Are men smarter than women?

If you wanna play the IQ game.

Ignoring the loaded question…

https://web.archive.org/web/20081024213354/http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_07-17-2005/featured_0

“Just a glance at these bright high-achievers—men and women who have made their mark in an array of fields—tells us that intelligence is complex and multi-dimensional. Comparing one to the other is like comparing apples and oranges.”

And five points or whatever else group-level is nothing in statistics.
Literally, no-thing, especially when you’re trying to apply it to individuals.

How do they teach you social science stats theory in America?
Crayons?
There’s a list of things you can’t do with every construct.
Like how you can’t apply the current tests to historical figures. It just doesn’t work. They try but the margin of error is larger.

It’s like saying which tree is better, an oak or a palm?
Cats or dogs?
Red or blue?
Old flag or new flag?

It’s a matter of taste and you know either side debating tends to want a reason to feel superior without actually doing anything. This merits disdain.

The ignorance of many supposedly educated white American men denying historical female achievement against all odds (legal bans, witch convictions etc.) makes it worse for people who learnt history under a decent education system. This isn’t anything to do with non-IQ ‘genius’ – real world accomplishment, creativity. The IQ test doesn’t measure creativity but there’s a little correlation. Any more and Asians wouldn’t score a little higher. The worst mislabelling is ‘genius’ on an IQ sheet – it’s even below gifted! That isn’t the cultural use at all! But academics want to posture so they stole the term that retains its original and ancient meanings. There’s a measurement error when it becomes academic dick-measuring.
https://listsurge.com/top-10-women-with-highest-iq-in-the-world/
After about 170, it becomes blurry for adults and you must rely on IRL achievements.

It’s a deviation from the mean, from about 130 (2SD), it practically means an exponential curve that nobody is quite sure how to distinguish. There are specialist tests but experts differ on whether that measures ‘g’, the same, or if it’s something entirely different.

The only valid, Binet test wasn’t oriented to find ‘genius’ so the fact it cannot isn’t a weakness.

It was designed to find 1. retardation 2. in children to 3. help them 4. at school 5. to cope 6. with the work.

Applying it elsewhere is a major form of credentialism. Like knowing pi to X digits or collecting masters degrees.

Who cares?

If you could use it, you would.

This is Marilyn at her peak, btw.

Reminds me of Jennifer Connolly here.

Remember how I mentioned looks correlate to real intelligence?

Genetic load, QED, imho.

Anyone who can parse the data would know racial differences are huge, sex differences in this arena are minor and trivial, if you just sum the area under the curve… women win.
Does it matter? Still no.

If your brains are in your penis, you need to read a book.

inb4 the Guinness World Records people are ruthless on anything numbers, they have higher standards than any University, so her record was nothing to sneer at.

menwhatwomenwant

“Women are crazy” pushers – perhaps you’re too dumb to understand us? Nor take two minutes to listen.

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…

Manosphere /fake MGTOW claim: Women can’t do science or Women can’t invent

TLDR:

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

I think this claim in particular is ruining the manosphere. This post will be logic and science-heavy. For satirical reasons, and because I’m a little troll at heart with the other chanfags, I’m largely going to use resources written by men. Deny that, bitches!

Fake MGTOW still reading this:

The plight of stupid neolibs everywhere

I’m seeing this picked up increasingly by the sort of insecure moron who couldn’t invent a new form of toaster with a gun to his head. I would own them at robot wars. You can tell they don’t have a job in science (no, IT doesn’t count, tons of Indian women work in it ffs) and have never been to a single conference with their bitchy attitude. Example;

MGTOWERscienceclaimwrong

You know they’re desperate to prove how edgy they are when virginTOW is in their screen-name, Tyler Durden would be more original, or Mr Robot now I guess. MGTOW is being beset by the same sort of loser that drowned Reddit and Atheistkult, with the equivalent male virulence of SJWs to anything exposed to their entryism, and it’s no wonder the movement is now drowning under their dead weight. What’s the rule here from Greene’s Power book you need to heed?
http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/law-10-infection-avoid-unhappy-and.html

It was written by a man so you should pay attention.

Aaron Clarey, another man, was right about these types (for those who don’t know to whom I refer);


They’re beta-omega bitches who feel the need to put women down to feel like men. That’s weak, it’s the reverse of what the feminists do. You shouldn’t need women for your ego as a real MGTOW at all, this is simply an inversion of the pedestal idea. You’re no less needy and I don’t like bullies full stop, feminist or virginTOW. Your sex, like your race, sexuality, whatever, is never a Free Pass. #meritocracyftw

Disclaimer for the whiners: yes, I know the feminist programmes are annoying. Insulting. Patronising. Unfair. They also don’t work, even in Norway. So it hardly matters, realistically. Remember, most women aren’t feminists (by self-report). We won’t do something we don’t want to (like take up extra maths classes). Don’t accept the feminist frame that what they want is what most women want. They don’t speak for us. That’s their Big Lie. Don’t hand them authority by treating them like one (vague TLP reference).

On the other hand, don’t excuse them. Don’t blame phrenology (you’re so scientific) for their dispute of agency, they have a choice to be bitches. They want that excuse, you’re handing them a victim card to play against you. And if you were up on your neuroscience, you’d see that while women have fewer brain cells, thanks to our smaller overall body size btw the ratio balances out, we have more connections. Guess what corresponds better to intelligence?

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/16/5519.full

Synaptic plasticity of connections. So pipe the fuck down on that front.
It would be just as specious as claiming women are superior because we have more absolute DNA material. (We do, the Y chromosome has decidedly less and is smaller than X). We have this for the evolutionary purpose of carrying children of both sexes. Group differences don’t make you better as an individual. This is basic statistics. You might have an average male IQ, but that doesn’t mean you’re smarter than every woman you’ll ever meet. Statistically, that would be implausible. Individual differences conflict more than group level because the variance is higher. Since a man invented IQ (Binet) I assume you’d take the prospect seriously.

keep being cocky, see where it gets you

While on the topic of scientist misogyny, most of STEM isn’t. Modern STEM. You aren’t being cool by claiming something as the common opinion (women>suck) that anyone in the industry knows is a MSM lie, it’s as bad as fake gamer girls. Feminazis have finally turned on the Valley, all those Asian and Jewish boys, to try and score some of that sweet sweet VC money. They’ve failed, on the whole. Laughably failed.
Historical scientists usually had a single bad experience they allowed to colour their lives (e.g. Kant Kant Kant Kant Kant and KANT  – talk to women). They were high on a personality trait called Psychoticism, good for their work but awful for their personal life, so it didn’t go well for them and they never tried again (source on genius written by two men, doubleplusgood).

Playing Subject Monopoly is petty. “They” have that subject, “we” have this. It’s the Robber’s Cave false opposition all over again (famous study by a man involving all boys). At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean anything. We’re all working to improve society, and that helps everyone. It’s a social good, it cannot be selective. My monarch is a woman, it doesn’t mean I had anything to do with that. Tesla was a man, the men reading this had nothing to do with that. Have icons for certain, but sex isn’t like race, there isn’t enough genetic connection throughout the group as a whole to claim kinship to accomplishment (HBD reference, check out Jayman, who is yes, a man).

Role call anyway. Subject Monopoly. You feel lucky?

joker DC smile smirk evil grin lol haha

Composers. – Male. The greats were pretty much all male. You win that round, I was discussing composers on a bus once with all-female music students and everyone agreed. As you can imagine, no one present was offended nor a feminist.

Does that make you feel better? It shouldn’t. Modern music is shit (see example comment above). Relative quality isn’t the same realm as absolute greatness.

Exploration – Male. Women usually weren’t allowed out of the house without an escort when places remained for the picking but sure, I’ll let you have that one. But the Vikings got there first, by thousands of years, and half of those were women (they traveled as one unit, look it up, archaeology and history). Are you descended from Vikings? I am. Does this mean I have more claim to that success than you, likely American man? Identity politics by sex is a bust whoever is doing it. By race, with a level of genetic relatedness to claim ingroup status (male science!) it might be supportable, still a big May-Be.

Still, so what? Does that improve the life of any man reading this? Inspiration shouldn’t be used in place of your own accomplishment or ambition (see fandom crazies). That’s co-dependent bullshit. It’s an excuse to do nothing with your own life.

Research … about even. Scientists? Well, until about a century ago women couldn’t get degrees. But still, women now dominate in biology and medicine, which the manosphere complains about, although there are fewer high IQ women than men for sample availability reasons, but also because of this more low IQ men than women. Feeling especially stupid because the male sex contains more retards? 

Thought not.

The modern average researcher is Asian. By simple data, they far outnumber us crackers. The average MGTOW is a middle class spoiled white bitch. You have less in common with him (HBD, genetics) than you do the women in your country you complain about.

Men are better in physics and materials, aka the Harder Sciences instead of Life Science. This is a fair, gendered difference. Ok….

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

I’m waiting to see how playing to a sex’s strengths for the common good of society is somehow a bad thing? When the manosphere claims that is the Way Things Should Be. (See the Is/Ought guillotine, by a man). Women in the more caring, nurturing roles? Men in the more technical, mathey ones? It’s almost like they’re suggesting women should be blocked from all roles of responsibility, but we already have a shortage of doctors and scientists in the West (Asia outnumbering us again) and if you’re ill, dying in A&E, would you really reject the assistance of a doctor based on her sex? Would you do the same to a black man? Or would you just want a Doctor, any Doctor, now-now-now? That’s the weird thing about positions of responsibility, they are also positions of trust. The tort of law, the duty of care, which sex do you trust to be more caring when your life is on the line?
If your argument to do this female career block is Muh Meritocracy, I’ve already told you why that’s BS. Were you smart enough to see it? If we tightened the requirements based purely on merit, men would suffer more than women. Because more men are retarded from the original population group and hence, by that logic, blocked from professions, than women.

Unintended consequences;

There would be more female scientists and more female doctors, purely based on the starting numbers from IQ.

You didn’t think this through, did you?

eric ooh aah umm uhuh play dumb smile laugh evil grin

Now I get to the meat of this argument, the crux that really pisses me off: Invention. It’s a subject most people (and the manosphere) don’t understand because they believe MSM and Hollywood. They’ve probably never met a real inventor (not Hamburger Headphones types) in their entire lives, yet still feel qualified to discuss the group. I was actually discussing inventors with Henry Dampier in private once (yes, he’s a man, cool guy) and he knows a lot of them, without quoting him without his permission, his opinion was favourable and he appreciated the variety within the occupation (realistic, not the crazy hair crazy men film trope based on Einstein, not really an inventor either). Ask yourself, redpills, how this MSM lie conflicts with the real field full of real people you’re insulting, some of which blog here or know people who blog here (hi!) in the reactosphere.

When did you ever see a film about a female inventor? How many have you seen about male inventors? Compared to the fair hypothetical assumptions prior to evidence of a 50/50 split, or a biased one of 25/75, there’s something odd going on here (and we all know Hollywood is run by Jewish men, they admit it). We certainly know there are high IQ women in existence, it is possible and they must exist. Yet they aren’t in the media, it doesn’t fit Narrative (Einstein was a Jew, remember, his position in Hollywood tropes is no accident). Since the MGTOWER commentator wanted ancient examples, Hypatia is the best, estimated (by men) to have an IQ over 200, a true polymath. She was raised that way deliberately – by her father. This suggests the sexes are highly plastic in their epigenetic potential. Isn’t the manosphere begging for more geniuses? Would they reject the World’s Greatest Genius if they turned out to have a cracking pair of tits too? How would that not constitute actual, real misogyny? Does that polymathy of Hypatia make a random feminist smarter, or you, individual male readers, dumber? Of course fucking not. Cut it out. That’s magical thinking. I won’t tolerate that in a discussion on science.

that's enough stop please karen will and grace

Opposite example for fairness: Ada Lovelace was a smart cookie. No doubt. High IQ. But most of ‘her’ accomplishments were actually those of Babbage, she was the PR for his ideas, that’s why he hired her, yet the feminists are doing the exact same thing with the sexes inverted: rejecting the Great Computer Genius – because penis envy. Don’t be like the feminists, please. You don’t need to put anyone down for something they couldn’t help e.g. sex, which is determined exclusively by the fathers btw. Lovelace frequently discussed Babbage’s work with credit for example, don’t turn on her either, one of the people trying to contribute to the world we all have to live in. Focus on the correct enemy, the people who lie, the talentless, the professional whiners.

The same people in the manosphere who shout down Edison (a man) will demand all male invention is sublime and perfect in the next breath, if it means they can put down a whole sex in the breath afterward (women, actual misogyny). I don’t use the word lightly, it’s the whole 100% group without factual basis (in fact opposed to it) yet they think they’re being subtle! It’s that obvious, it’s becoming common and it reeks of keyboard alpha weakness and confirmation bias. It’s 100%, completely obvious to neutral outsiders what they’re doing, and that’s why normal people (including men who smell BS) are being turned off the manosphere recently. IMHO.

I could list Male Inventors versus Female, but that’s a red herring. It doesn’t account for qualification, expense, historical prominence, legend, scale, lives changed, just general quality. It’s a similar problem in the patent system at the moment and the world law (inc EU) is gearing toward changes intended to assess objective quality. Superficial comparisons like that go for the fame whores instead, like Edison. Who also hired women and wrote his name on their inventions too, since we’re so useless…

American Psycho is the best satire of the 20th century

I could take the easy ironic potshot and remind you that without Hedy Lamarr the porn star (cracking pair of tits) you wouldn’t have this WiFi to bitch about how women are incapable of invention.
And the Allies might have lost WW2 because the Nazis were ahead on signal science prior. 
These are facts.

You know what I think bugs them, the fake MGTOWs? In the realm of speculation here, admittedly.

– Equality of opportunity. 
They honestly believed that women were inferior on all flanks thanks to MSM erasure, so when the outcomes began to even out from proof, they felt personally insecure. Like the men returning from war and seeing their replacements in the munitions factories, the world didn’t end. They were replaceable. After the Hell of war, they realized their work was disposable as their lives. Women already have the innate capacity to create life so womb envy might factor in their desperation to the claim of machine-creation ownership, as if innate to their sex, as well (hey, I mentioned penis envy above, it logically follows if one exists, so must the other).

IN CONCLUSION.

I’ll leave you by one crucial example to refute this fallacious claim. Really, it’s irrefutable without being logically incoherent aka lying.
Who is the Greatest Modern Inventor?

….

Say it aloud.

….

….

….

….
A lot of you said Tesla. Correct.
I assume you mean Nikola?

what wut robot stop eh hold presses a moment

It’s rumoured that Albert Einstein was once asked, “How does it feel to be the smartest man alive?”, he responded, “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.”

This is a fair assumption and I believe it myself.

After all, Hedy’s work required electricity.

But what the manosphere and MGTOW overlap never asks, to cover this truth, is what Nikola Tesla himself thought.

The same man who thought that women, innately, without the corrupting influence of society, were superior to men?

“I had always thought of woman,” says Mr. Tesla, “as possessing those delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy of the object of my worship.”

“This struggle of the human female toward sex equality will end in a new sex order, with the female as superior…. 

His prediction is coming true. These weak manboys I’ve covered before are threatened by equality of opportunity, by more competition on the professional playing field, in the same way ugly men are threatened by the open sexual marketplace, where the women rush the best men, when previously Patriarchy would have guaranteed them sex – with a wife.
By keeping that larger, smarter (on average, see Doctor outcome) group from the meritocratic opportunity of the marketplace, they selfishly help themselves individually – at the expense of freedom (individual human/woman), self-actualization (psychological) and the common social good of the progress that competition brings otherwise (making them liars when they call for this improvement in STEM and ask whine it isn’t happening fast enough).

It is not in the shallow physical imitation of men that women will assert first their equality and later their superiority, but in the awakening of the intellect of women.

Through countless generations, from the very beginning, the social subservience of women resulted naturally in the partial atrophy or at least the hereditary suspension of mental qualities which we now know the female sex to be endowed with no less than men.

But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent [DS: set by men] and startle civilization with their progress.”

what wut wtf shock surprise slow turn eh littlefinger pause got

Yeah, they don’t like to talk about that part. #bluepillpussies
Nor WHY. Why did he think this way about women, psychologically? He took no wife, no lovers. It must’ve been earlier than that. Childhood, from social learning theory. In Victorian times?! Who was this creature?!! The role model, the proof of concept (real POC, real MVP represent). Where did the genes come from, for his vital visualization skills?

The reason little Nikola went into invention in the first place? The reason we know his name now? Who encouraged him? Who raised him? Who he modelled himself after? If you read his autobiography, My Inventions, you’ll know. A fellow inventor, in his mind, the best inventor: his mother.

That’s right, a woman!

Going by his own, male account. I’ll post a few choice quotes by Tesla about Mama Tesla just to drive home the point: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/quotes-by-nikola-tesla-on-mama-tesla/

When you hear these false excuses, claims that

  • Women can’t do science.
  • Women can’t inspire men to be men (aka mothers are useless).
  • Most of all, Women can’t invent.

Your idol says you’re wrong.
Don’t be a little bitch about it. Bitch is a verb as well as a noun.

Takehome: Read books on a niche subject before claiming to know diddly squat about it.

I’ll leave you with a quote about the woman, when it comes to claiming what you’ve no right to;

My mother understood human nature better and never chided. She knew that a man cannot be saved from his own foolishness or vice by someone else’s efforts or protests, but only by the use of his own will.

It’s alright, I won’t rub your nose in it. Then I’d be as petty as you.
Please just learn from this and quit lying.

Smart fractions, IQ and economic performance

http://www.moreright.net/smart-fractions-cognitive-enhancement-and-economic-performance/

This is good, he even cites me so you know it’s very good.

It’s easy to say an abnormal IQ (pick a number) in the upper direction (you can’t get negatives so you don’t see lower) but those people are going by the IQ scale and assuming its current skew would apply with a superhuman population. It wouldn’t. Without dredging up a load of stats material, the extremity of the bell curve is already unusual in features as a group for many reasons and one of the issues with IQ measures for an abnormal population is sample bias. They’re so rare most of the data is just plain wrong or poking round in the dark with a baseball bat.

For example, Asian kids are wicked at maths and terrible at verbal. Ashkenazi the reverse. The best balanced IQ profile is Northern Europe, unsurprising since the IQ test is French (Binet). When it comes to abnormal populations, everything we “know” about IQ becomes irrelevant, those assumptions and priors are based on the norm. On average (dumb as a box of rocks) people. Ethically, it’s a BNW scenario where the parents must predict the child’s life trajectory e.g. will spatial intelligence be of more value to the economy by the time they’re college-aged or should we stick with the status signalling of the arts? It’s unworkable because it assumes the parents have common sense enough and damn near omniscience to make these decisions wisely. I can’t wait to see China fuck it up like their One Child policy. All those predicting a Chinese century don’t understand their situation, they’re almost as screwed as America (too many people, too few smart people as the post recognises, too much debt in infrastructure, paying too much for Africans etc).

Back to IQ, while it’s nice to say certain things about the brain are limitless, it sells sci-fi books, the cranial capacity certainly isn’t. I won’t go into Galton-era craniometry but there are geographical differences. Usefully, when the East discovers this stuff for us, we can just pinch their results like they’ve been doing with our IP for decades and rip it off, except we’d be using it wisely (having invented the concept in the first place) and have more space to work with. The neural real estate, as it were, can only form a limited number of functional networks, the plasticity of the brain works against it and could weaken a genetic effect. Even polymaths, which is what we’re really discussing, only have about 2-3 REAL talents, diverse talents to the point of genius yes, but even the ‘superhuman’ among us have limits. Human limits. This isn’t like the Matrix, they’d have to keep deleting stuff as they go along. If the Chinese go the brain implant route it’ll make them all the easier to control by their totalitarian state, either way the joke’s on them.

Polymaths aren’t amenable to IQ testing because their skills are world-based, reality-tested. They’re “diagnosed” after the fact, once they’ve produced works of genius in two or more totally separate fields. Add in the problem of parenting these poor kids without wasting them (mtDNA, maternal IQ predictive ability importance), boring them (stupid teachers) or burning them out (pressure) and you soon see it’s an insurmountable plan on such a short timescale. We should be aiming for incremental gains and mild eugenic policy (mostly avoiding dysgenic loss at first). China has no patience and that is why they fail.

Picture is totally related.

I agree with the smart fractions hypothesis, the evidence is compelling, but we shouldn’t imitate the Left’s failure by rushing things.

As for an expanded ab-normative IQ division and its subdivisions, (metaphor: imagine the Premier League of genius and its team members) we’re getting into the realms of speculation but clearly there are differences which could be parsed. However, you must account for character, deeper than mere personality. The brighter natural intelligence, often work ethic slackens and shrivels. They could be a form of bone-idle aristocracy, and why would they be other? Why slave for those beneath them in every conceivable way? Just because they have the potential to create for the State doesn’t mean they’ll obey the State, in fact, simple genius is often opposed to authority on philosophical grounds and if they have any brains and see the smart are dragging along the deadweight of the dumb, they’ll play dumb. We wouldn’t even know they are there. A few may even live among us as we speak. 😉

The strong will always subordinate the weak. Whoever is engineered to be top dog will be ruling those who came before, so we’d better make them good rulers (and their germlines need to be pristine). A stacked system of increase would allow us a little free rein.

Optography

I love this idea. I think you might refer to the difference between specialized ‘genius’ and general genius aka ‘polymathy’.

Aeoli Pera

This bit of psychometrics provides more of a basis for my intuitive claim that the frontal lobe provides the first 95-99% of IQ, and something behind the ears is required to break the 135 barrier:

Reasoning

The ability to manipulate the symbols in the brain that correspond to entities in the outer world, and manipulate them according to the rules of logic which are intuitively known. This too operates in all the areas named under pattern recognition, and this too is so close to intelligence itself that it is not a factor on its own. But we feel it as a separate process.

On Pattern recognition and Reasoning

Pattern recognition and Reasoning are, as it were, two aspects or processes of the same – intelligence – that each cover all of the lower factors. To perform a mental task, one first has to recognize pattern, and then one can reason…

View original post 567 more words

Why “Haters” might be more successful

article coverage;

“That curmudgeonly selectiveness is a net positive for skill development, study authors Justin Hepler of the University of Illinois and Dolores Albarracin of the University of Pennsylvania argue.”

Warning: psychobabble incoming.

“… likers may adopt a jack-of-all-trades approach to life, investing small amounts of time in a wide variety of activities. This would leave them somewhat skilled at many tasks. In contrast, when haters find an activity they actually like, they may invest a larger amount of time in that task, allowing them to develop a higher skill level compared to likers.”

Wasn’t that called taste?

“This same pattern could also be relevant to attentional control. For example, likers may have more difficulty sustaining attention on a task because they perceive so many interesting and distracting opportunities in their environment. In contrast, because haters like so few things, they may be unlikely to be distracted when they are doing a task, and thus their generalized dislike may actually benefit their attentional control.”

When you ignore the BS of idiots, things get better. I can attest.

“But it’s still quite interesting to have research that takes a behavior that we tend to judge as “bad” — that of being a hater — and shows its more positive qualities, in the same way that neuroticism can be channeled into critical thinking.”

These traits developed and remained for positive reasons.
Overall, if you disapprove of something, you’ve probably put enough thought into it to have reasons. I think that’s the true cause.