Did Einstein steal the Theory of Relativity?

Celebrity scientists are trash, repeat after me.


Especially theoretical physicists.

The discovery of the DNA structure would’ve been impossible without the imaging provided (and borrowed without asking) by a woman. Who got the Nobel Prize? The two dudes. Including the one who did the borrowing and showed it to the other guy.

That is established fact, FYI.


She died of cancer.

Prior to the Nobel nomination.


But of course, where’s the proof of sexism in STEM, internet bros?

These people are so dispassionate and pure, they’d never lie or steal.

“Of the four DNA researchers, only Rosalind Franklin had any degrees in chemistry.”

As for Einstein, he ripped a lot of a lot off.


However, Weinstein has analysed the letters in detail and says that two lines of evidence suggest that this was unlikely.

No motive there.

He used his first wife to do his mathematics, a thing he admitted in his letters.

There is one fly in the ointment. Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any future Nobel Prize he might be awarded.

Then he dumped her and married a cousin or something?


But where’s the evidence of sexism, guys?


Where would you even look for that?

I just don’t see it anywhere, there is nothing suspicious.

The guy has zippo, works in a place as the lowliest type of clerk where ideas are submitted (including scientific ones, at the time) and BOOM, full of ideas. Sheer, amazing, epic coincidence.

Einstein’s brain


Einstein didn’t want his brain or body to be studied; he didn’t want to be worshipped. “He had left behind specific instructions regarding his remains: cremate them, and scatter the ashes secretly in order to discourage idolaters,” writes Brian Burrell

Technically corpse rape

But Harvey took the brain anyway, without permission from Einstein or his family. 

Harvey would tell stories about the brain, about cutting off chunks to send to researchers around the world. Burroughs, in turn, would boast to visitors that he could have a piece of Einstein any time he wanted.

Pure, innocent nerds.

Because a human brain is like a steak and you can just slice a lil’ bit off to give out.

To fast forward a bit: Come 1985, Harvey and collaborators in California published the first study of Einstein’s brain, claiming that it had an abnormal proportion of two types of cells, neurons and glia. That study was followed by five others (the most recent published just this month), reporting additional differences in individual cells or in particular structures in Einstein’s brain. The researchers behind these studies say studying Einstein’s brain could help uncover the neurological underpinnings of intelligence.


And the study couldn’t have been published with a “no, he was totally normal guys!” result.

But that premise is nonsense and the studies are bunk, at least according to Terence Hines, a professor of psychology at Pace University.

A couple of weeks ago, Hines presented a poster at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society annual meeting outlining all of the ways in which each of the six studies is flawed. Some highlights:

That is the academic equivalent of a plate-spinning roast to end all roasts.

Perhaps most problematic, counting cells is a subjective business, and the researchers performing the cell counts were not blind to which tissue was Einstein’s and which was not.

Innocent little angels who dindu nuffin.

 There were no differences in the number of neurons or the size of neurons, the study found, but Einstein’s tissue was thinner than controls.

It was stored in a basement.
Have you stored meat in a basement?

More densely packed neurons, the authors speculated, means that cell-to-cell messages travel shorter differences, which might mean faster processing speed overall. That’s quite a stretch. As Hines calls out in his poster, the finding was based on just one square millimeter of Einstein’s brain.

What’s more, the authors admit to not reporting any of the ways in which Einstein’s brain was similar to controls.

“Yes we lied but you’re an Anti-Semite or something???”

It’s like just missing the beach house off your tax returns.

They forgot guys.

Totally innocent mistake, could’ve happened to anyone who stole lumps out a celebrity’s corpse.

(This is almost as bad as the Monroe necrophiliacs story).

–In 1999, Harvey and Canadian collaborators got Einstein’s brain into one of the world’s most prestigious medical journalsThe Lancet.

Appeal to authority.

Based on old photographs

Do I have to mock this one?

I’m skipping this one.

that had been taken of Einstein’s brain before it was cut up, the researchers claimed that Einstein had an abnormal folding pattern in part of his parietal lobe, a region that has been linked to mathematical ability.

It doesn’t work like that.

They also reported that his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider, and more symmetrical, than those of control brains. Once again, though, the researchers were not blinded to which photographs showed Einstein’s brain. And though the authors were quick to make links between these supposed differences and Einstein’s mathematical prowess, Hines points out that Einstein wasn’t, in fact, a great mathematician.

Even if the statistics were sound, you’d still have the problem of attributing skills and behaviors to anatomy.

phrenology has a sound basis
especially compared to this

There’s no way to know

just the way uhuh uhuh 
they like it
uhuh uhuh

This is neurobiology, remember. Science is easy to fake out.

if X thing in Einstein’s brain made Einstein smart/dyslexic/good at math/you name it, or was just an X thing in his brain.

Dya wanna know the truth?

You’re on this site so I guess ya do.

Behaviours change the brain. This has been known forever. Read any good book and it’ll mention this. The Taxi Driver study is most famous: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17024677

There are others of the same concept



You can literally grow parts of your brain by being a little bit weird.

Let’s see which brain part they claimed was different, most frequently?

his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider,”



“When we scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators, we found decreased activity in the parietal lobe during meditation”

It makes you toothless. It’s like an evolutionary roll back.

“MRI images showed more brain matter density in the compassion, learning and memory centers in the hippocampus compared to pre-meditation scans. Interestingly, gray matter in the amygdala, a stress and anxiety center, shrank.”

[obviously something like porn couldn’t change the brain ever…]

Meditation (and prayer) literally alters your brain (but meditation is a form of prayer whatever the hippies say and the neuroscience proves it).


The musical ability might’ve easily caused any brain structure differences.


“The findings also suggest that Einstein’s famed love of music was reflected in the anatomy of his brain.”

“Witelson’s team found that Einstein’s parietal lobes–which are implicated in mathematical, visual, and spatial cognition–were 15% wider than normal parietal lobes. The team also found other unusual features in the parietal region, although some of these were questioned by other researchers at the time.”

And music.

“One parameter that did not explain Einstein’s mental prowess, however, was the size of his brain: At 1230 grams, it fell at the low end of average for modern humans.”

And the parietal lobe is linked with music.



Activation in the Right Inferior Parietal Lobule Reflects the Representation of Musical Structure beyond Simple Pitch Discrimination

But that doesn’t affect size, you say?


Structural MRI-data revealed significant volumetric differences between the brains of keyboard players, who practiced intensively and controls in right sensorimotor areas and the corticospinal tract as well as in the entorhinal cortex and the left superior parietal lobule. Moreover, they showed also larger volumes in a comparable set of regions than the less intensively practicing musicians. The structural changes in the sensory and motor systems correspond well to the behavioral results, and can be interpreted in terms of plasticity as a result of intensive motor training.

Areas of the superior parietal lobule and the entorhinal cortex might be enlarged in musicians due to their special skills in sight-playing and memorizing of scores. In conclusion, intensive and specific musical training seems to have an impact on brain structure, not only during the sensitive period of childhood but throughout life.

I know my shit.

Neuroscience isn’t that hard. Well, apparently it’s hard for the people being paid to not notice this one thing that a non-neuroscientist can notice. You can see it too, right?

One more.

He imagined tons of stuff, right? See things, bit like a schizo?


Parietal Lobes in Schizophrenia: Do They Matter?

TLDR: what the fuck do you think.

“We want to propose that in a proportion of individuals with emerging schizophrenia structural and functional alterations may start in the PL

Too tenuous? O.K.


“In doing so, the parietal lobe assembles elementary building bricks from so-called “lower-order” brain regions to create concepts, said Daniela Dentico, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and lead author on the report.”

Thinking a lot, daydreaming, would cause the parietal cells to thicken.

“A leading theory in image processing “posits that our visual mental images are not stored somewhere in the brain, but get actively reconstructed,”

“The researchers could not determine, however, whether imagination originates in the parietal lobe. It may instead flow through the parietal lobe


Imagination study.

“Purposeful behavior with objects and tools can be assessed in a variety of ways, including actual use, pantomimed use, and pure imagery of manipulation.”

Perhaps most damning of all, sex difference.


“We found that women had proportionately greater gray matter volume in the parietal lobe compared to men, and this morphologic difference was disadvantageous ” (for task)

He had a brain like a chick.

Compare Einstein’s brain to another elderly Jewish fantasy-prone musician and you might have a study.


A matched case study.

“In contrast, we found that men compared to women had proportionately greater parietal lobe surface area, and this morphologic difference was associated with a performance advantage for men on mental rotation.”

Does that mean flatter? But I’ve also seen reference to greater volume? Whatever.

Magical flip flop.

You can get that difference by playing a lot of Brain Training.

Back to the good article.

It makes me angry to think of all that was wasted in these investigations.

There was the monetary cost of the studies — money that could have been spent on work that was not doomed from the outset to fail. There was a personal cost, in that Einstein’s family was essentially strong-armed into agreeing to participate in research that Einstein explicitly did not want to participate in. And there was a public cost, too. In popular-press accounts of these studies over the years, the public was misled about the findings and their supposed scientific value.

Here’s how smart Einstein was — he understood all too well the public’s obsession with him, our obsession with celebrity and special-ness. He knew that if given the chance, scientists would pore over his brain’s neurons and glia, sulci and gyri, and make grand pronouncements about what makes a genius. And he knew it would be bullshit.

Maybe because he knew it would be average?

I do feel sorry for the guy, it’s a horror show to steal someone’s body parts and tamper with them post-mortem. He made it clear he didn’t want it, the family’s permission means nil.

Woman as Medusa

A good metaphor and one he keeps coming back to.

Except Lilith is the dominant, prevailing one in the Western culture.

He won’t mention her because it’s part of the Jewish pantheon.

And Orthodox Jews are bigger misogynists than any Muslim,

Consider that.

I’m linking to this because the “women are repulsed by the visual” post was oddly popular.

Women are attracted to masculine traits. Read: K-selected ones. An r-selected man is a coward, constantly flitting and fleeing. Other men don’t respect it, this isn’t a sexual thing you can blame on women but a defect of character. Commitment phobe is such an insult to men because it basically means deserter of your own life. They do “die” but they don’t have the stones to shoot themselves like their hero Hemingway (the male Virginia Woolf or Sylvia Plath). A man’s life is shaped by the promises he makes on his honour. They never grow up, they immediately ascertain to themselves, by themselves, their inferiority. Why would the world think otherwise?

Existing isn’t an accomplishment, the world owes these men nothing but they expect so much, impossible things. Since the world isn’t a nurturing caregiver (feminine), they take this out on the humans who embody this (women).

The immaturity of r-men is consistent across time periods and cultures. In the army, they shot them. Simply calling a spade, a spade is nothing unless you’re a narcissist with a brittle ego. Then it’s ego death and that’s why the rage, the wrath, the fronting until they’re physically confronted.

Nobody respects the schoolyard bully. Imagine he grew up but his mind and actions were the same. I suppose it’s a kind of emotional retardation. Pity is the opposite of sexy and it has its limits when dealing with adults. When they’re spiteful it goes from seeing them as a child and caring a little, to seeing them as the negative female, which, ironically, they come to embody. Nobody hates the negative feminine more than the positive feminine, the mature woman. And these guys wonder, why are all the women I attract terrible?

Like attracts like. Women won’t tolerate less than men and men won’t tolerate girlishness either. Other adults aren’t your parent but these guys always expect special treatment. Adult exchanges are based on mutuality. Sexist people are selfish around the opposite sex. They deserve to be lonely, that’s life kicking them in the teeth and trying to use the feedback to improve them.

Think of misogynists. They’re bitches, right? They manipulate women to hurt them and get their jollies. Oh, how impressive. You hurt someone who trusted you, wow. How great.

Cowardly women retreat from the game too. These are the stereotypical fish/bicycle people you can find on the social justice tag of tumblr.

Nobody talks about them. Women distance themselves from the immature of their own sex as well. How many female friends does Angelina Jolie have? ZERO.

She’s called Predator on gossip blogs!

This isn’t about men. One problem with modern men is thinking they’re special. Not everything is about men. Most things, in fact. When you think about it, this is a relief. Oh, but if they can’t get negative attention either, what would a toddler do, something with no emotional regulation ability?

That’s right, throw a tantrum.

Mantrum has become a phrase because it has been needed.

If they can’t harden themselves to a simple rejection, which women “suffer” too (it’s no big deal, really, brooding is unhealthy) then they might as well try to crawl back into their mother’s womb. Little kids are scared to talk to adults. Any time you do things in the world – apply for a job, try to make new friends, apply for a new loan, you will probably get rejected.

Maturity is knowing that’s a good thing. Nobody wastes their time.

Everybody has a right to say no and if they say yes, you know they want to be there. It’s a lovely thing.

The stories of Medusa don’t fit the misogynist’s claims very well.

Lilith fits them to a tee.

You can’t trust women.

You can’t live with women.

You can’t bond or connect with women.

Because women aren’t full human beings.

Women are scary.

Women are so scary they must be crazy.

There’s no use understanding them, the unknown is attractive but pure evil.

Definitely never have a child with a woman.

It’s a trick.

They’ll always hurt you, like your mother.

In fact, they’ll kill the babies.

ALL the babies.

They’ll do all sorts of weird sexual things with anyone. 

If they won’t fuck you, they must be fucking somebody else.

Because normal women actually fuck more than the average male porn star.

Women don’t have a nurturing instinct, ignore biology.*

They want to ruin you, they want to hurt you. 

^ see? Fits Lilith exactly.

It’s ludicrous, they make things up. Logically they contradict.

e.g. women are shallow, women date ugly. Women want money, women want not-money more than money.

Good women want a provider, a woman who thinks I need a stable job is a bitch.

I need a woman who looks a certain way, women aren’t allowed to prefer someone else.

Women always want or need a man, regardless of life situation. Men need women like a fish needs a bike.

I have no time for women, I don’t like them, why aren’t I surrounded by them? [ah, MGTOW, Reverse Psychology doesn’t work, you’re still the same person.]

It’s typical liberal irrationality. They claim mutually exclusive opposites and this is why people laugh at them.

With the deeply sexist people (the more you score, congrats), they project their own flaws e.g. the user and abuser will project it on the women he abuses, to sustain his egocentrism of being a good person. Because naturally, humans deserve to be abused….? This is where psychopathy comes in.

Narcissists especially despise anyone with standards. They failed to meet their parents, in their own mind. The higher a person’s standards, the more they will be hated.

A story about two women, one vain about her hair, or a mortal woman being raped by a God … is too much of a victim narrative to squarely align with the misogynist’s claims.

Misandrists claim the same about men, with a few additions.

There are no good men.

They are all immature.

Sweeping statements are generally stupid (lol)

This is demonstrably false but in our times, it can appear true at times.
Like how, if you keep seeking out the worst quality women, it will put off the good ones so eventually the bad side is all you see. When you have a certain amount of life experience, you’ll see people get what they deserve.

This isn’t a maybe.

People get what they deserve.

e.g. you treat people you date like shit? You’ll attract more challenging partners who will treat you even worse.

You’ll see it happen.

People-watching those people is great. Nothing will make you believe in the Bible more than watching their cosmic comeuppance over time. Who do they blame? Never the common denominator.

If someone has a sucky childhood, okay. If the rest of your life is awful, that’s all on you.

*The r-women don’t have a maternal bone.





And she ended up breeding with another r.

She just wants a Nobel Peace Prize, same as Leonardo.

Put some clothes on, men!

Stop walking around in your underwear and expecting us to respect you!

You must really hate yourselves to go round looking like that.

If we treat you like dirt, you can’t really blame us. You’re indecent.

Er, that’s the historical norm, actually…

The world isn’t like America, we actually have a history.

It’s funny to watch the repressed bi guys say how pencil skirts are the instrument of Satan but get oddly wriggly when men in skinny trousers are around.

See something you like?

They wouldn’t last a month in a corset, which are easier to wear for men by far.

Well? Don’t be sloppy.


What, you think only women had to be shapely?


The fake male co-founder


That is one interesting social experiment.

To state the obvious.

Misogynistic men only trust other men with their money.

It’s wrong but they have every right, because it’s their money.

The Chinese rent white men for their privilege.


Studies have shown competence is assumed where it is undeserved.

Blame stock images IDK.

Such men consistently over-estimate their competence.

Surely it’s the arrogance effect? In the modern world we call this vice a virtue.

“a natural tendency to overrate their past performance on maths tasks by 30 per cent”

It’s terrifying how many men rate themselves as good at maths and then I have to explain 12yo level shit.

This finding is old. There are also far more compulsive liars in the male group, which somewhat explains it. In their minimizing terms, this is bluffing, like lying on a CV (illegal).



These people are the reason we blind exams. These people.

Like Is she flirting? studies all over again. Men don’t really do meta-cognition, by comparison.

This is why we have all the psychometrics. Either you can do it or GTFO.

The masculine traits are the capitalist ones: taking risks, being rude or arrogant, stepping on others, ruthless ambition, Crusaderism, many that are probably antisocial if not tempered by other stuff.


“A meta-analysis of 45 studies of leadership styles showed that women tend to exhibit many of the character traits associated with effective leadership — such as effective communication, a tendency to empower subordinates, and creative problem solving — and are more likely to adopt effective leadership styles than men.”

They’re selecting the cocky guy who relies on underlings to do his work for him. No wonder so many companies are tanking. Everyone, male or female, hates them. They’re drains, they parasite off the productive. A minority in every group or company do the bulk of the work, remember.

The problem is seeing masculinity as successful without anything to back it up on the project.

We need to upgrade our primal brain that says this man is leading us into battle.

Another part of the problem is seeing everything as gendered.

So there’s no Scientists trying to make the world a better place. Yay!

There’s male scientists trying to make the world a better place.


OK, everyone else go home and fuck the cure for cancer?

Like, what do you hope to achieve here? Rah-rahing your pompoms for part of the group?

Why do they have to do that? Ruin everything?

Supposedly, accounting for this bias statistically (with mathematical models and quotas) makes companies more efficient and meritocratic.
“Quotas can work to weed out incompetent men.”

Everyone should be overjoyed by that.

Less stupid people with power, who cares if they have a banana or fig down there?
You’d have to be really insecure to identify strongly with someone who shares a single pair of chromosomes.

HBR has noted incompetent men being promoted on the basis of bravado is an issue for companies.
Bravado and popularity over actual performance metrics.

“The new study’s authors reasoned that men especially might devalue the evidence because it threatens the legitimacy of their status in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Men might also be critical because of prior beliefs that gender bias is not a problem in STEM.”
But they’re proving any bias by believing that female competence is a fairytale.
Those women take exactly the same exams.
Oh, it hurts their ego? Broflakes.

“Men rated the research quality of the abstract less favorably than did women in both samples. This gender gap was especially large for STEM faculty, potentially suggesting that evidence of bias might threaten men in STEM seeking to retain their status.”
“When reading these results, a male scientist might think, “oh my gosh…if we’re going to fix this equality issue, that almost necessarily means that there’s going to be fewer opportunities for men,” said Ian Handley, lead author of the new PNAS paper and associate professor of psychology at Montana State. Handley suggested that discounting evidence more likely reflects a subtle, unconscious process than overt sexism.”
Read Freud, there’s no subtle.
They just lie about it.
The depressing thing is that STEM helps everyone and there’s literally a shortage of talent.
We can’t afford to lose any talent.
People who took it for the money though, can fuck right off.

“This mixed literature tempers the paper’s claims about strong gender bias. But obviously, the paper’s central goal was not to systematically review literature on gender bias, but rather to present studies of reactions to evidence of bias.”
“Based on the best current data, remaining challenges include sexual harassment, bias in teaching evaluations and science mentoring, and gender stereotypes about innate genius and creativity.”
That last one is part of the Genius Famine.

Women can’t be the ‘crazy’ sex and also suddenly the less creative one when studies show they’re linked.

“The new PNAS study shows that men, on average, are less likely to believe this evidence of gender bias where it exists. And that’s a concern, considering men are the current majority of STEM professors. But it’s also a concern if the evidence of gender bias is overhyped. Overhyped claims could make these fields unattractive to women or even make people less likely to believe evidence of bias when it does exist.”

Be honest in science, the musical.

Link: Inferiority: the opposite of genius


I don’t expect those who pretend to care about the IQ dearth to read around.
I post these things for the intellectually honest.

Hating women

It may seem strange to include this specific form of hatred with the list, but a fact is that many inferiors have a deep hatred of women, which makes it a characteristic of inferiority.

If we’re examining personality traits of inferiors, it is completely valid as a behavioural marker.

Just as with geniuses, most inferiors are men. The ultimate in this are feats like the burning of widows, or demanding women to spend their lives indoors or walk six metres behind their husband, covered from head to toe with their genitals cut up beyond all repair.

In addition, rape is standard behaviour of inferiors, typically resulting in the conception of multiple children with many different women. Relevant in this respect is that imprisoned males in Western countries conceive more children than do males on average, mirroring the phenomenon that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies the males with the most offspring – as confirmed by modern D.N.A. studies – are those who have made the greatest number of kills in tribal warfare.

Uncivilized breeders who can’t cooperate to literally save their lives, sound like any type of selection we know?

Don’t hate me cos you ain’t me.
“We feel more stress, but we cope better. This explains how we put up with stupid men.”

It’s useful to define a thing by NOT, in computing as in people.

It’s logical that if they didn’t hate, they couldn’t rape. It’s selected for, but let’s not go naturalistic fallacy and pretend a First World society can stand for it.

Intelligent people are capable of working with those they dislike without wanting to brain them and drag them back to the cave. Something about not being a monster.

The ‘trick’ to redpill is to accept things you don’t like because reality won’t change.

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.
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
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.
“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…

Layers reach nouveau irony

Credit: Respect women memes

I can see why, thot is being applied to any woman regardless of sluttiness.

The original rule is no SC dog filter selfies. That is fair. That is 100% pure thot.

What’s happened?

Including the ones who just choose to look pretty instead of fat. How’s that for shooting yourself in the foot as a sex? Especially the one cued by evolution to prize appearance. Sounds like a feminist black ops, tbh, if they had the brains to smear on a cracker.

You’re normalizing sluts. You’re making the Kardashians seem average.

You’re pushing girls to tumblr to complain about being called thots.

Don’t do tumblr, kids.

If it’s an insult ugly girls use to demean pretty girls, don’t use it on pretty girls who dindu nuffin, idiots.

It’s becoming like the male overuse of cuck. I blame myself.