IQ results between the sexes – the problem

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.
https://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measerr.php
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.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/40999617_The_role_of_height_in_the_sex_difference_in_intelligence
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.
http://thisiseuropa.net/overcome-men-vs-women-attitude/
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
downstairs brain.
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.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx
“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.

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/stat_inf/intro.htm

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.
http://polymatharchives.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

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.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?5679-Three-genetic-variants-linked-to-IQ-and-they-vary-by-race

Taleb, a certifiable genius, objects to Gaussian distributions.
They’re only designed to handle simple, normative datasets.
http://rocketscienceofwallstreet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/nassim-nicholas-taleb-against-gaussian.html

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…

Link: Evolution isn’t what you think it is

http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/the-imperative-of-biological-imperative.html

“Of all the problems facing western society, there is one question that I suspect will come to determine the answer to many of the rest. Will the West find a way to continue to have children, or will it not?
There is no escaping this question, because it is the one that evolution has ordained for us. Creatures that successfully reproduce replace those that do not. Traits that encourage reproductive success get selected for, regardless of what you personally think of them.
Most people do not really comprehend this at a deep level, because they have odd and distorted ideas about what evolution is.
In the popular conception, evolution is something that serves to make creatures awesome. It is effectively nature’s version of the Apple R&D department.”

I like this blog, this is a good blog.

Link: On pathology of low birthrates, explained

From the HBD side, both Anonymous Conservative and Jayman have previously agreed that the low birth rate of liberals is a feature and not a bug. The former from the perspective of low child-rearing in r-selection and the latter from genetics and, I guess, Malthus?

It’s connected, r-type extinction events are Malthusian in nature.

Obviously, the PC practice of pathological altruism (there is an academic book of that title on the subject) is applying ingroup evolved mechanisms to depress the ingroup birthrate and increase the outgroup based on the largesse of state theft. It’s a combination of resource reparations and treacherous (if not suicidal and insane) genocide, by the post-WW2 original definitions, already linked here.

http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/on-pathology-of-low-birthrates.html
~tuts in Social Darwinism~

A selection of neat lil quotes.

“But even people who think about this when it comes to profit and organisations often don’t think about the equivalent for ideas and cultural practices.
To wit: if you want a culture or idea to survive, the people who practice it must have high birth rates…
Because ideas, like most things in this world, are heritable. Both genetics and culture mean that parents in general pass their values on to their children. Take away the children, and you take away the people likely to hold the idea tomorrow.
Of course, people are apt to forget this, because it’s a slow-moving effect. The faster way ideas spread is through communication across a given population.

requires homogeneity and a culture of respect for received wisdom, interrupted in the 20th century, when all the major fault-lines started showing

Which is all well and good. The more you spread the idea, the more people who hold it right now, and, ceteris paribus, the more people will hold it next generation…..”

Richard Dawkins did not advance the idea of a meme.

It was Darwin.

The ‘gene’ is an idea of transmitted information, it is not limited to the biological, it is symbolic theory nor limited to precise ranges of biological material. That is a 20th century use based on chemical experiments to ‘crack’ human DNA using computers.
‘Origin of the Species’ should be on school reading lists. It isn’t because it’s accurate and unPC. Many science teachers aren’t qualified to explain it either, knowing nothing about say, farming or animal breeding, which are used in examples. You need life experience to explain life.

Meanwhile, the intelligent are either at home or in the wider workforce.

Later, on progressivism, political correctness, social justice warrior feminism etc…
Feminism in particular needs a constant fresh crop of young women far more than Patriarchy.

Anti-natal ideologies are parasitic on the host’s reproductive potential, it cripples more surely than Polio. Just look at abortion and anything labelled Cultural Marxism, it’s dysgenic, it’s a society-killer. Just like there are no centuries-old atheist or multicultural societies, these things do not have any survivability or, in PC terms, sustainability (really longevity, they don’t stand up to the scrutiny of history). The ‘right side of history’ rhetoric assumes humans have innately changed within a few generations and the old rules no longer apply.

Why? They are ‘fat and happy’ for the first time in human history. If you look up the history of mankind, we are not designed for this surplus unless our behaviours are prosocial and good for fitness of our ‘family’, genetic kin. (To love your neighbour had always previously meant distant genetic kin). However, charity has murdered the West as well as it has Africa, the fighting spirit and much of the independence and creativity has gone, the intellectual thirst died with candy. A little hunger if we fell behind on bills without welfare or some reliable religious fasting kept us sharp, there are plenty of studies that demonstrate health benefits, epigenetics is coming in, microbiome improvements AND the cognitive spectrum from starvation to gluttony, each with particular traits. Could it have been a sin because it leads to a decadent mind? Perhaps. Too much of a good thing is a very, very bad thing. All these anti-obesity efforts that blame the wrong thing (it isn’t fat, it’s carbs) and increase the price of basic foodstuffs (see CPI and how starvation includes malnutrition, with the lower nutrient profile of mass-produced food) and THAT is a superior explanation for K-shift and the so-called ‘rise of conservatism’ like a tidal wave.

Bread and circuses.

The deepest self-loathing is genetic suicide, the notion you don’t deserve to live – into the next generation.

All surviving religions have a pro-natal credo. This is not a coincidence.

I like these old-type posts but feel I’m explaining why water is wet.

SI

If you’re searching for dysgenic factors or variables to trigger suicidal liberals.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/practically-why-is-the-left-dead/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/21st-century-economics-are-making-millennials-infertile/

Israel war ‘inevitable’

Obviously, because they’ve already lost the breeding war to Palestine.

Only solution: even their numbers a little.

I wonder if warmongering varies by race. Probably. Hard to measure.
It certainly varies by species, so why not?

You know what this means: overall bloodlust rising. It isn’t contained.

War overall, biological. HBD fans go wild.

discovermagazine.com/2012/jun/07-is-war-inevitable-by-e-o-wilson/

Racial realities, mixed race fertility and Neanderthals

Hope you poured a drink you could prop a spoon in.

I found stuff by accident again.

http://www.academia.edu/542911/Neanderthal-human_hybrids

Neanderthal women couldn’t conceive with humans.

Different species.

It would be interesting to see if there are fertility problems between races…

I thought.
Google autocompletes “are mixed race less fertile”
Interesting.

Rumours that Asians and Africans have more trouble with IVF, even among those who already need IVF.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-i-request/previous-foi-requests/health-and-social-care/information-regarding-mixed-race-parentage/index.html

Infertility information isn’t gathered, which sounds weird for a data-mining project???
They collect the differing types of data but somehow can’t put them together? I call BS.

http://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html
Cavalli-Sforza’s genetic distances.
I knew HBD would have the answer.

“It is almost the equivalent to having twice the number of children… Thus assortative mating by ethnicity can have large fitness benefits, the largest derived from choosing mates within geographic races.”

they pass on more of themselves, less genetic death per carrier (child)
May increase the values for Ks in parental investment theory.

“In other words and general terms, a white mother will be almost as twice as closely related to a child with a white father versus a child with a black father.”

Bear in mind, this isn’t opinion. It’s genetic.

“But when I turn to the mirror in my bedroom to admire us together, I am shocked. She seems so alien.”
LOL
The non-white always benefits far in excess due to dominating the white phenotypes.
They’re hoping to reduce their mutation load/disease risk. The white party loses.

“But still, I can’t shake off the feeling of unease. I didn’t realise how much her looking different would matter… When she was born, pale but with lots of dark hair, I asked the midwife if her eyes would stay blue. ‘Asian genes are very strong,’ she said in what I took to be an ominous tone. No more Brady Bunch kids for me. The midwife has been proved right and every day my baby’s eyes get a little darker.””

Wow so Nazi to insist your daughter look like you. /s
WTF do these r-types expect?

“Since parents share fewer genes with mixed-race children, people involved in interracial marriages are short-changing their own genes, which might explain why people engaged in mixed-race relationships often tend to have lower mate value.”

oh yeah
they signal how they can’t get one of their own so they settled
we all know how attractive desperation is, socially and sexually

“In general, mixed-race people have more health problems.”
The hybrid vigour thing was always a lie, it’s reduced fitness.
According to the field of medicine.

In other words, an argument could be made that mixed-race families are maladaptive — both for the parents and the children — and undermine one’s genetic interests. As noted by various commenters, multiracial families often do not possess the harmony, cooperation and purposefulness of same-race families, because mixed-race families lack the focus of genetic investment and returns that same-race families possess.”

Like a kind of …selection…

White British genes best at IVF *hums national anthem*

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160818212907.htm
“The study also found that some groups of women including South Asian Bangladeshi, Black African, Middle Eastern, have a significantly lower number of eggs collected than White British women.”
weeaboos lament
“Furthermore, the increased prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in south Asian women may have an impact on egg quality and lower implantation rates.”
“The data suggests that ethnicity is a major independent factor determining the chances of IVF or ICSI treatment success.”
No shit Sherlock. Could it be something of a biological thing going on here…?
“While the reason for this association is difficult to explain, the potential factors could be the observed differences in cause of infertility, ovarian response, fertilisation rates and implantation rates, which are all independent predictors of IVF success.”
Difficult? Awkward.
“”Infertility affects 10-15% of the population and more people are seeking fertility treatment.”
Isn’t that approaching the rate of mixed race couples? Coincidence, I’m sure. I’d like to check but nobody gives enough of a damn about them to collect the data.
“The reasons behind the variation need to be looked at in more detail but in the future could potentially help improve success rates amongst all groups of women.””
Not if it’s genetic.

Another study!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131029220758.htm
“live birth rates of ethnic women were significantly lower”

White women healthiest post-birth
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130211102222.htm
almost like an evolved advantage…

Disgust toward mixed-race couples at biological level
https://phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html
“”That indicates that viewing images of interracial couples evokes disgust at a neural level,” Skinner said.”
“Participants were quicker to associate interracial couples with non-human animals and same-race couples with humans.”
lol
do you ‘fucking love science’ now?

Mixed race babies weaker babies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/
“contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth”
it’s healthy! they tell you
only because they aren’t collecting the data to argue otherwise
I would sue because that’s academic neglect and actual systemic racism.

You really have to search even for data on successful births, then there’s NO fitness advantage by rate.
http://paa2012.princeton.edu/papers/122287
“This paper investigates whether mixed race couples have different or same fertility level than same race couples”
“Same race couples have on average 1.93 children while mixed couples have 2.05 children. Same race couples have lower fertility because the majority of those couples are white. This data shows that homo and heterogamous unions do not have the same fertility level”
“Mixed race couples have fertility levels that fall in between same race couples; not as high as black or brown couples but not as low as the white couple.”
Regression to the mean, my old friend.

Ya gotta really LOOK.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/obgyn/pregnancy/11111
Oh look, mutation load.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-harder-for-interracial-couples-to-conceive
“I can’t find any studies on this at all.”
Red flag to ANYONE else?
“I heard from student of medicine that interracial couples could have problem conceiving child because of their racial differences.”
Why not study it?
They’re screwing over the mixed-race kids.
Possibly killing them, in the long run. That’s just sick, not to study it. Parents deserve to know.

The manosphere dudes with Yellow Fever won’t be pleased.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/10/the-prenatal-wages-of-interracial-relationships/
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/sumc-acf092508.php
“In both of these cases there isn’t something mystical going on; God is not smiting those who are sinning by crossing racial lines. Human spontaneous abortion rates are high. Much of this might be due to mother-child immune system responses. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that people from very genetically distinct populations have very different immune profiles. …”
It does if they grow up hearing everyone is biologically equal.
There is some data which might suggest that genetic relatedness increases reproductive fitness, possibly because of reduced risk of immune incompatibilities between mother and fetus when the father is more closely related to the mother. It stands to reason then that as the father becomes more genetically distant the likelihood of incompatibilities might increase. All of this means that genes matter, and they matter in ways we can possibly predict.”

Then predict.

Do the science.

Your JOB.

http://brembs.net/hamilton/
Irony, the name.
K-selected cooperation in a formula.

Inbreeding is generally better than outbreeding due to inclusive fitness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1088844/
applies to other species too
As long as you don’t screw close relations and over many generations, you’re fine.

Wasps! That’s the depth of the barrel I scrape for data on this. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/22/2/337/208104/Reproductive-skew-is-highly-variable-and
Because for some reason nobody takes the data in humans.
Some strange, open-minded reason.
They find cooperation. In insects.

Needs more genetics, more studies. Generally correct.