Now, all of these in fact have been the economic effects of pursuing far too much equality, and I think we have very much now come to the end of the road. And, in fact, we find that the persistent expansion of the role of the state, beyond the capacity of the economy to support it, and the relentless pursuit of equality has caused, and is causing, damage to our economy in a variety of ways. It’s not the sole cause of what some have termed the ‘British sickness’ but it is a major one.
Now, what are the lessons then that we’ve learned from the last thirty years? First, that the pursuit of equality itself is a mirage. What’s more desireable and more practicable than the pursuit of equality is the pursuit of equality of opportunity. And opportunity means nothing unless it includes the right to be unequal and the freedom to be different.
One of the reasons that we value individuals is not because they’re all the same, but because they’re all different. I believe you have a saying in the Middle West: ‘Don’t cut down the tall poppies. Let them rather grow tall.’ I would say, let our children grow tall and some taller than others if they have the ability in them to do so. Because we must build a society in which each citizen can develop his full potential, both for his own benefit and for the community as a whole, a society in which originality, skill, energy and thrift are rewarded, in which we encourage rather than restrict the variety and richness of human nature.
Read Genius Famine.
n.b. The problem of obedience in schools also applies to the military.
Now, holding these views as strongly as I do, you can imagine that I was particularly interested to read a description of some of the problems in Czechoslovakia. And the description went like this—and I’ll tell you the year to which it referred in a moment. ‘The pursuit of equality’—I’m quoting—‘has developed in and unprecedented manner [end p147] and this fact has become one of the most important obstacles to intensive economic development and higher living standards. The negative aspects of equality are that lazy people, passive individuals, and irresponsible employees profit at the expense of dedicated and diligent employees, that unskilled workers profit at the expense of skilled ones, that those who are backward from the viewpoint of technology profit at the expense of those with initiative and talent.’
The problem isn’t women, even the ditzy ones. It’s a systemic issue.
You see the same moral weakness in all-boys schools, for instance.
I never got around to explaining this scientifically.
TLDR this picture. Understand this picture and you’ve pretty much got the gist.
Aside from sampling bias that it’s mostly men taking the tests.
Ideally, there’d be a vast study controlling for factors of class, education, mental health, anything that affects IQ and THEN, from that data (cross-cultural obviously) a comparison between the sexes.
Historical comparisons don’t work because women couldn’t attend full schooling, and were legally blocked from college.
Random error would be like what you had for breakfast that morning or a bird outside distracting you from the test. Those are confounds. Systemic error is the bias. Bias is a mathematical concept and it’s baked into the method design. That’s why me and everyone else who knows their stuff will read the methodology and critique that in light of the data results.
IQ also rejects many valuable parts of intelligence like grit or EQ (that women score well on), as well as the fact you can be taught it or improve your score, which flies in the face of the premise of IQ as a construct of ‘g’, as natural intellect. While very valuable and predictive of life outcomes, it is only a piece of paper and its greatest value is for academia.
The ‘Muh Male IQ’ crowd never suggest a corroborating test.
What confirmation bias?
“Finally, one of the best things you can do to deal with measurement errors, especially systematic errors, is to use multiple measures of the same construct. Especially if the different measures don’t share the same systematic errors, you will be able to triangulate across the multiple measures and get a more accurate sense of what’s going on.”
Those measures would include crime rates between the sexes, psychiatric suicidality and biological longevity.
On all those metrics, men lose. So much for ‘superior sex’ arguments.
Repost but good:
If you take the evolutionary biologist approach and control for the size of the body, women are actually more intelligent.
If you look at what’s more valuable to the brain, it’s white matter. Women have greater wm volume.
The Gender War is SJW propaganda because it’s anti-natal.
If the men saying ‘no brother wars’ don’t cooperate with women and have no one to breed with, they might as well be Milo.
If men don’t want to cooperate with women, they’re not men. They’re boys rebelling against Mommy. This applies vice versa, there’s a serious issue with someone who can’t grow up and mature into their duties. That’s not to say every man must be drafted or every woman needs to breed, but the sexes must support one another’s efforts while respecting civil liberties because those liberties make civilization.
The sexes are different, neither is superior. We’re supposed to be dimorphic, not androgynous, holding one sex to the standard of another is silly. Limiting them to that standard is also backward. Men can go into the arts, women into the sciences, it doesn’t make them lesser men/women. A pair of twins, one male and one female, are more alike than they ever could be different. The sexes are more alike than the races and if you look at the antagonists on the Gender War, they’re doing it to avoid the topic of a Race War by open competition.
The common ‘difference’ found between the sexes is approximately 3-4 IQ points in the averages. That’s it. That’s also tiny and well within chance based on factors like the aforementioned sampling bias. They’re clutching at straws. The data from meta-analysis (not single studies, which mean nothing in social science) is abused in bad faith too. They use it to claim something no data has ever nor will ever show to avoid their Burden of Proof i.e. they claim women are stupid. If you look at the data on retardation, a totally different question from 100-point moving averages, it’s clearly men that take the gold, especially the ones who claim their own mother, by their own logic, is stupid. Yes. Too stupid to abort.
When it comes to geniuses, these guys are trying to claim they’re Einstein by association.
That is retarded. Claim to be Hercules at least, he was male too. Aim high in your delusion.
They tend to ignore the fact there are also female geniuses, historically and currently. This is too much for their tiny
I could apply the sampling bias of the high-IQ tests but it’s common sense at this point, I won’t insult you. If you look at the only use for high-IQ tests, it’s to show off. Men take more of those by default and the types of intelligence included in IQ have a heavy maths bias, which girls excel at before puberty hits us over the head (earlier than boys nowadays) and we lose ground forever since academics are competitive.
Then go on to look at the way and reason these high-IQ studies are conducted – by men in academia, for men in academia. As in, these dicks are testing themselves. I’m sure there’s no way that could possibly be dodgy. Men are over-represented in the STEM tenures of academia, this would suggest they do better in academia. But is someone who needs the state teat truly intelligent?
They never study private sector workers. There’s also a heavy class bias, upper-middle only. Again, is this externally valid?
Does it have external validity?
Look at the front page of Google for this topic.
This comes up. This level is the best they can do.
“By just looking at those figures, it seems to corroborate the conventional wisdom that has been known for decades: the average IQs are about the same and males are a bit more variable.”
Remember variable in stats doesn’t mean wrong, necessarily.
A grand total of two points. Don’t build your spaceships to escape the cooties just yet.
At most, this biased page can find a single paper that claims what?
“In this paper, which looked at adult IQs, a five point higher IQ was found for males over females and the standard
deviations were found to be equal.”
Five. 5% as 5/100 average. 1/20. Mountains out of molehills.
But WAIT! There’s more!
This is intellectually dishonest. It misses out the basic reason for p-values – statistical significance.
Just because you have a number, doesn’t make it relevant.
But girls can’t do maths, right?
Most IQxgender findings are ‘statistically insignificant’, literally. They rarely report this.
As in, they are not scientific and to claim their hypothesis as they claim them is also unscientific.
“Inferential statistics are used to make generalizations from a sample to a population.”
OK, what is the sig. value in psychology, since it’s IQ? Always .05 or 5%. P-hacking to scrape this level is common but results cannot be replicated (called the replicability crisis – or fraud if you’re normal).
“In the behavioral and social and sciences, a general pattern is to use either .05 or .01 as the cutoff. The one chosen is
called the level of significance. If the probability associated with an inferential statistic is equal to or less than .05,
then the result is said to be significant at the .05 level.”
1% is for medical disciplines like neuroscience. They don’t use it in studies for brain differences between the sexes because they can’t meet that standard. Dwell on this fact. They typically have to lower the standard of proof to publish.
Type 1 and 2 errors also come in but that’s why we have meta-analysis (that these so-called high-IQ twerps don’t use, single studies only).
The common anecdotal Muh MENSA is also disingenuous, since, aside from who takes the test (and results should be controlled for that, they aren’t because that reduces the male score) they don’t bother to find out that just because you qualify for MENSA, doesn’t mean you have to join. Mind-boggling, I know. Women don’t signal on this, we don’t go round citing an IQ number.
The iq page with only two studies (please) concludes “Male and female mean IQs are about equal below the age of 15” – so age is an unrecognised factor? Another confound! If it’s endogenous to sex i.e. nature, it would apply at all ages!
Look up as many bell curves as you can find.
Notice which is literally higher along the Y, by volume?
Now the typical ‘curve’ they use has super-old data, e.g.
Racially Scottish 11yos in the 1930s. Yes, that is totally relevant to the 21st century and all of time and culture. How will women ever recover?
It doesn’t control for race either, which would further splinter the results.
As a final note on this section, comparisons are silly because the data is normalized i.e. what happens when you grade on a curve.
The raw data is compressed to fit the Gaussian distribution and make 100 still mean 100.
Most of the Flynn effect is scoring modern test-takers too high and comparing them to old test-takers as if the tests were equally difficult. Neither do the tests really compare to one another, even their boundary labels differ. Anything outside the total bell is ~wrong~…
Look at enough curves and you become good at spotting this.
It’s deceitful to claim that just because two lines are not exactly overlapping, that the representative groups are totally distinct. A conflation, a non sequitur and false equivalence, logically.
This type of curve, very common among the intellectually dishonest, is the standard form of representing differences as a hypothetical example in textbooks. Note there is no legend, there is no X-Y bar and not even a title or a dataset given. It’s a hypothetical example to demonstrate statistical differences between demographics in a population. It isn’t serious, note the extreme gradient that no known dataset would imply.
To the men who claim Muh Superior Male IQ
Sorry, no, you can’t sit on your ass playing video games and watching porn and pretend to be better than us.
THAT is a real difference:
But men famously object to being judged off their height – oh, like IQ is nicer???
Looking at the age confound, various known metrics of intelligence (many not included in IQ) DO vary by life stage.
They never look at vice and virtue in reality. Men represent many of the worst attributes of humanity, along with the best, and I think we know which group outnumbers which.
Then again I would say that.
The atheist men linking this stuff never link to anything that makes them look bad.
You can also compare the metric of testosterone balance, 2D:4D, since they mistakenly attribute it to that hormone the ovaries also make (they don’t know this).
I should also point out that the further you go from average, the more impossible it is to measure accurately (so there are no negative IQs even though logically there should be, and the tests tend to peter out around 145-175, anything beyond 180 and especially 200 cannot be measured in IQ).
Immeasurable genius – because it isn’t genius. Those are polymaths and IQ is inapplicable as a norm test.
0.000000021% of the global population. Many people claim to be polymaths but cannot prove it with their actions. Even on current population numbers, it’s unlikely there is a single polymath living in the world today.
7000000000*0.000000021 = 147, assuming all races have equal potential to polymathy, excluding class, education etc etc.
An increasing number of genes are shown to affect IQ and vary by race. I’ve yet to see ONE re the sexes.
Taleb, a certifiable genius, objects to Gaussian distributions.
They’re only designed to handle simple, normative datasets.
Note: Henri Poincare was better than Einstein.
If we’re treating the less-intelligent like second-class citizens, that’d be mostly male.
Just because it looks scientific doesn’t mean someone, somewhere isn’t fucking with you.
Don’t make your reputation worse with bad statistics.
It isn’t any more scientific than a Venn diagram of people who like cake versus pie.
It’s ironic the dumbasses of the male population are trying to explain their superiority using maths they don’t understand. Further, in all their wisdom, believe women won’t notice, despite higher EQ…
Entire book here:
It would be nice if you bought a copy though since this is a worthy book.
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.”
It’s true they aren’t covered in history when they should be.
For example, Hypatia invented the astrolabe. I’ve seen discussions of astronomical and nautical apparatus and the inventor is unlikely to be mentioned if female, deliberately misleading the reader and giving rise to the blatant lie that women don’t/can’t invent or ‘do’ science, as if there weren’t female, goddess patrons of the sciences and craftsmen? Arete? Athene? Veritas? As if all ancient women did was make babies? Look at the role of Spartan women for example, held to a higher standard than women today. Being intelligent and hard-working made them better mothers. Some people don’t like negative evidence against their prejudiced assumptions, like, for example, saying male nurses are very talented at nurturing.
Self-improvement deeply disturbs losers. Even when it benefits those losers via societal attainment, they’ll still jeer and grumble from the sidelines “but what about …?” Kim Kardashian could cure cancer and I’m sure some insecure boys would be sneering and turning up their nose. Bitchy spite and envy used to be something one had to contend with in women, now the 21st century excuse for ‘men’ make better women in this regard. Like, can the manosphere go one year without bitching about anyone? If we paid them, could they?
On scientific topics. This isn’t fair. Credit where it’s due. Based on merit.
I’m not about to say something silly, like claiming Lovelace was smarter than Babbage, she wasn’t; she simply did something similar and slightly better, but that’s not to say that female contributions should go ignored. Anyone making society better should be praised, I don’t give a damn what they are.
Few textbooks mention Tesla, for example, but they go to town on Edison and Marconi, even though Marconi ripped off Tesla for the radio. That’s pretty recent history and nothing to do with sex. The textbooks and what we ‘all know’ need to be examined with an unprejudiced eye…. almost like…. scientists?
WINSLOW, in his Anatomy of Suicide, says, “A person who accustoms himself to live in a world created by his own fancy, who surrounds himself with flimsy idealities, will, in the course of time, cease to sympathize with the gross realities of life,” and any one who will take the trouble to read the biographies of men of genius will see that this statement is borne out to a remarkable degree. Probably the most striking example of this doctrine, as well as the most pathetic instance of suicide in the annals of literature, is found in the records of Chatterton’s short life….
They were refreshingly brutal about it.
Evidence is not lacking to warrant the assumption that genius is a special morbid condition, and the anthropological school of which Lombroso is the brilliant master is daily gaining converts. Although the doctrines which he advocates have recently received a remarkable impetus, they are not essentially new. Centuries ago Seneca taught that there was no great genius without a tincture of madness, and Cicero spoke of the furor poeticus. It is also more than a hundred years since Diderot exclaimed: “Oh, how close the insane and men of genius touch! They are chained, or statues are raised to them.” Lamartine speaks of the mental disease called genius; Pascal says that extreme mind is akin to extreme madness; and everybody is familiar with Dryden’s couplet:“Great wits are sure to madness near allied,
And thin partitions do their bounds divide.”
Don’t worry, these are very short.
“loss of moral sense, morbid vanity” – oh yes.
Degeneracy is often combined with the illusion of genius (narcissism) via that vanity and enabled by the skewed moral priorities, almost always hedonistic (the original hedons actually had limits).
“Lankester’s oft-quoted definition of degeneration was ‘a gradual change of the structure in which the organism becomes adapted to less varied and less complex conditions of life’”
That awkward moment when Wagner is degenerate.
Easiest way to tell a genius from a narcissist?
The narcissist will never commit suicide – it would be killing the only thing they ever loved. They’re cowards and the type to beg and cry for their life, whatever their crimes. The type to think begging and confabulation are ‘clever’ manipulations.
The genius will die for something greater than themselves, which the other cannot conceive and labels stupidity, often perverting Darwin in course (having never read Darwin, clearly).
Degenerates have inferior evolutionary fitness only suitable for a decadent society, and only capable of speeding in that direction of entropy (developing chaos). They are unfit for the honour of parenthood.
Logically, selfish people project what they would do with such intellectual capital.
Hence the Tall Poppy problems.
Anyone who actually knows geniuses rather than people who pretend to be (overt and covert narcissists) will know they are very selfless people and in some ways a little helpless.
I blame Hollywood. The villain is always smarter than the Hero.
Clinically, Asperger’s doesn’t even exist anymore. It was removed from the DSM-V and subsumed under the Other category. Most autistics are not geniuses (pop culture myth) and further, savants (what most people mean) don’t need to have a mental illness. Some are genetic, some are accidental. The autistic savants are easier to spot.
Universities filter for the precocious, and I believe this is a core reason we don’t see geniuses in academia anymore (plus the excessively long training times, stifling environment, low wages like a slave and the expectation of hoop jumping like a prize dog).
A lot of reddit morons go around bragging about their Asperger’s because they believe it equates to genius. Don’t bother uttering the words ‘false equivalence’.
Academic genius (Binet IQ) doesn’t necessarily mean jack either. It’s about what you do with it. If you sit on your arse doing nothing and playing video games, you might as well be retarded. Creative genius is what people praise, not a G score on a piece of paper. They see it as a license to be lazy. More fool them.
On the other hand, most people with Asperger’s syndrome are not geniuses (not even partial or potential geniuses), even when they have exceptionally high intelligence – because they lack the intuitive style of thinking which is vital for real creativity.
In my experience, real genius has a drive, a grit and resilience toward their subject/s.
Motivation is not a problem for them. Ever. As one told me: I have found my life’s calling, why would I want to do anything else?
Einstein wrote widely on intuition in science but don’t expect the supposed rationalists to listen from pride. They see it as a girly thing.
They are not anti-social either. The party-hard model of modernity is unnatural. They don’t buy into it. At most, they are asocial, they can do without, unless they’re selective. It’s a choice.
A genius is one whose main focus and motivation is not social, nor sexual; but instead abstract, asocial – whether artistic, scientific, technical, or whatever it may be.
Always happy to plug great work.
Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god. ~ Aristotle
There is a myth in circulation that creative or intelligent people do more drugs. Usually the false connection is made on the personality trait of openness (which isn’t predictive, since drug use is a choice). It’s a medium correlation more likely from middle class boredom and rebellion.
The researchers found that people with more traits the researchers classified as “positive,” like high IQ, tended to have a greater number of brain connections than people with more traits the researchers classified as “negative,” like high drug use.
Direct observation, and they’re loathe to offend anyone.
Like, the scans are right there. You can point to it.
But some say we should be cautious in how we interpret the findings.
I wonder if those people use…..
It’s like disputing the Type II diabetes and insulin connection.
The more “positive” traits people had, the more brain connections they found, and vice versa.
Eugenic epigenetics confirmed.
But the brain-wiring patterns linked to general intelligence were not the same as those for other kinds of intelligence, such as hand-eye coordination, some researchers noted. [DS: cerebellum, dude] This suggests maybe we should reconsider what IQ tests actually measure, especially since many scientists think it’s not the most useful measure of intelligence. [DS: those many scientists work in another, useless field]
*facepalming in the distance*
IQ is only relevant to an academic context. So very relevant (to practical application).
Gardner’s theories (multiple intelligences) have grounds, yes. Moving on.
Interestingly, people who had recently used marijuana tended to be on the more negative end of the brain connectivity spectrum, the researchers said.
NO SHIT award of the year.
First prize is a Sherlock pipe.
But the jury’s still out on how marijuana affects the brain.
…Scientists still debate exactly what this brain circuitry does, but previous research has linked it to several higher-level brain functions…..
And this is only the beginning of human connectome studies……
Hahaha the HBD people will be pleased.
The Human Connectome Project is now looking at genetic data from people in the study, including many pairs of identical and fraternal twins, to see how genetic and environmental influences are related to brain connectivity.
We’re copying Asia and doing a eugenics study, but we aren’t calling it that? As if it makes a difference?
Meanwhile, other groups are studying the brain connections of aging adults and developing babies.
I cannot wait.
Redpill study of the century.
Let’s see them deny it and become anti-science when the harm principle is clearly violated. Vigorously. Repeatedly. Down the generations, who have no choice.
n.b. Not to denigrate men, but while they have larger brains on average, prior studies have shown women have better connected ones. Make of that what you will.