtful that this study proves anything, but it won't stop people from making knee-jerk reactions to it.

And you know who discovered it...? (1)

dido (9125) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404112)

Male scientists!

Sounds like an old Peanuts cartoon in reverse...

Role of women in society. (4, Insightful)

adolfojp (730818) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404113)

Mi niece told me the other day that she would rather be beautifull than intelligent.
Society tells women to be stupid and popular and then asks itself why women, on average, seem less inteligent than men.

Penises. (2, Funny)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404117)

Of course men are more intelligent! We have TWO brains!

And yet... (1)

gorus (249583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404120)

...women still have men wrapped around their finger. Figure that one out.

What is intelligence? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404122)

Seriously? Is it the minds ability to process data? Then wouldn't that make an baseball player as intelligent as a rocket scientist?

Or a wood worker who does extrodonairy work, is that intelligence too?

Intelligence is a bullshit term we invented to fit a very limited set of skills ( and I suspect, to make ourselves feel better about ourselves ).

how can intelligence be judged anyway? (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404123)

We barely understand how our brains work in the first place. IQ tests, while maybe OK for judging some things, it is still just based on the abstract idea of intelligence being measurable in a way we can understand

Still no cure for cancer (1)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404125)

and if guys are smarter than women, why do we have so much more trouble getting laid?

Grey Matter vs White matter (1)

erica_ann (910043) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404127)

from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=335026&in_page_id=1770&i n_a_source= [dailymail.co.uk]

"They found that in intelligence tests men use 6.5 times as much grey matter as women do - but women use far more white matter.

Grey matter is a category of brain tissue crucial to processing information and plays a vital role in aiding skills such as mathematics, mapreading and intellectual thought.

White matter connects the brain's processing centres and is central to emotional thinking, use of language and the ability to do more than one thing at once. "

So Personally I think it all evens out. Besides that, then you get into the whole IQ / EQ thing.

I especially like the following part about Women and Spacial

"Professor Rex Jung, a co-author of the study at the University of New Mexico, said: "This may help explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing-like mathematics and mapreading, while women tend to excel at integrating information from various brain regions, such as is required for language skills.

"These two very different pathways and activity centres, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests."

Previous studies have shown that women have weaker spatial awareness than men, making it harder for them to read maps. "

Sorry, don't believe it. (1)

Apiakun (589521) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404132)

As a guy that wants to get laid again, let me just say that this study is completely inaccurate.

Re:Sorry, don't believe it. (1)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404195)

You'll get laid MORE often if you take the knowledge from this study, and use it.

Multitask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404133)

We all know multitask needs overhead. So it's unfair to compare DOS and Linux

If we (men) were smart... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404173)

If we really were smart we'd be telling the ladies they are smart and we wouldn't all be sitting here at 11:30 on a thursday night messaging on nerd central! We'd have a lady friend to be on....

Oh yea.. I that's great.. my confirm script made me type "retarded" lovely!

Not True! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404134)

Clearly this study is false. Otherwise, the comments on Slashdot would be far more intelligent.

oh1!!! (1)

brandanglendenning (766328) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404140)

my fragile ego.

Conditioning (1)

jswalter9 (695759) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404141)

Humans condition and educate children differently according to gender. Male conditioning results in higher scores on IQ tests. No biggie.

HOWEVER, since nobody seems to be conditioning today's young people AT ALL, I'm sure tomorrow's adults will all be equally degenerate.

Oh lordy! (1)

HowIsMyDriving? (142335) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404142)

OH LORDY! There are physical and mental differences between the sexes. I could of told you that when my girlfriend dragged me to a Hanson concert! Wake me up when men can have babies.

this is news? (1)

briancurtin (901109) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404151)

wtf i could have told you this years ago

If you're going to pursue this silliness (2, Interesting)

Quirk (36086) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404152)

Jump over to the Edge and read or download the PINKER VS. SPELKE [edge.org] debate. The points made by both parties lay a good foundation for looking at this issue.

A brief setup for the debate reads:"...on the research on mind, brain, and behavior that may be relevant to gender disparities in the sciences, including the studies of bias, discrimination and innate and acquired difference between the sexes."

With nothing to go on (5, Insightful)

jhines0042 (184217) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404154)

My question is this... who wrote the tests?

I would be willing to bet that if a woman were to come up with an IQ test that women would do better at it than men.

Being smart doesn't make you better at anything other than being smart. If you can add two 8 digit numbers in your head then great. If you can lift a car over your head, good for you. If you can stomach the sight of blood enough to become a doctor, guess what... good for you.

Women, men, children, black, white, grey, whatever.... who you are is not defined by what you can do better than others. Nobody is the best at everything. Some people throw great parties or know how to make others laugh and feel better about themselves. If that is their greatest skill then so be it. Everyone should be happy with themselves or at least be given sufficient opportunity to be happy with themselves.

If your only way to be happy about yourself is to be better at something than others, find a new hobby.

Re:With nothing to go on (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404199)

The better and deeper question is why we measure "IQ" at all.

I have on my hard disk a BBC documentary on "stupidity".

It's very interesting, and includes the foggy origins of the IQ test, explains why IQ is wholly inadequate for measuring intelligence, and also delves into why politicians and corporate bigwigs often make decisions which appear completely boneheaded.

I wish I had the webspace and server load to put it up and link to it, but unfortunately this is not the case.

1000 comments... easy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13404159)


I predict 1000 comments on this story. Now taking bets... what's your pick? Closest one wins Karma.
 

Clear proof... (1)

An Onerous Coward (222037) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404169)

Slashdot, as we well know, is both frequented almost entirely by males, and the last remaining bastion of erudite conversation and higher discourse on the Internet.

If you need proof of the intellectual superiority of the Male, look no further than Slashdot.org.

Old Psych Joke (3, Informative)

SandSpider (60727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404177)

Q: "What is intelligence?"

A: "Intelligence is what IQ Tests Measure."
(Yeah, I know it's not actually funny)

Basically, the psychologists make this construct they term intelligence quotient, and they try to make a test that will measure the construct. If they can get reliability across a number of tests, plus a few more things, then you have a number that you can attribute to "Intelligence," which is really handy if you want to make a test that determines if men or women have more of this "Intelligence".

That's pretty much it. Oh, okay, that's not all, but in effect, you see if anything else correlates with Intelligence, and if so, then you'll be relatively safe in betting that, whatever positively correlates with it, means that other correlations will similarly relate. So if people who are more intelligent are more likely to get a particular neurodegenerative disease, and men have more intelligence than women, then chances are, more men will have this disease than women.

However, presuming that Intelligence means anything other than what it correlates with in tests is foolish. It's not necessarily a predictor of success, it's not necessarily a predictor of the ability to solve problems other than the ones covered in the IQ tests, and it's not necessarily a predictor that you're a better person. It just means that you have a higher amount of the traits covered by this particular construct.

=Brian

Problem is (2, Informative)

truckaxle (883149) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404183)

Debating this here on slashdot is quite pointless as there are no females here to defend themselves :(

IQ tests meaningless (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404184)

IQ tests are meaningless because they don't have any basis in any observable metric, and probably favour certain kinds of abilities which may or may not have anything to do with "intelligence", whatever that is. Furthermore, they are entirely self-referential, since the 'benchmark' of 100 is merely the median 'value' retruned by a sample population doing the self-same tests. So all you're measuring is your relative ablity to do thesekinds of tests.

Also, if we ever encounter aliens and they give us the REAL objective, universal IQ test, I bet we won't be very good at it...

Go to any 'online dating' site... (2)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404188)

and compare the womens and the mens ads.

Do I need say any more?

Ok you insisted, in two words:

'dick pics'

At least a guy has two heads to think with. Trouble is its usually the smaller of the two that prevails.

Here comes the science (1)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404190)

Men have a higher tendency to be at either extremes: extremely intelligent or extremely stupid. Women tend to be closer to average. The reason? Women have two X chromosomes that average each other out. So if she has a genius X chromosome and an average X chromosome then she'll be somewhere between those two. However, men have a single X chromosome that cannot be dragged down or carried up by another X.

You don't say. (1)

mcc (14761) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404191)

So who is Mr. Richard Lynn?

Well, Wikipedia's entry on the man says in part:
One of his recent notable peer-reviewed articles, published 2002 in the journal Population and Environment, is titled Skin color and intelligence in African Americans. In it, Lynn purports to prove that African-Americans with lighter-colored skin have higher intelligence than those with darker skin. [3]
Looking him up on amazon.com will find the fascinating detail that he has written two [amazon.com] full [amazon.com] books in favor of Eugenics, trying to "rehabilitate" eugenics.

Seems like this guy has kind of a ... well, sort of consistent slant to the kind of research he does, doesn't he? And his history gets more interesting the more you probe. He apparently engendered a great deal of controversy in the 90s because the book The Bell Curve cited a piece of "research" by Mr. Lynn from 1991 which was widely derided as unscientific, distorting and racist. This page [raceandhistory.com] quotes Mr. Lynn as saying
"What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of 'phasing out' such peoples...Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality."
Then goes on to summarize the 1991 research as:
Taking a look at his "evidence" on African IQ, there is little doubt of its intellectual vacuity. Lynn's "proof" was based heavily on a 1988 review by three South African psychologists who looked at Black South African test performance. But the authors of this study concluded the OPPOSITE of Lynn and Murray and Herrnstein. In fact, when presented with Lynn's interpretation of their work, they responded with the following:

"It would be rash to suppose that psychometric tests constitute valid measures of intelligence among non-Westerners. The inability of most psychologists to look beyond the confines of their own cultures has led to the kind of arrogance whereby judgments are made concerning the 'simplicity' of African mental structure and 'retarded cognitive growth'."
The main source for the Bell Curve's claims regarding African IQ was a Lynn article from Mankind Quarterly in 1991, in which he said mean African IQ was 70. Lynn claims that he arrived at this figure by looking at the "best studies" on the subject since 1929. The study he claimed was the "best" was conducted in 1989 and involved 1,093 16-year old blacks, who scored a mean of 69 on the South African Junior Aptitude Test. From this, Lynn then extrapolated mean IQ to the whole of Black Africa. Even worse, Lynn completely misconstrued the findings of the study in question. According to the study's author, Dr Ken Owen, his test was "not at all" evidence of genetic intelligence. In fact, Owen has noted that the results were found directly related to the existence of apartheid era oppression, and the fact that the test was in English.
The more I look at this guy the less he seems like somebody to be paying any attention to whatsoever. He mostly looks to be someone with a long-term goal of using psuedoscience to claim the supremacy of caucasian males and the necessity of ethnic cleansing. Given what is known about his past research, I would find it highly doubtful that the study this slashdot article references is either unbiased, or scientifically valid.

Separated Twin Studies (1)

HalfFlat (121672) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404198)

With other sort of nature versus nuture hypotheses, one can at least look at how identical twins separated at birth fare in different environments, so as to obtain some sort of lower bound on the environmental influence in (say) intelligence.

But one can't exactly do that with male versus female, can one?

It will be interesting to read the argument and results in the paper itself. Especially since to justify the position, they will have to either claim that the difference they observe is at least partly due to educational and environmental differences in the way that boys and girls are raised, or, should they claim to be dealing with some sort of meaure of 'intrinsic' intelligence, demonstrate that their results are not contaminated by these educational differences.

That the environment in which boys and girls are raised differs is unarguable: colours, toys, social roles, expectations, the works. If they are simply state that intelligence is affected by upbringing, then they are saying nothing new and certainly nothing of any surprise. Separating out environmental influences on the other hand is going to be very tricky indeed.

The only objective measure they can call on is brain size. (And even that may well have dependencies on nutrition and childhood environment.) But is there any sort of strong correlation between brain size and intelligence, in the realm of the 5% size difference mentioned?

Oh, and surely the distribution of Nobel Prizes along gender lines surely is much more dependent upon the gender distribution and politics in universities and research institutions that it is on any putative average 5 point IQ differences. It is not as though the Nobel Prize goes to the smartest researcher.

Various Types of Intelligence (1)

kai.chan (795863) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404200)

If the studies are implying that logic, mathematics, and kinesthetic intelligence is higher for men than women (on average), then I agree with the findings. However, if the study was based on linguistic and interpersonal intelligence, then I think the results would be different.

Everyone takes statistics so personally. (2, Insightful)

geoskd (321194) | more than 8 years ago | (#13404201)

I don't understand what all the stir is about this topic. All the study says is that given the general population from which the sample was drawn, there is a measurable difference in IQ scoring. Maybe the test measures inteligence, maybe it doesn't, but everyone is treating this as though the researchers insulted them personally. Some women are downright nasty about how they portray these researchers, and some of the men are appologetic, while others are self righteous. Statistics say absolutely nothing about individuals, only the population as a whole. Why is it that everyone is so quick to forget that?

-=geoskd
www.geoskd.com [geoskd.com]
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...