Do you think men and women are equally intelligent on average?

[Akrazotile]

Curious what ISH thinks and why.

[BigBoss]

No, men are more intelligent for the sole fact that we're less emotional. Emotion clouds judgement and reason.

[Nick Young]

I like to think this to be the case, but looking at people I know, and looking at all of the great inventors and scientists in recorded human history, it suggests no...

I think men and women are equally intelligent but women let petty shit like jealousy cloud their judgement too often, and often lack the same drive to apply themselves long term to one task that men have, due to lack of testosterone.

Women are better at multitasking and reading social situations.

It is my belief that women would make better politicians then men because of these traits. Just look at Merkel, she's running Europe, hope US gets a woman president soon.

[Orlando Magic]

Women are more intelligent on average.

Men are more logical because their emotions tend to get in the way less.

Men make better leaders.

And also for some reason... the smartest of the smartest are typically male.

But speaking in averages... the females I converse with are almost always smarter than the males... regardless of where I go.

[Akrazotile]

No, men are more intelligent for the sole fact that we're less emotional. Emotion clouds judgement and reason.


This is bigoted hate speech.


Who else has an answer?

[Orlando Magic]

I like to think this to be the case, but looking at people I know, and looking at all of the great inventors and scientists in recorded human history, it suggests no...

I think men and women are equally intelligent but women let petty shit like jealousy cloud their judgement too often, and often lack the same drive to apply themselves long term to one task that men have, due to lack of testosterone.

Women are better at multitasking and reading social situations.

It is my belief that women would make better politicians then men because of these traits. Just look at Merkel, she's running Europe, hope US gets a woman president soon.

You think women let petty shit like jealousy cloud their judgement too often but that they make better politicians? Are you kidding? Do you mean from the rubbing elbows with people standpoint or the making decisions standpoint?

If nothing but women ruled the world ww3 would have already happened.

[Akrazotile]

Women are more intelligent on average.

But speaking in averages... the females I converse with are almost always smarter than the males... regardless of where I go.



:applause: This man understands gender equality





Men are more logical because their emotions tend to get in the way less.

Men make better leaders.

And also for some reason... the smartest of the smartest are typically male.



^ Except for this nonsense hate speech.

[Nick Young]

Women are more intelligent on average.

Men are more logical because their emotions tend to get in the way less.

Men make better leaders.

And also for some reason... the smartest of the smartest are typically male.

But speaking in averages... the females I converse with are almost always smarter than the males... regardless of where I go.
According to school, women are smarter because they get better grades. However according to many, this is because the US school curriculum is designed to accommodate girls and women more then it is men. In other words, grades dont mean shit.

[Orlando Magic]

According to school, women are smarter because they get better grades. However according to many, this is because the US school curriculum is designed to accommodate girls and women more then it is men. In other words, grades dont mean shit.

No... they're smarter because they're smarter.

Most guys, especially of this generation and going forward, do not develop their intellects to the capacity of which they could because they are too busy looking at internet pornography and playing video games while these two things tend to interest women far less on AVERAGE.

And yes, intelligence is both innate and developed... look it up.

[Nick Young]

You think women let petty shit like jealousy cloud their judgement too often but that they make better politicians? Are you kidding? Do you mean from the rubbing elbows with people standpoint or the making decisions standpoint?

If nothing but women ruled the world ww3 would have already happened.
I think the women who rise up in politics like Merkel and Thatcher are the strong ones who don't let petty shit cloud their judgement.

If a woman overcomes her natural jealousy instincts, grudge holding instincts and complaining instincts, she is much better suited to politics then a man. Better at multi-tasking and better at reading and participating in subtle social situations-ideal traits for a politician.

[Nick Young]

No... they're smarter because they're smarter.

Most guys, especially of this generation and going forward, do not develop their intellects to the capacity of which they could because they are too busy looking at internet pornography and playing video games while these two things tend to interest women far less on AVERAGE.

And yes, intelligence is both innate and developed... look it up.
http://ynaija.com/are-women-really-smarter-than-men-new-study-reveals-more-details/
Women are not smarter, their brains just use more activity to achieve the same tasks. This could be accounted for by their brains being 10% smaller.

If women are smarter, why are all of the greatest artists and scientists and inventors in history men?

It can not all be down to "patriarchal oppression" because patriarchal oppression did not occur all over the globe.

[dh144498]

Women are more intelligent on average.

Men are more logical because their emotions tend to get in the way less.

Men make better leaders.

And also for some reason... the smartest of the smartest are typically male.

But speaking in averages... the females I converse with are almost always smarter than the males... regardless of where I go.

:applause:

[NumberSix]

All studies I know of have them averaging either the same IQ or men averaging only 1 or 2 points higher.

Fun fact though, when it comes to IQ in the genius range, men outnumber women 8 to 1. This perfectly explains why day to day, men and women are roughly the same, but most breakthroughs are by men because exceptional people are likely to be male.

[Trollsmasher]

All studies I know of have them averaging either the same IQ or men averaging only 1 or 2 points higher.

Fun fact though, when it comes to IQ in the genius range, men outnumber women 8 to 1. This perfectly explains why day to day, men and women are roughly the same, but most breakthroughs are by men because exceptional people are likely to be male.
men got flatter Bell Curve, more geniuses and more retards:lol

Women are more intelligent on average.

Men are more logical because their emotions tend to get in the way less.

Men make better leaders.

And also for some reason... the smartest of the smartest are typically male.

But speaking in averages... the females I converse with are almost always smarter than the males... regardless of where I go.
Thanks for your anecdotal fallacy. You are certainly bringing men's average down:lol

[~primetime~]

TV Shows/Cartoons always make the male in the house to be the retard and the female to be the logical level headed one...

Peter/Louis
Homer/Marge
Everybody Loves Raymond
King of Queens
etc
etc

take it all the way back to the Flinstones

[NumberSix]

men got flatter Bell Curve, more geniuses and more retards:lol
Yup. Exactly. Men have a wider distribution along the spectrum than women. Women generally tend to hover around the average. They don't stray too far from the mean as much as men tend to.

[RidonKs]

TV Shows/Cartoons always make the male in the house to be the retard and the female to be the logical level headed one...

Peter/Louis
Homer/Marge
Everybody Loves Raymond
King of Queens
etc
etc

take it all the way back to the Flinstones
but go back a little further and you have an almost entirely cultural history of the female being the bimbo or the prop or the prize or the trapping... for the lead who is invariably a man 98% of the time.

but yea the fat idiot skinny slut sitcom model has overextended itself.

[Akrazotile]

TV Shows/Cartoons always make the male in the house to be the retard and the female to be the logical level headed one...

Peter/Louis
Homer/Marge
Everybody Loves Raymond
King of Queens
etc
etc

take it all the way back to the Flinstones


I think part of that is that as the main character, and the character who is in more varied settings (the workplace, the bar, etc), it creates more comedic opportunity to have him be the simpleton. Shows/cartoons are generally created by men, I doubt theres an actual agenda to paint the entire gender as foppish. Theres just more comedic opportunity that way. Of course, there are also those exceptions like I Love Lucy etc.

[MMM]

Are women really more emotional than men????

I feel we are as emotional if not more but we express different set or range of emotions. Women might get jealous but men's hurt egos has lead to it fair share of problems through out human history.

[Nick Young]

All studies I know of have them averaging either the same IQ or men averaging only 1 or 2 points higher.

Fun fact though, when it comes to IQ in the genius range, men outnumber women 8 to 1. This perfectly explains why day to day, men and women are roughly the same, but most breakthroughs are by men because exceptional people are likely to be male.
they never will teach this in university classes I bet.

[Nick Young]

TV Shows/Cartoons always make the male in the house to be the retard and the female to be the logical level headed one...

Peter/Louis
Homer/Marge
Everybody Loves Raymond
King of Queens
etc
etc

take it all the way back to the Flinstones
Dawg, take it all the way back to The Merry Wives of Windsor by Shakespeare, which is basically an episode of According to Jim set in the 1490s.

[Bandito]

You think women let petty shit like jealousy cloud their judgement too often but that they make better politicians? Are you kidding? Do you mean from the rubbing elbows with people standpoint or the making decisions standpoint?

If nothing but women ruled the world ww3 would have already happened.
Men were ruling the world when the previous world wars happened.

[Raymone]

How many women have won the Fields Medal, Turing Award or Nobel Prize in Physics/Chemistry/Medicine/Economics?

[NumberSix]

Men were ruling the world when the previous world wars happened.
Point being? :confusedshrug:

[Trollsmasher]

How many women have won the Fields Medal, Turing Award or Nobel Prize in Physics/Chemistry/Medicine/Economics?
This reminds of Nobel Prize being sexist and that we should add a Women's studies category

[Nick Young]

This reminds of Nobel Prize being sexist and that we should add a Women's studies category
you know thats gonna happen in the next 5 years doe

[oarabbus]

men got flatter Bell Curve, more geniuses and more retards:lol

Thanks for your anecdotal fallacy. You are certainly bringing men's average down:lol


This. Women tend to cluster around the average. The smartest people are overwhelmingly men, as are the dumbest. The average of the two groups is very, very similar.

[KyrieTheFuture]

The smartest and dumbest people on earth are male, women don't have as far reaching extremes

[Akrazotile]

Where are our resident PC scientists, boozewallaces and deucehound, to comment on this?

They always duck threads that dont jive with their agenda driven "scientific knowledge".

[RidonKs]

because what you're talking about has nothing to do with science

[KingBeasley08]

What everyone has been saying is true. Women on average are smarter but a lot more male geniuses and male dumbasses


The next Newton or Einstein will most likely also be male

[NumberSix]

because what you're talking about has nothing to do with science
:roll:

In comes the leftist denials of the existence of IQ.

Leftist? That seems strange? Why would I classify "IQ denial" as a leftist position? Well, glad you asked Bob.


The problem with IQ in the leftist dogma is that it reveals the obvious (to anyone who isn't brainwashed) reality that humans are not equal. Leftists would have you believe that the sole explanation for varying degrees of success in people is "class". Here you are thinking that some people succeed because they are smarter, more talented, come up with better ideas, more skilled. Oh, no. You've got it all wrong. The real reason they succeed? Conspiracies of course.

Why are men more successful than women? The Patriarchy. An all powerful evil group hellbent on world domination with their secret headquarters located inside a volcano. The Patriarchy is also closely aligned with the illuminati and the shapeshifting lizard people.

How would you go about "freeing" people from these evil all-encompassing conspiracies? COMMUNISM! "What is communism?" you say? I'll tell you what communism is. IT'S AWESOME! :rolleyes:

The problem is, IQ shows that we actually aren't equal. We all have different IQs. There is a reason why some of us succeed and some of us don't. IQ is not the only but one of the reason why.

So how do you get around this "IQ" problem. Just pretend it's not real.

[ILLsmak]

Curious what ISH thinks and why.

yeah, but in different ways.

Take the smartest man in the world, a 7 or 8 could manipulate the **** out of him.

Edit:


:roll:

In comes the leftist denials of the existence of IQ.



If you wanna get someone's IQ, you gotta do it when they are really young. Still can't say it means everything, but it means something Once people get older, their minds are cluttered with other stuff. Also, there is anxiety.

Edit2: Also, I think the highest levels of intellectual giftedness appear on both sides, in all race/class/whatever. But the thing is... those aren't the people who become CEOs. At most, they end up used to someone who more moderately gifted and succeed that way.

-Smak

[niko]

I think so BUT i think men are challenged more and pushed more to excel, which is why we have more men at the top of fields, and not women. Young women are often rewarded and praised for lots of things that have nothing to do with excelling, while men (in some way or another) are expected to try to excel.

[MMM]

Are women really more emotional than men????

I feel we are as emotional if not more but we express different set or range of emotions. Women might get jealous but men's hurt egos has lead to it fair share of problems through out human history.

Would appreciate an answer to this it possible

[RidonKs]

The Patriarchy. An all powerful evil group
i don't think you know what patriarchy means.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120223192136/fbandcc/images/b/b9/The_less_you_know.JPG

[RidonKs]

How would you go about "freeing" people from these evil all-encompassing conspiracies? COMMUNISM! "What is communism?" you say? I'll tell you what communism is. IT'S AWESOME!

i don't think you know what communism means.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120223192136/fbandcc/images/b/b9/The_less_you_know.JPG

[RidonKs]

The problem is, IQ shows that we actually aren't equal. We all have different IQs. There is a reason why some of us succeed and some of us don't. IQ is not the only but one of the reason why.
i don't think you know what IQ means.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120223192136/fbandcc/images/b/b9/The_less_you_know.JPG

[RidonKs]

are you familiar with the book "The Bell Curve", numbersix?

[oarabbus]

yeah, but in different ways.

Take the smartest man in the world, a 7 or 8 could manipulate the **** out of him.

Edit:



If you wanna get someone's IQ, you gotta do it when they are really young. Still can't say it means everything, but it means something Once people get older, their minds are cluttered with other stuff. Also, there is anxiety.

Edit2: Also, I think the highest levels of intellectual giftedness appear on both sides, in all race/class/whatever. But the thing is... those aren't the people who become CEOs. At most, they end up used to someone who more moderately gifted and succeed that way.

-Smak



Nope. Maybe the smartest guy YOU know, but that just isn't true.

Bill Gates would have a trophy wife and only half of his billions if that were true. If you want to talk about actual intelligence (rather than success-based intelligence) Richard Feynman was gaming bitches like no problem. Newton took the other route and just didn't bother himself with women at all. Alan Turing was gay. Tesla and Edison, you could go on all day about this.

[NumberSix]

i don't think you know what patriarchy means.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120223192136/fbandcc/images/b/b9/The_less_you_know.JPG
Ahhhh. Back to arguing definitions of words. Because I totally really do believe it really is an evil shadowy cabal with secret headquarters in a volcano. Obvi.

Let's now spend the next 3 hours discussing how you couldn't have possibly detected that there was any sarcasm in that post.

[RidonKs]

right back atcha

[ILLsmak]

Nope. Maybe the smartest guy YOU know, but that just isn't true.

Bill Gates would have a trophy wife and only half of his billions if that were true. If you want to talk about actual intelligence (rather than success-based intelligence) Richard Feynman was gaming bitches like no problem. Newton took the other route and just didn't bother himself with women at all. Alan Turing was gay. Tesla and Edison, you could go on all day about this.

I agree with you on the avoiding women (possibly due to autism spectrum inability to relate), but that's more of a 'DNP' than anything. Also, you must remember, there is a whole world of women one can choose from... they can pick ones that wouldn't, ones that can't, or ones that are just stupid.

Here is some aged gifted sauce for you guys, could be enlightening:

http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/we_have_learned.htm

Also: I know a lot of very smart people, for reference.

Double also: If you believe in IQ, (which I do somewhat) there are people who have 150+% of the intellectual capacity of Richard Feynman. It goes to show you what kind of people we are talking about when we talk about profoundly gifted people. IMO the PG girl is much different than the PG boy and is very bad ass in her own way.

When we both control the world, I'll pick the girl and you can pick the guy and I bet the girl wraps him around her finger.

-Smak

[shlver]

I think defining intelligence and how we measure it is a good start for discussion.

Physiological differences between male and female brains imply that there is a difference in intelligence. Brain weight to body weight ratio has shown to be correlated to intelligence in mammals. This is one possible reason that we see a slightly higher average iq for males. Males are on average larger than females, meaning larger cranial cavity and brain matter.

This is also shown in spatial visualization tests done on humans. Men usually perform one standard deviation better than women. Most of these differences can be explained convincingly in an evolutionary context.

However, as others have mentioned, there is a significant frequency of outliers in both genders which suggests gender is not a reliable indicator of intelligence.

[RidonKs]

I think defining intelligence and how we measure it is a good start for discussion.
:applause:

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

I think women are better dancers, better at reading social clues, better at detail oriented things, seeing lies, better parallel processors (ability to see connections, and better at switching rapidly back and forth thorugh sensory stimuli aka Multitasking, linguistically more ready to use aa plethora of varied language to illustrate and convey opinions, sensitive in shades of color and degrees of odor, and perhaps the strongest intelligence of them all.. PRACTICAL (in that they are the gender that ARE FAR LESS likely to dwelve into abstract thought or hobbies that don't serve direct practical purpose)

I think men are better at sustaining focus over long periods of time, dealing in mathematics, obviously fixing things, able to destroy biases and isolate themselves from their organisms' predispositions (this is huge right here), using empirical evidence to derive certain hypothesis and observations from, actually making point svery strong and succinct, able to apply the abstract into the real (i.e. Greatest Happiness Principle), have a hella HELLA more creative energy which combined with focus and skill is the key to MASTAHPIECES, are better systemetic thinkers, better at dissecting and recreating what it means to be humorous, superior at making nature their b!tch as oppose to vice versa, upholding a staunch live by the sword fair order, justice/ethics and are closer to God than just brute... whereas woman is more closer to brute than Goddess. IMO.

Either way, the lines are so blurred that any prejudices within me are pretty much gone since the Sciences have a great deal of women on top of things as well.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Women are smarter on average but Men tend to be either really smart or really dumb. where as woman are for the most part around the same intelligence.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

[QUOTE=ILLsmak]yeah, but in different ways.

Take the smartest man in the world, a 7 or 8 could manipulate the **** out of him.

What do you mean by manipulate?

Do you mean hoarding his wealth under her agenda?
Do you mean owning his soul through the promises of "True lurv"?
Do you mean entrapping the guy emotionally?

Becuase I'd have to disagree. And the vast majority of legit geniuses are masters of women and have them conforming to HIS WILL than vice versa. Einstein, Franklin, Feynman etc. even lesser geniuses like Bukowski and Joyce.


Because a truly smart person would have UNDERSTOOD his human limitations at a very very young age and acted accordingly with self awareness doofus. And likewise high IQ guys usually show symptoms of delaying short-term gratification for long-term happiness in experiments like the pressing buttons/cookie ones... relay this to the *****. Oh... and having HIGH IQ and HIGH T is a fairly rare combo, and without HIGH T there is a reduction in sexual desire which translates into women having VERY VERY little power over men.

Only a smart and WEAK person would get played like a fiddle. And mankind demands both brains and brawn to include a member.


And a 7 or 8 also has her levers and buttons. She can EASILY be manipulated by a cruel, but exciting thug with a lot of sexual prowess or a savvy famous guy she fancies and reduced to a whimpering little lovestruck girl at the detriment of her original intentions of bonding with Mr Perfect.

[oarabbus]

Women are definitely smarter in that they don't think stupid shit like getting drunk and then jumping off a roof into a pool is a good idea. Or jackass type stuff. OR putting your life savings on black. Most of the degenerates and fuxckups of the world are men.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Women are definitely smarter in that they don't think stupid shit like getting drunk and then jumping off a roof into a pool is a good idea. Or jackass type stuff. OR putting your life savings on black. Most of the degenerates and fuxckups of the world are men.

Right.

Self-preservation, survival, and reproduction are strongly engrained in the feminine. Preservation as well. They all obsessed with nesting (home sterility and clealiness) and the latest diets and selfimprovement and are just very very hyperattuned to facial signals on their offspring.

Meanwhile STeve-O, Knoxville, the Japanese fighters, Bear Grylls and ISIS are down to take on some serious danger.

BUt hey.. that's the same gene that allowed us to enjoy the sweet flesh of the WOoly Mammoth. The ballsy guy wiling to stab the motherfukkin hairy elephant.

[NumberSix]

Right.

Self-preservation, survival, and reproduction are strongly engrained in the feminine. Preservation as well. They all obsessed with nesting (home sterility and clealiness) and the latest diets and selfimprovement and are just very very hyperattuned to facial signals on their offspring.
That is why men rule the world. Women don't fight wars.

Think back to the stone age. Women didn't say to themselves "I'm gonna go takeover those villages over there". It's not their nature. Only men did shit like that. Even knowing that there is a strong possibility of getting yourself killed, they do it anyway. It's their nature.

People don't like it, but there are natural behaviours that differ amongst men and women.

[ace23]

Men score better than women on IQ tests on average so yes.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

That is why men rule the world. Women don't fight wars.

Think back to the stone age. Women didn't say to themselves "I'm gonna go takeover those villages over there". It's not their nature. Only men did shit like that. Even knowing that there is a strong possibility of getting yourself killed, they do it anyway. It's their nature.

People don't like it, but there are natural behaviours that differ amongst men and women.

Right.

The Manly Virtue of Courage and Loyalty had derived directly from biology. Conquerors. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Therefore, eggs must be saved, and men must serve.

Also why the word coward is probably the most demeaning to a man and the word ugly is most demeaning to a woman. But technology. changes. everything [nearly everything]. And who knows what's to come.

What do you think teh classic feminine virtues are?

[shlver]

I think women are better dancers, better at reading social clues, better at detail oriented things, seeing lies, better parallel processors (ability to see connections, and better at switching rapidly back and forth thorugh sensory stimuli aka Multitasking, linguistically more ready to use aa plethora of varied language to illustrate and convey opinions, sensitive in shades of color and degrees of odor, and perhaps the strongest intelligence of them all.. PRACTICAL (in that they are the gender that ARE FAR LESS likely to dwelve into abstract thought or hobbies that don't serve direct practical purpose)

I think men are better at sustaining focus over long periods of time, dealing in mathematics, obviously fixing things, able to destroy biases and isolate themselves from their organisms' predispositions (this is huge right here), using empirical evidence to derive certain hypothesis and observations from, actually making point svery strong and succinct, able to apply the abstract into the real (i.e. Greatest Happiness Principle), have a hella HELLA more creative energy which combined with focus and skill is the key to MASTAHPIECES, are better systemetic thinkers, better at dissecting and recreating what it means to be humorous, superior at making nature their b!tch as oppose to vice versa, upholding a staunch live by the sword fair order, justice/ethics and are closer to God than just brute... whereas woman is more closer to brute than Goddess. IMO.

Either way, the lines are so blurred that any prejudices within me are pretty much gone since the Sciences have a great deal of women on top of things as well.
This post highlights IQ tests are a narrow perspective on intelligence.
IQ tests overemphasize abstract thinking and language/math skills and speed of response. it's important to understand that IQ tests were first created to identify learning disabilities in children, not as a scale of intelligence.

[NumberSix]

Right.

The Manly Virtue of Courage and Loyalty had derived directly from biology. Conquerors. Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Therefore, eggs must be saved, and men must serve.

Also why the word coward is probably the most demeaning to a man and the word ugly is most demeaning to a woman. But technology. changes. everything [nearly everything]. And who knows what's to come.

What do you think teh classic feminine virtues are?
Well, generally, the things we as men find attractive are just genes that are desirable to pass on.

Like a women with big breasts. She'll be able to nourish offspring. Certain shaped woman are more attractive because their body shape is more conducive to successful child birth. If you have a daughter, she'll inherit the same characteristics her mother had that were conducive to mothering children, and your line continues.

There's a reason why sickly looking women generally aren't perceived to be attractive.

It's nature that physical appearance has more emphasis on women than men.
It's a result of the man's role being that the dominant male has his pick of the women and the woman enjoys the security that the alpha male provides.

The male passing his genes on is the result of competition. The female passing her genes is a matter of being chosen. The male competes for the ability of being able to chose the females of his liking. The female attracts the male by having the most desirable physical features that results in her being chosen by the male.

It's the man's job to compete and win. It's the woman's job to get picked. We still see this everyday. Woman want a successful man, and successful men want a physically attractive woman. This in ingrained into us.

[oarabbus]

Men score better than women on IQ tests on average so yes.


You do know that Asians score the highest on IQ tests, then Whites, then Hispanics, then Blacks right?

[NumberSix]

You do know that Asians score the highest on IQ tests, then Whites, then Hispanics, then Blacks right?
Yes.

That's because they......


wait for it.......



Have higher IQs.

[oarabbus]

Yes.

That's because they......


wait for it.......



Have higher IQs.


So you are saying that Asians are the intellectually superior group of people? And that blacks are least intelligent.

[9erempiree]

Harvard actually did a study on this once and proved that:

Asians
White
Hispanics
Black

In order of intelligence.

[NumberSix]

So you are saying that Asians are the intellectually superior group of people? And that blacks are least intelligent.
No. I'm saying that when looking at statistical averages, the average IQ for east Asians is higher than all other groups.

Now, as we all understand, averages aren't absolute. If the average IQ for east Asians is 104, that doesn't mean every east Asian person you meet will have an IQ of exactly 104. Most will be around the center range, hovering roughly around 104 give or take. As you move further away from that 104 center, you will see smaller numbers of people.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

So you are saying that Asians are the intellectually superior group of people? And that blacks are least intelligent.

AINT NOTHING STOPPING THOMAS HOWELL OR BEN CARSON FROM RIsing in THE INTELLECT GAME

[NumberSix]

AINT NOTHING STOPPING THOMAS HOWELL OR BEN CARSON FROM RIsing in THE INTELLECT GAME
Do you mean Thomas Sowell?

[gigantes]

Curious what ISH thinks and why.
it's a very interesting subject, which is why i don't give a shit what -i- think or what ISH thinks about the matter... i'm interested in what the studies say.

...

from what i've read, men and women average equally on IQ tests... about 100 on the wechsler II and stanford-binet.

men have larger brains; women have more brain cells.

the biggest difference is the number and arrangement of white and grey neurons. in short, men's brains are built to concentrate more deeply on a limited number of subjects, while women's brains are built to have more fluid communication between various regions.

in terms of map-reading, men tend to navigate by geometry (like an overhead view). women tend to navigate by landmarks.

[shlver]

Numbersix, why is an IQ number meaningful? Isn't it just a relative metric that ranks your proficiency in skills that the test creator deems important for learning?

[ace23]

So you are saying that Asians are the intellectually superior group of people? And that blacks are least intelligent.
On average, yes. There's no way to objectively measure intelligence, but I'd say IQ test is a probably the best indicator.

How do you define intelligence?

[shlver]

On average, yes. There's no way to objectively measure intelligence, but I'd say IQ test is a probably the best indicator.

How do you define intelligence?
I would define intelligence as the ability to anticipate and make decisions based on past knowledge. I think people are referring to intelligence as a quantifiable thing rather than a process.

[NumberSix]

I would define intelligence as the ability to anticipate and make decisions based on past knowledge. I think people are referring to intelligence as a quantifiable thing rather than a process.
Your idea of intelligence is simply experience? :wtf:

[Akrazotile]

You do know that Asians score the highest on IQ tests, then Whites, then Hispanics, then Blacks right?


Are these scores confined to students in America or were these groups sampled randomly across their populations throughout the globe?

[RidonKs]

This post highlights IQ tests are a narrow perspective on intelligence.
IQ tests overemphasize abstract thinking and language/math skills and speed of response. it's important to understand that IQ tests were first created to identify learning disabilities in children, not as a scale of intelligence.
did not know this, repped

[NumberSix]

did not know this, repped
A quick google search will show you that he just made that up out of thin air.

[shlver]

A quick google search will show you that he just made that up out of thin air.
Really? Google Alfred Binet.

[NumberSix]

Really? Google Alfred Binet.
Perhaps you should and actually READ the information.

[RidonKs]

what did you read in your google search that makes you think otherwise, numbersix?



edit: ahhh i presume you read about Francis Galton? just according to the wiki article, on which the citations have no link to follow, he was the first to attempt intelligence testing but his research was primarily based on comparing mental capacity to physical capacities such as reflex or strength or phrenology. he failed to show any correlation.

a dozen years later or so, Mr Binet and his associate created the first modern iq test. how similar it was to today's, thus determining how much credit we give him for innovation, is something i cannot say for sure.

[shlver]

Your idea of intelligence is simply experience? :wtf:
No, read the post again.

[shlver]

Perhaps you should and actually READ the information.
I have read the information. Are you going to make an accusation without supporting it?

[NumberSix]

what did you read in your google search that makes you think otherwise, numbersix?



edit: ahhh i presume you read about Francis Galton? just according to the wiki article, on which the citations have no link to follow, he was the first to attempt intelligence testing but his research was primarily based on comparing mental capacity to physical capacities such as reflex or strength or phrenology. he failed to show any correlation.

a dozen years later or so, Mr Binet and his associate created the first modern iq test. how similar it was to today's, thus determining how much credit we give him for innovation, is something i cannot say for sure.
You're over thinking it. Just REALLY try to see what is wrong with this sentence...



it's important to understand that IQ tests were first created to identify learning disabilities in children, not as a scale of intelligence.


Now compare it to this sentence.



it's important to understand that thermometers were first created to identify coldness in things, not a scale of temperature.

[RidonKs]

interesting analogy. slver what do you make of it?

btw i'm not overthinking anything. i'm not even thinking about anything really. i was just glossing over the history so we have some context with regard to what you find faulty with that post, because you didn't really provide any detail besides the analogy above just now.

[NumberSix]

interesting analogy. slver what do you make of it?

btw i'm not overthinking anything. i'm not even thinking about anything really. i was just glossing over the history so we have some context with regard to what you find faulty with that post, because you didn't really provide any detail besides the analogy above just now.
Fair enough. I really did just throw it out there without any explanation whatsoever.

[shlver]

You're over thinking it. Just REALLY try to see what is wrong with this sentence...





Now compare it to this sentence.
The analogy isn't true, and I'm not even sure how it deals with what i said. Make what you are trying to say clear. Grammar goes out the window when typing on the phone.

[Trollsmasher]

Harvard actually did a study on this once and proved that:

Asians
White
Hispanics
Black

In order of intelligence.
Jews are above Eastern Asians actually

Are these scores confined to students in America or were these groups sampled randomly across their populations throughout the globe?
studies on this have been done all over the world

[RidonKs]

The analogy isn't true, and I'm not even sure how it deals with what i said. Make it clear what you are trying to say.
no YOU deal with the analogy. lol

i think there's something wrong with it but i'm not sure exactly what. clearly iq tests aren't to intelligence as a thermometer is to temperature... but that error is only about how accurate each measuring device is... clearly a thermometer is far more accurate than an iq test could ever hope to be. i don't think that's what kills it though.

i'd say the problem comes in with comparing "identifying learning disabilities in children" to "identifying the cold". i just wrote another three sentences and erased them because i wasn't making sense. what's the problem with this proposed equivalence?

[NumberSix]

Jews are above Eastern Asians actually
Only if you fudge the numbers.

It's like saying.....



Americans have the highest IQ's






Disclaimer: Only counting certain Americans and only counting the ones from from Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois

[gigantes]

I have read the information. Are you going to make an accusation without supporting it?
given that's pretty much numbersix' whole M.O. on ISH, i would certainly hope so.

[NumberSix]

no YOU deal with the analogy. lol

i think there's something wrong with it but i'm not sure exactly what. clearly iq tests aren't to intelligence as a thermometer is to temperature... but that error is only about how accurate each measuring device is... clearly a thermometer is far more accurate than an iq test could ever hope to be. i don't think that's what kills it though.

i'd say the problem comes in with comparing "identifying learning disabilities in children" to "identifying the cold". i just wrote another three sentences and erased them because i wasn't making sense. what's the problem with this proposed equivalence?
His argument is....

"IQ test were designed to identify less-intellegent people. Less-intellegent relative to what? Nothing."

[RidonKs]

His argument is....

"IQ test were designed to identify less-intellegent people. Less-intellegent relative to what? Nothing."
there's a difference between a learning disability (which was what he argued) and a lower iq and less intelligence. there are learning disabilities that still allow children to ace an iq test. and as for intelligence, again, that's one of the most difficult words in the english language to properly define. and conflating it with the modern iq test is a bad move.

[shlver]

no YOU deal with the analogy. lol

i think there's something wrong with it but i'm not sure exactly what. clearly iq tests aren't to intelligence as a thermometer is to temperature... but that error is only about how accurate each measuring device is... clearly a thermometer is far more accurate than an iq test could ever hope to be. i don't think that's what kills it though.

i'd say the problem comes in with comparing "identifying learning disabilities in children" to "identifying the cold". i just wrote another three sentences and erased them because i wasn't making sense. what's the problem with this proposed equivalence?
No, I'm not going to try to decipher what he is trying to imply.

IQ tests are not a direct measure of intelligence. They are a measure of proficiency of skills deemed important by the test creator. In terms of the first iq tests developed by binet, these were skills important for learning hence the principal purpose was identification of learning disabilities. It is obvious that this is a limited perspective on intelligence.

It is very important to this discussion to define intelligence.

Intelligence is the ability to anticipate and make decisions based on past experience.
I think accepting a common definition is the first step to meaningful discussion.

[RidonKs]

where's the definition from? or is it just yours?

[NumberSix]

there's a difference between a learning disability (which was what he argued) and a lower iq and less intelligence. there are learning disabilities that still allow children to ace an iq test. and as for intelligence, again, that's one of the most difficult words in the english language to properly define. and conflating it with the modern iq test is a bad move.
So, then it WASN'T an IQ test at all is what your saying? So then, why are we even addressing it in regards to his original statement of "IQ tests were......"

:confusedshrug:


Anyway, we're way off topic. The actual issue of importance is whether or not IQ testing is reliable. Which it is.

[RidonKs]

alright let's start there. you tell me why iq tests are credible.

[NumberSix]

where's the definition from? or is it just yours?
This is the simplest, most descriptive and best definition.


Innate general cognitive ability

[NumberSix]

alright let's start there. you tell me why iq tests are credible.
The simple reason why any process of measurement is credible. It's consistent.

[RidonKs]

The simple reason why any process of measurement is credible. It's consistent.
i can slouch while having my height measured or i can stand up straight while having my height measured. in either case, the measurement can be a consistent process and give a consistent result. yet the results in each case would be different. because the process needs to be refined more.

it is my opinion that the iq process has to be refined more. being consistent is not enough to base a theory of intelligence on.

[RidonKs]

This is the simplest, most descriptive and best definition.
i agree its a good definition. what makes it so good in your eyes? in what ways does it differ from shlver's definition? and what makes it superior to his from your point of view?

[zoom17]

Right.

Self-preservation, survival, and reproduction are strongly engrained in the feminine. Preservation as well. They all obsessed with nesting (home sterility and clealiness) and the latest diets and selfimprovement and are just very very hyperattuned to facial signals on their offspring.

Meanwhile STeve-O, Knoxville, the Japanese fighters, Bear Grylls and ISIS are down to take on some serious danger.

BUt hey.. that's the same gene that allowed us to enjoy the sweet flesh of the WOoly Mammoth. The ballsy guy wiling to stab the motherfukkin hairy elephant.

Well put:applause:

[NumberSix]

i agree its a good definition. what makes it so good in your eyes? in what ways does it differ from shlver's definition? and what makes it superior to his from your point of view?
Because his definition is nothing more that a beating around the bush way of saying "learning from experience" which is just stupid.

[RidonKs]

just stupid isn't a reason.

[NumberSix]

just stupid isn't a reason.
If have have any experience with iq testing, you understand that the whole idea is that things like "past experience" is intentionally excluded from the equation as much as possible. The whole idea is largely to see how you respond to something you're seeing for the first time. Things like pattern recognition in a set of shapes or symbols you have not seen before. Experience is explicitly excluded on purpose.

[shlver]

i agree its a good definition. what makes it so good in your eyes? in what ways does it differ from shlver's definition? and what makes it superior to his from your point of view?
His definition falls under my broader definition.
Cognitive processes require past experience. How would you pick a shape that doesn't belong without past experience of the concept of similarity? How would you see patterns in numbers without learning the number system? How would you read or communicate and answer questions on the IQ test without past knowledge of language?

[NumberSix]

His definition falls under my broader definition.
Cognitive processes require past experience. How would you pick a shape that doesn't belong without past experience of the concept of similarity? How would you see patterns in numbers without learning the number system? How would you read or communicate and answer questions on the IQ test without past knowledge of language?
IQ also includes being born. You can't recognize patterns if you weren't born first. And trees too. Without trees, you can't breathe and you can't communicate answers if you don't breathe.

[shlver]

If have have any experience with iq testing, you understand that the whole idea is that things like "past experience" is intentionally excluded from the equation as much as possible. The whole idea is largely to see how you respond to something you're seeing for the first time. Things like pattern recognition in a set of shapes or symbols you have not seen before. Experience is explicitly excluded on purpose.
Are we giving IQ tests to babies now?:rolleyes:

[Smoke117]

Saying men invented this or that is kind of bullshit considering that Women have had to live under traditional gender roles (and still do in much of the world) in society up until the last 75 years.

[NumberSix]

Saying men invented this or that is kind of bullshit considering that Women have had to live under traditional gender roles (and still do in much of the world) in society up until the last 75 years.
Inventors tend to be exceptional people. Not always, but usually. As I've said earlier, in the genius IQ range, men outnumber women 8-1. THAT is why men have invented most things.

[NumberSix]

i can slouch while having my height measured or i can stand up straight while having my height measured. in either case, the measurement can be a consistent process and give a consistent result. yet the results in each case would be different. because the process needs to be refined more.

it is my opinion that the iq process has to be refined more. being consistent is not enough to base a theory of intelligence on.
Keep it real. The reason you can't accept IQ testing is because it displays the inherent inequality in humans. Deep down you don't actually believe that it's flawed in anyway.

This denial of science is no different than the creationists who make the absurd claim that radiometric dating is somehow "flawed" or "unreliable" simply because it ruins their fantasy of a 6,000 year old earth.

[tpols]

Inventors tend to be exceptional people. Not always, but usually. As I've said earlier, in the genius IQ range, men outnumber women 8-1. THAT is why men have invented most things.

pretty sure it's hard to be 'exceptional' when youre forced down a certain path..

[RidonKs]

Keep it real. The reason you can't accept IQ testing is because it displays the inherent inequality in humans. Deep down you don't actually believe that it's flawed in anyway.

This denial of science is no different than the creationists who make the absurd claim that radiometric dating is somehow "flawed" or "unreliable" simply because it ruins their fantasy of a 6,000 year old earth.
no. i believe it's a flawed method to measure intelligence and i believe intelligence varies among human beings. i am able to hold both of these beliefs in tandem because they don't have that much to do with one another in the first place.

cut the ad hominem

[tpols]

Keep it real. The reason you can't accept IQ testing is because it displays the inherent inequality in humans. Deep down you don't actually believe that it's flawed in anyway.

This denial of science is no different than the creationists who make the absurd claim that radiometric dating is somehow "flawed" or "unreliable" simply because it ruins their fantasy of a 6,000 year old earth.

it can give a decent picture.. but there's a lot of ways to be 'smart'.. whats that einstein quote about fish and the bicicyle?

[NumberSix]

no. i believe it's a flawed method to measure intelligence and i believe intelligence varies among human beings. i am able to hold both of these beliefs in tandem because they don't have that much to do with one another in the first place.

cut the ad hominem
I'm sure you understand that intelligence varies among humans. I have my suspicion that you deny the nature of it being mostly genetic in origin and it's heritability.

[RidonKs]

I'm sure you understand that intelligence varies among humans. I have my suspicion that you deny the nature of it being mostly genetic in origin and it's heritability.
i have as much doubt about nature as you do about nurture.

[NumberSix]

it can give a decent picture.. but there's a lot of ways to be 'smart'.. whats that einstein quote about fish and the bicicyle?
We're actually finding out more and more people with higher levels of "g" tend to outperform in all facets.

[NumberSix]

i have as much doubt about nature as you do about nurture.
The difference is I accept scientific evidence.

And I don't deny nurture. IQ is raising worldwide. "Nurture" has improved across the board.

However, the gaps that have always been there are still consistent. IQ isn't raising in some populations and staying the same in others. The populations who previously scored lower aren't "catching up". The gaps still remain consistent.

East Asians are always #1 in IQ scores. It doesn't matter what country, what economic level, or any other "nurture" factor you subject them to. It always remains consistent. They always come out #1. At some point you have to accept that it's not a coincidence.

[brooklynsfinest]

We're actually finding out more and more people with higher levels of "g" tend to outperform in all facets.

I have more G than most people. Nobody more G than me. BROOKLYN!!!!!!!!!!!

Heat fans have less intelligence than most people. True talk. Lebron stans too. EVen the asian ones.

[Swaggin916]

I like to think this to be the case, but looking at people I know, and looking at all of the great inventors and scientists in recorded human history, it suggests no...

I think men and women are equally intelligent but women let petty shit like jealousy cloud their judgement too often, and often lack the same drive to apply themselves long term to one task that men have, due to lack of testosterone.

Women are better at multitasking and reading social situations.

It is my belief that women would make better politicians then men because of these traits. Just look at Merkel, she's running Europe, hope US gets a woman president soon.

I agree. The world IMO should be looked after by women... Men are irresponsible IMO and let ego/competition get in the way.

To group all men in one category and all women in a category is ridiculous though... everybody has different rates of intelligence in different areas.

[oarabbus]

The problem with IQ is that that measurements are difficult and don't have meaning at the edges of the bell curve. The comparison between an IQ 196 individual, a 205, and a 212 individual isn't very meaningful since the sample/population sizes at the extremes is so small.

also,


"If, aged 40, you obtain the same absolute score on the same test as the score you had obtained at age 10, something would have gone seriously wrong in your life. The long-term stability of IQ means only that your standing relative to others of your age stays much the same."

There's also the Flynn Effect, which has shown upwards trending IQs over time, which can lead one to absurd conclusions that going back far enough in time, the average IQ (or even above average) individual would be equivalent to a 70 or under IQ today, placing them in the "mentally retarded" category. The "intelligence quotient" that IQ tests test for does measure some part of what we call "intelligence", but let's not pretend like there aren't lots of issues with it.

[MavsSuperFan]

Are women really more emotional than men????

I feel we are as emotional if not more but we express different set or range of emotions. Women might get jealous but men's hurt egos has lead to it fair share of problems through out human history.
yes, as any who has lived with a woman will tell you. PMS is real. those hormones are out of their control.

Either my GF is an Oscar award winning level actress or PMS is real.

When can get angry or start crying at the stupidest littlest thing. Especially when they are on their period. Stuff that legit doesnt even make sense and they will be embarrassed about after their period is over.

[MavsSuperFan]

Women are definitely smarter in that they don't think stupid shit like getting drunk and then jumping off a roof into a pool is a good idea. Or jackass type stuff. OR putting your life savings on black. Most of the degenerates and fuxckups of the world are men.
that just shows women are more responsible/less impulsive and more cautious/less fearless. Not necessarily more intelligent.

[riseagainst]

So you are saying that Asians are the intellectually superior group of people? And that blacks are least intelligent.

it's proven to be true.

[shlver]

The problem with IQ is that that measurements are difficult and don't have meaning at the edges of the bell curve. The comparison between an IQ 196 individual, a 205, and a 212 individual isn't very meaningful since the sample/population sizes at the extremes is so small.

also,



There's also the Flynn Effect, which has shown upwards trending IQs over time, which can lead one to absurd conclusions that going back far enough in time, the average IQ (or even above average) individual would be equivalent to a 70 or under IQ today, placing them in the "mentally retarded" category. The "intelligence quotient" that IQ tests test for does measure some part of what we call "intelligence", but let's not pretend like there aren't lots of issues with it.
Actually that is where they have the most meaning. IQ tests are useful to identify cognitive deficiencies or extremely gifted children, they say nothing meaningful about average to above average children or their intelligence. The differentiation usually comes from speed of response, but that is clearly biased. Doesn't that discriminate against children who are thoughtful and are slow to respond?

[NumberSix]

Actually that is where they have the most meaning. IQ tests are useful to identify cognitive deficiencies or extremely gifted children, they say nothing meaningful about average to above average children or their intelligence. The differentiation usually comes from speed of response, but that is clearly biased. Doesn't that discriminate against children who are thoughtful and are slow to respond?
Are IQ tests perfect? No. Nothing is. Clocks aren't perfect either. Just because after a few years a clock might be off by a minute or 2 doesn't mean you completely disregard it. Ok, the clock says it 4:57 when it's really 4:55. You still know what time it is. That's not a margin of error that would justify you saying a clock is not reliable. We count years with a margin of error, even when accounting for leap years. We don't actually ALWAYS have a leap year every 4 years. It's an acceptable margin of error.

If an IQ test says someone's IQ is about 100, that fine. It's reliable. Is it possible that the person's IQ isn't really exactly 100? Sure. It might be off a by couple of points give or take. Maybe the person is really a 102 but they "scored" a 99. That's a perfectly acceptable margin of error. But let's not act like people scoring roughly 100 could actually be anywhere from 70 to 130.

[Nick Young]

pretty sure it's hard to be 'exceptional' when youre forced down a certain path..
No one is forced down certain paths anymore in the west. In Norway for example it is the most gender neutral country in the world, they had government programs encouraging women to get in to maths and engineering, BUT STILL the gender divide there is the same as it is all over the world. Same with male nurses.

"women are forced down that path" is just an excuse used by people who refuse to acknowledge that the two genders both have different inherent strengths and weaknesses.


Did it ever occur to you that women don't have the same level of spatial awareness as men (this is biological science) and perhaps that explains the gender ratio in certain fields like architecture and engineering?

[shlver]

Are IQ tests perfect? No. Nothing is. Clocks aren't perfect either. Just because after a few years a clock might be off by a minute or 2 doesn't mean you completely disregard it. Ok, the clock says it 4:57 when it's really 4:55. You still know what time it is. That's not a margin of error that would justify you saying a clock is not reliable. We count years with a margin of error, even when accounting for leap years. We don't actually ALWAYS have a leap year every 4 years. It's an acceptable margin of error.

If an IQ test says someone's IQ is about 100, that fine. It's reliable. Is it possible that the person's IQ isn't really exactly 100? Sure. It might be off a by couple of points give or take. Maybe the person is really a 102 but they "scored" a 99. That's a perfectly acceptable margin of error. But let's not act like people scoring roughly 100 could actually be anywhere from 70 to 130.
What is an Iq test reliable for? What is the purpose of an IQ test in general terms?

[GimmeThat]

I've found that it hadn't been that difficult to help either a man, or a woman to become successful in what they desire as long as we had an mutual agreement on the relationship.

[NumberSix]

No one is forced down certain paths anymore in the west. In Norway for example it is the most gender neutral country in the world, they had government programs encouraging women to get in to maths and engineering, BUT STILL the gender divide there is the same as it is all over the world. Same with male nurses.

"women are forced down that path" is just an excuse used by people who refuse to acknowledge that the two genders both have different inherent strengths and weaknesses.


Did it ever occur to you that women don't have the same level of spatial awareness as men (this is biological science) and perhaps that explains the gender ratio in certain fields like architecture and engineering?
Even this is the result pseudo-intellectial agenda.

Words (specifically nouns) are classified by gender. Humans/animals are classified by sex.

There are two human SEXES, not genders. A word is a noun, not the person that the noun is describing. The same is true of gender.

When I refer to you as "him", the word "him" has a masculine gender. Meaning it describes the sex of the person it is in reference to. YOU don't have a gender though. The masculine gender of the noun is in reference to the sex of the person the noun is describing.

[shlver]

Even this is the result pseudo-intellectial agenda.

Words (specifically nouns) are classified by gender. Humans/animals are classified by sex.

There are two human SEXES, not genders. A word is a noun, not the person that the noun is describing. The same is true of gender.

When I refer to you as "him", the word "him" has a masculine gender. Meaning it describes the sex of the person it is in reference to. YOU don't have a gender though. The masculine gender of the noun is in reference to the sex of the person the noun is describing.
True, I misused gender in my post earlier as well.

[NumberSix]

What is an Iq test reliable for? What is the purpose of an IQ test in general terms?
Measuring intelligence. :hammerhead:

I think we would all agree that when it comes people of intelligence such scientists, the IQ scores are not all over the place. It's not like there as just as many scientists with IQs of 75 as there are of 125. These test aren't just spitting out randoms scores. There IS an innate intelligence. And these test seem to be very reliable and consistent in measuring it.

[sweggeh]

They have different mindsets straight out of the gate because of the difference between sexes. They have different challenges in life so have to use their intelligence in different ways I guess. But if you compare the potential for intelligence among all the men and compared it with all the women I would assume it would be pretty close to even.

[shlver]

Measuring intelligence. :hammerhead:

I think we would all agree that when it comes people of intelligence such scientists, the IQ scores are not all over the place. It's not like there as just as many scientists with IQs of 75 as there are of 125. These test aren't just spitting out randoms scores. There IS an innate intelligence. And these test seem to be very reliable and consistent in measuring it.
That's where we fundamentally disagree. I believe IQ tests are a useful operational metric that does not tell the whole story and does not directly measure intelligence. All of the skills and knowledge needed to complete the IQ test are not innate knowledge, they have to be learned and developed.

[hateraid]

:applause: This man understands gender equality



So the correct way to answer is women due to gender equality?

[GimmeThat]

Measuring intelligence. :hammerhead:

I think we would all agree that when it comes people of intelligence such scientists, the IQ scores are not all over the place. It's not like there as just as many scientists with IQs of 75 as there are of 125. These test aren't just spitting out randoms scores. There IS an innate intelligence. And these test seem to be very reliable and consistent in measuring it.

what's the correlation between highly intelligent people and those who actually became the boss?

gather all those who score well on an IQ test, and hand them a topic on creationism as an essay.


just don't tell me the result from that isn't reliable and consistent.

[NumberSix]

That's where we fundamentally disagree. I believe IQ tests are a useful operational metric that does not tell the whole story and does not directly measure intelligence. All of the skills and knowledge needed to complete the IQ test are not innate knowledge, they have to be learned and developed.
Only if you go to completely absurd extremes.

Like, yes, you have to understand the concept of taking a test. You have to understand the concept of deciphering symbols that are on pieces of paper.

Let's not be dumb though. People who are taking tests understand that they are being tested. They understand the idea of reading symbols on the paper. It's not like they're testing a bunch of wild people who have never seen paper before.

The ability to read is obviously not innate. You have to know how to read before doing a test. Yes, if you test a person who has never learned to read, they won't do well. Give the people administering the tests at least some credit. They're not comparing people who can read vs. people who can't read like they're oblivious that it would skew the results.

[NumberSix]

what's the correlation between highly intelligent people and those who actually became the boss?

gather all those who score well on an IQ test, and hand them a topic on creationism as an essay.


just don't tell me the result from that isn't reliable and consistent.
Either I don't understand what you're asking, or you don't understand the non-correlation in what I think you're asking.

[GimmeThat]

Even this is the result pseudo-intellectial agenda.

Words (specifically nouns) are classified by gender. Humans/animals are classified by sex.

There are two human SEXES, not genders. A word is a noun, not the person that the noun is describing. The same is true of gender.

When I refer to you as "him", the word "him" has a masculine gender. Meaning it describes the sex of the person it is in reference to. YOU don't have a gender though. The masculine gender of the noun is in reference to the sex of the person the noun is describing.

I don't know if having a ***** is now considered as the "masculine" gender

she ran away, as fast as she could.
he ran away, as fast as he could.


you can go ahead and start running away as fast as you can

[GimmeThat]

Either I don't understand what you're asking, or you don't understand the non-correlation in what I think you're asking.


I guess we can agree that intelligence have nothing to do with earning power.

and that innate intelligence is then a term used for......
a sub category of people?

like a cult?

[shlver]

Only if you go to completely absurd extremes.

Like, yes, you have to understand the concept of taking a test. You have to understand the concept of deciphering symbols that are on pieces of paper.

Let's not be dumb though. People who are taking tests understand that they are being tested. They understand the idea of reading symbols on the paper. It's not like they're testing a bunch of wild people who have never seen paper before.

The ability to read is obviously not innate. You have to know how to read before doing a test. Yes, if you test a person who has never learned to read, they won't do well. Give the people administering the tests at least some credit. They're not comparing people who can read vs. people who can't read like they're oblivious that it would skew the results.
The point is humans are not born with these skills like a human born in the amazon jungle is not born with the skills to survive. These skills are learned and developed. The extent to which they are developed are obviously affected by external factors like family life, socioeconomic conditions, nutrition etc, not just genetics.

There is documentation of humans living in jungles using methods to extract a toxin from a plant that were analogous to modern chemistry. Would a 130 iq mean anything in the jungle? Whose knowledge would be more valued? Wouldn't the indigenous human be considered more "intelligent" in this environment?

[NumberSix]

The point is humans are not born with these skills like a human born in the amazon jungle is not born with the skills to survive. These skills are learned and developed. The extent to which they are developed are obviously affected by external factors like family life, socioeconomic conditions, nutrition etc, not just genetics.
I don't think anybody has ever claimed that IQ is exclusively genetic.

The real thing is, all environmental factors being equal, There is an innate gap in populations. For example, put a diverse group of people anywhere in the world under the exact same conditions and east Asians will always have the highest average.

Now, if you take a bunch a Japanese and Germans, if the Japanese have a disadvantage like being malnourished, lack of shelter, etc... then the Germans test subjects will outperform the Japanese test subjects. All things being equal though, The Japanese average IQ will be a couple points higher.

This is actually perfectly displayed when you look at a list of countries in order of IQ. You see exactly what you would expect. Wealthy Asian countries are ahead of wealthy European countries who are in turn ahead of less wealthy Asian countries.

[shlver]

I don't think anybody has ever claimed that IQ is exclusively genetic.

The real thing is, all environmental factors being equal, There is an innate gap in populations. For example, put a diverse group of people anywhere in the world under the exact same conditions and east Asians will always have the highest average.

Now, if you take a bunch a Japanese and Germans, if the Japanese have a disadvantage like being malnourished, lack of shelter, etc... then the Germans test subjects will outperform the Japanese test subjects. All things being equal though, The Japanese average IQ will be a couple points higher.

This is actually perfectly displayed when you look at a list of countries in order of IQ. You see exactly what you would expect. Wealthy Asian countries are ahead of wealthy European countries who are in turn ahead of less wealthy Asian countries.
Complete nonsense.:facepalm The reality is environmental factors are not equal between countries and that is a fact.

[NumberSix]

Complete nonsense.:facepalm The reality is environmental factors are not equal between countries and that is a fact.
Yes. That is probably why my post was making that exact point. :hammerhead:

[shlver]

Yes. That is probably why my post was making that exact point. :hammerhead:

:facepalm this is a waste of time, you can't even be consistent with your own posts.


The real thing is, all environmental factors being equal, There is an innate gap in populations. For example, put a diverse group of people anywhere in the world under the exact same conditions and east Asians will always have the highest average.

The so called "innate gap" could be attributed to the difference in environmental or societal factors. You are being completely unscientific here.

[RidonKs]

:facepalm this is a waste of time, you can't even be consistent with your own posts.



The so called "innate gap" could be attributed to the difference in environmental or societal factors. You are being completely unscientific here.
that is pretty glaring

[NumberSix]

:facepalm this is a waste of time, you can't even be consistent with your own posts.



The so called "innate gap" could be attributed to the difference in environmental or societal factors. You are being completely unscientific here.
If my quotes are in some way supposed to be contradictory, you're really gonna have to explain it. That or you need to re-read because you obviously misunderstood something.

[RidonKs]

you can't point to the innate inequality between human beings and then say "all environmental factors being equal". all environmental factors are not equal in the example you're pointing to ie. a society of unequal human beings.

[NumberSix]

that is pretty glaring
What am I missing? Or what do you 2 think you're seeing? Did I word it in some kind of ambiguous way where you're interpreting something different than I intended? I do get it.

[GimmeThat]

I don't think anybody has ever claimed that IQ is exclusively genetic.

The real thing is, all environmental factors being equal, There is an innate gap in populations. For example, put a diverse group of people anywhere in the world under the exact same conditions and east Asians will always have the highest average.

Now, if you take a bunch a Japanese and Germans, if the Japanese have a disadvantage like being malnourished, lack of shelter, etc... then the Germans test subjects will outperform the Japanese test subjects. All things being equal though, The Japanese average IQ will be a couple points higher.

This is actually perfectly displayed when you look at a list of countries in order of IQ. You see exactly what you would expect. Wealthy Asian countries are ahead of wealthy European countries who are in turn ahead of less wealthy Asian countries.


just don't tell me there's any type of relationship between pollution and wealth.

I meant intelligence and wealth.


just don't tell me you just did that.

[NumberSix]

you can't point to the innate inequality between human beings and then say "all environmental factors being equal". all environmental factors are not equal in the example you're pointing to ie. a society of unequal human beings.
Did you guys miss the "for example, SAME place, SAME conditions" Part or was that just invisible? :confusedshrug:

So you want to go the "society, unfair, blah blah" route?

Why is it that whether it's America, Canada, European countries, etc... East Asians always have higher IQ average then the other people in those places? Is every society on earth somehow rigged for Asians to get good IQ scores?

I mean, if it about some unfair society conspiracy, shouldn't whites in America have a higher average IQ than Asians? Or is American society just rigged in the Asian man/woman's favour? Yellow privilege?

[riseagainst]

what about d1ck size? It seems to be inversely proportional to IQ.

[RidonKs]

Did you guys miss the "for example, SAME place, SAME conditions" Part or was that just invisible? :confusedshrug:

So you want to go the "society, unfair, blah blah" route?

Why is it that whether it's America, Canada, European countries, etc... East Asians always have higher IQ average then the other people in those places? Is every society on earth somehow rigged for Asians to get good IQ scores?

I mean, if it about some unfair society conspiracy, shouldn't whites in America have a higher average IQ tha Asian? Or is America just rigged in the Asian man/woman's favour? Yellow privilege?
no dude you don't understand. forget real examples, you made a SIMPLE LOGICAL error in your post.

there is no example of a group of people whose intelligence you can compare who grew up in the same place and the same conditions. you can't point to an example that doesn't exist... and as for those examples of intellectual inequality that DO exist in the real world, you can't point to them and say "all environmental factors being equal" when in reality the environmental differences between the american lifestyle and the east asian lifestyle are radically different. as are the differences between the north dakota former's lifestyle and the investment banker manhattanite. because in life, conditions are extremely erratic depending on precisely who you are and what you do, down right to the difference between a father and a son.

i don't think these observations i'm making, which i should point out are only observations and aren't backed by any more evidence than my intuition and my own analysis, are particularly complex. but i also don't think they're very controversial. they make perfect sense to me anyway.

just like starface you're way too hung up on the people complaining about inequality than you are about inequality itself which like it or not, whether we're talking about inequality of intelligence or of money or of privilege in the form of race and gender and sexuality or even something like the inequality of happening to have been born to a middle class family of a prosperous society as opposed to somebody else happening to have been born in a country ravaged by civil war and indiscriminate violence that has torn apart his family.

it seems i failed myself to forget real world examples.

[MavsSuperFan]

Did you guys miss the "for example, SAME place, SAME conditions" Part or was that just invisible? :confusedshrug:

So you want to go the "society, unfair, blah blah" route?

Why is it that whether it's America, Canada, European countries, etc... East Asians always have higher IQ average then the other people in those places? Is every society on earth somehow rigged for Asians to get good IQ scores?
There is some selection bias in the immigration process. Its much easier to legally immigrate to america, if you have something lined up in the way of gainful employment/higher education or if you have an education already, or if you have money to start a business.

The US government isnt just going to allow the dredges of society immigrate to America

And its very difficult to illegally immigrate to America from east asia. there is no border to sneak across from east asia

Usually the people that legally come to America have one of the following.
1. a high paying job lined up. IIRC tech companies, engineering firms, etc use a lot of H-1B visas to fill out positions. Most of these people have already been educated in their home countries, and often have impressive work experience. My Accounting firm gets quite a bit of workers coming here on secondment work terms. Some times these people bring their kids, and familes. its also easier for them to become legal permanent residents.

2. If they got accepted to a US university they can come here to study on a student visa.

3. if they already have money they qualify as investment class immigrants.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shortcuts/2013/dec/10/want-to-buy-citizenship-super-rich-malta-passports

[QUOTE] The British equivalent, the Tier 1 (Investor) visa programme, assesses applicants on the basis of their ability "to invest

[NumberSix]

just like starface you're way too hung up on the people complaining about inequality than you are about inequality itself
Just to be specific, are you saying I'm not worried about inequality, as in, the results? Or are you saying the inequality of people not having identical circumstances/opportunity?

If it's the results? No, I'm not worried about it.

If you want to talk about inequality, that's fine. But science denial isn't going to do you any favors. It's ok to admit that Asians have higher average IQs and also admit there are circumstances of people not being treated equally. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

You seem to have this fear that if we recognize the fact that some groups are inherently more intelligent ON AVERAGE that this means we will all decide that the people in the other groups are of no value and should be thrown away. No rational person actually believes that somebody with an IQ of 95 has a life that is any less valuable than a person with an IQ of 100.

If you want to talk about people not be treated equally, that is an entirely different discussion that is irrelevant to this one.

[RidonKs]

i'd recommend you respond to the part about your logical fallacy rather than the rest. i was just ranting in the section you quoted. i think we can just assume we agree on the rest of your post, in terms of what the facts on the ground of intellectual capacity around the world actually are.

[NumberSix]

i'd recommend you respond to the part about your logical fallacy rather than the rest. i was just ranting in the section you quoted. i think we can just assume we agree on the rest of your post, in terms of what the facts on the ground of intellectual capacity around the world actually are.
The problem is, you're just not that familiar with this particular field of studies.

Believe me, the things that you ASSUME have not been accounted for have been.

If I told you, for example, there have been studies where Asian children adopted by white families and the reverse have been IQ test subjects, would you accept the results? If it always comes out the same and on average (just a statistical average) the Asians end up scoring higher, would that sway you?

If Asian kids and white kids grow up in the same house together and go to the same schools and lead pretty close to the same lives, what would you take away from the Asian kids consistently outperforming the white kids on IQ tests? Would you admit that maybe Asian on average really are more intelligent or that society is racist against whites in some way that is directly responsible for them scoring slightly lower on IQ test?

At some point, you have to just accept what all the evidence overwhelmingly points to.

[RidonKs]

that would be an interesting study i'd like to read. i guess i am out of the loop of this academic field. go ahead and cite either the research you're talking about it or other research like it so i can make myself familiar with it.

[NumberSix]

that would be an interesting study i'd like to read. i guess i am out of the loop of this academic field. go ahead and cite either the research you're talking about it or other research like it so i can make myself familiar with it.
Here's a quick video discussing the research of intelligence. The subtitles are slightly cropped at times, but you can still read them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ovKcyZGR8

[Raymone]

Indians are smarter than asians.

[riseagainst]

Indians are smarter than asians.

:lol

[Timmy D for MVP]

I am of the mind that everyone evens out to be equally intelligent from their starting point. So men, women, black, white, brown, purple, whatever, start from the same place on average.

From there environmental circumstances create the splits.

[jstern]

Intelligence is something that varies greatly from person to person. Some women are smarter than most men, some guys are smarter than most women. Having said that, the way guys and girls are treated in society does make it so a guy has to work harder. So if anything, they get to grow more mentally in a sense. At least it evens out a bit when the girl loses her looks.

In terms of native intelligence, guys and girl's are built differently and for different things, so they really can't be compared.

The one thing I would say, the average girl seems to be into accessorizing, and aspire to be models and just stand there and be worshiped while having their picture taken, while the average guy is more into things like sports, which requires a lot of planning and plotting and analyzing in how to beat your opponent. In those scenarios, guys just destroys the girls in how the mind is used.

But again, they're both built differently for survival.


On average both are dumb as fvk so it doesn't really matter

And that's the reality.

[GimmeThat]

The problem is, you're just not that familiar with this particular field of studies.

Believe me, the things that you ASSUME have not been accounted for have been.

If I told you, for example, there have been studies where Asian children adopted by white families and the reverse have been IQ test subjects, would you accept the results? If it always comes out the same and on average (just a statistical average) the Asians end up scoring higher, would that sway you?

If Asian kids and white kids grow up in the same house together and go to the same schools and lead pretty close to the same lives, what would you take away from the Asian kids consistently outperforming the white kids on IQ tests? Would you admit that maybe Asian on average really are more intelligent or that society is racist against whites in some way that is directly responsible for them scoring slightly lower on IQ test?

At some point, you have to just accept what all the evidence overwhelmingly points to.


I'm interested in the last few great scientific theories developed by asians.

clearly, it's a field that the whites/blacks/jews are far inferior.

[robert de niro]

Intelligence is something that varies greatly from person to person. Some women are smarter than most men, some guys are smarter than most women. Having said that, the way guys and girls are treated in society does make it so a guy has to work harder. So if anything, they get to grow more mentally in a sense. At least it evens out a bit when the girl loses her looks.

In terms of native intelligence, guys and girl's are built differently and for different things, so they really can't be compared.

The one thing I would say, the average girl seems to be into accessorizing, and aspire to be models and just stand there and be worshiped while having their picture taken, while the average guy is more into things like sports, which requires a lot of planning and plotting and analyzing in how to beat your opponent. In those scenarios, guys just destroys the girls in how the mind is used.

But again, they're both built differently for survival.



And that's the reality.
thanks for the good laugh :cheers:

[NumberSix]

thanks for the good laugh :cheers:
He's right. There are things that women are inherently better at. You'll notice women have a better sense of direction. They are better at remembering g where things are.

This goes back to hunting and gathering. Men hunted. Women gathered. Gathering obviously has more emphasis on remembering where certain things grow , how to get there and back, when things are in season, remembering shapes of which things are ok and which plants are poisonous. Hunting requires just killing an animal where ever you find it. Looking around aimlessly until you find something to hunt.

[niko]

He's right. There are things that women are inherently better at. You'll notice women have a better sense of direction. They are better at remembering g where things are.

This goes back to hunting and gathering. Men hunted. Women gathered. Gathering obviously has more emphasis on remembering where certain things grow , how to get there and back, when things are in season, remembering shapes of which things are ok and which plants are poisonous. Hunting requires just killing an animal where ever you find it. Looking around aimlessly until you find something to hunt.
:lol Do you believe this?

[NumberSix]

:lol Do you believe this?
Do I believe that traits that are beneficial to the surrounding environment are more likely to be passed on than those that aren't? Yeah, I really do believe that.

[RidonKs]

He's right. There are things that women are inherently better at. You'll notice women have a better sense of direction. They are better at remembering g where things are.

This goes back to hunting and gathering. Men hunted. Women gathered. Gathering obviously has more emphasis on remembering where certain things grow , how to get there and back, when things are in season, remembering shapes of which things are ok and which plants are poisonous. Hunting requires just killing an animal where ever you find it. Looking around aimlessly until you find something to hunt.
:roll: this is gold

[Trollsmasher]

ITT: irreligious liberal creationists:lol

[RidonKs]

i am irreligious. i am liberal. i do believe in creation.

goddamn i guess you've got me pegged.

[NumberSix]

ITT: irreligious liberal creationists:lol
No, his "criticism" is actually fair. I should have made it clear that my post was a hypothesis. It's not settled science. I believe it has a strong case, but it's not a fact by any means. There are definitely opposing theories that have a good case as well.