This is true, I cannot find anything to refute it. I looked really hard. The latest evidence shows greater similarity.
“But a new study finds that human brains do not fit neatly into “male” and “female” categories.”
Why does this conflict with what the manosphere pushes? What does this contradict? The theory of Baron-Cohen (masc/fem brain guy) is a social and child psychologist, I might add. Social psychology has the strongest liberal bias in the entire field, as we know, but he is quite honest considering. He studies autism, a disorder with male prevalence, a developmental disorder originating in childhood (non-applicable findings to neurotypical adults) and his theory was supposed to increase accuracy of diagnosis, observational, it isn’t causal. Again, it isn’t causal. He intends to treat autistic people, a good man, and hopefully find the cause of autism to cure it. Anyone who’d apply his theories to neurotypical, non-autistic people is either an autiste on the level of Chateau Autiste themselves (completely getting the wrong end of the stick and magically missing the point) or intellectually dishonest.
What I’ve seen on real sex differences, while interesting and fun to wind up Blank Slatists, amounts to a trivial difference, 15% at most, I’d estimate. I have never seen it top that. Physical difference like muscle mass, total volume or brain mass, all of it topped out at 15% at upper range but was usually much lower. Again, if any of you with the Burden of Proof (men have this, men are that) have evidence of biological differences (you know, real science, not IQ tests that lack validity to the real world) above this 15% ceiling I mention, please do comment linking to it. I would love to see it, like a unicorn. I highly doubt you could find something I’ve missed all these years.
Racial differences? It’s the easier comparison to make and considering the social need to push back against racial Bolshevism thanks to multiculturalism, it bears mentioning. Well, if you know the HBD data, where to begin? Far more than 15%, let’s put it that way. You’d have to ask an expert. I’d love to see a percentage estimate there too and naturally it depends which races you count (the most stark comparison). From hormone profiles to fetal gestation to sports proclivity (twitch muscle fibres), if you counted everything, the numbers would be shocking.
As I wrote here: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/link-9-ways-to-spot-an-anti-white/
“The sexes need one another, it’s a fact of nature, and anyone who endorses the feminist adversarial stance of Gender Wars (also used to rentseek) is trying to turn you into a genetic suicide (future non-threat). The difference between sexes is less than the HBD between races. We are brothers and sisters.”
I felt like I needed to explain myself a little. Others may feel free to pick up these threads themselves, I take little interest in proving what is obvious to anyone who knows the subjects and statistics.
For example, one study does not a conclusive proof make in any science, especially when it wasn’t even a neurobiological methodology, Milo, you scamp.
Good men are happy that good women are striving for themselves.
We aren’t sitting at home like helpless damsels or sloths. We’re supporting and nurturing in an economic sense, that is all. There is still collective gain.
Men and women need to work together for any future or societal benefit.
The people who would divide you wish to conquer you.
inb4 the “but women are sinners/stupid/have cooties” argument
This is slightly mean but far less than the vapid, unfounded assumptions of the article itself. Something that is a key problem in psychology and psychometrics, because, as with medicine, men make up the bulk of test subjects and hence, also qualified test subjects (sampling bias). There are other methodological problems I won’t go into today.
I was reading this perverted explanation of sex differences in the brain using IQ as the gold-star metric (sigh) but generalizing from a select sample (bad science) and the author, to be fair, admits this at the bottom in the comments.
“This article is about the proportion of men and women at the extremes of intellectual capability—it’s not about all men and all women.”
Measurement error, anyone? Selection bias? The fact men care about that certificate shit? Who needs a piece of paper to tell them they’re smart? Isn’t that approval seeking supposedly a female behaviour? Like, how many men apply to MENSA compared to women? I cannot find the data, I tried, they don’t offer it, but from what I know, it’s overwhelmingly male applicants and the same problem presents with other self-styled “intelligence” tests because men, unlike women, care about the intellectual signalling (unimportant to female SMV) and want to show off (competition is typically male).
By contrast, women typically tend to contribute with a group, and this is why the modern form of scientific working is a research group. Which sex would be expected to have more success in these? Women. And that’s what we see. More female graduates, more researchers, once we’re finally allowed to compete and enter the Universities. If men were innately superior, one man working alone could outcompete a whole team of women, but they don’t. They cannot. That isn’t what we see. If it worked, that’s what all men in the STEM fields would do. Reality intrudes in these applications, looking at what actually happens, and it’s quite autistic to trust data that falls flat on its face in reality.
Size of the brain is not everything, that’s a cheap, subpar metric. In fact, interconnectedness counts for more (white matter and synapses) in performance and this is widely known.
When controlled for their overall body size, men have a smaller IQ than women.
A hatefact the supposed red pill men of the manosphere will never tell you because it hurts their feefees.
The masculine brain is not intelligent, the feminine brain is not stupid. Those generalizations don’t actually apply to the human brain because there is no normal or default brain in the first place. Evolution doesn’t work like that. The question is loaded and argues from bad faith. It’s an apples and oranges issue. Which makes better juice? …It cannot be answered, making it a bad question. If you have to say It Depends to a binary question, an open-ended response, then the question is wrong. Well, ‘not even wrong’ to be pedantic.
The group range has nothing to do with a random individual. A random man is not Einstein and a random woman is not… moronic. There isn’t a pop culture reference for a retarded woman, which says something.
Anyone who claims individual superiority based on their group membership is one of Clary’s worthless. They are too lazy or incompetent to develop themselves and ride on coat-tails. They should be laughed out of the room. Be proud of your group, sure, but that doesn’t reflect on your life. You shouldn’t feel better or worse because you’ve done nothing to earn it. If you can earn something, do, and then feel proud of that instead. It’s a subtle point worth making. You can be proud of your cousin’s award, you did not win an award.
You can defeat their mewling claims to superiority with pure logic, that’s how pathetically dumb they are.
In fact if you look at the statistics in detail and parse them, if we’re considering this from a negative-shifted perspective these whiners favour, which sex has more retards? Total number? It’s obviously men. If voting were limited to a floor of IQ, merit, there would be more female voters than male because of this, more men would be excluded than women, and I covered it elsewhere.
Does this N of ‘<100IQmales’ make women superior? No. No, it does not. Does this make an individual woman superior? No. However, what are the odds that a random man plucked from the population will be retarded, versus a random woman in the same area? The probability is higher in the male case, so by a skewed comparison, the female intellect is, by mathematics, superior (by silly comparison), on a randomized and probable basis.
It takes a broader perspective to see that in matters of society, above a functional level, nobody is socially superior because social species like humans are too complicated. The question doesn’t apply to us. We’re the apex
predator of the planet, parts of evolutionary biology that apply to other species, lesser adept, are distorted by this
Are men inept child carers? Are women inept farmers? We each have our specializations by nature but that doesn’t exclude us, and some rare adepts, from breaking the stereotype. And that’s what this is all about, men bitching that women are taking something stereo-typically theirs. They own that subject (blocking women historically) and should continue to bar women who qualify because ….sex segregation isn’t sexist (limiting on the basis of sex alone)….. uhuh…. what capitalism? What equality of opportunity? What meritocracy?
On the positive, society-building and contributing perspective, are there female geniuses? Yes. Only a lying bigot would reject this. You don’t have to look at history books, although that helps, but look at the success modern women have built in STEM, taking the exact same tests as men and working on the same research questions. A meritocracy allows for their contribution, so what’s the problem? Everyone benefits, only a narcissist would object. Anyone who wishes to block them from contributing based on jealousy of their sex wishes to depress local success for his own emotions. Geniuses must be encouraged, whoever or whatever they are, and in modern times, the genius has
almost died out, making this more important than ever before. We can’t decide to be picky. See The Genius Famine book for justifications. Get over yourselves.
The latest excuse of failed men to avoid women who avoided them long before, the “Women are stupid” excuse is a
pseudoscientific form of “Women have cooties.”