Low T = spatial ability

You don’t really hear men online look for data.

Why? They’re dumb enough to assume their opinion = fact.

In evobio, for example, if you actually look, women are likelier to be good at say, spatial intelligence.*

For foraging.

And remembering where they left the baby.

And obvious chick stuff like cave painting.

It’s simple enough to test.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1745699

The cognitive performance of normal men and women was studied, grouped according to whether the subjects had relatively high or low salivary testosterone (T) concentrations. Men with lower T performed better than other groups on measures of spatial/mathematical ability, tasks at which men normally excel. Women with high T scored higher than low-T women on these same measures. T concentrations did not relate significantly to scores on tests that usually favor women or that do not typically show a sex difference. These results support suggestions of a nonlinear relationship between T concentrations and spatial ability, and demonstrate some task specificity in this respect.

This explains STEM.

Naturally both sexes have an important place in the tribe. Only Americans would be dumb enough to assert otherwise. It’s the lone wolf myth. In biology, the lone wolf dies.

And men have no excuse to perform poorly on chick subjects.
It’s mostly productive personality traits like grit and conscientiousness. Basically, the only subject where your T levels matter is as a competitive athlete.

Meatheads can’t do maths. I find it funny they think they can calculate their own testosterone supplements (clue: more = better), much favoured is the Popeye to spinach approach.

“Why are there so many women in STEM?” they bitch.

Well, when it’s a blinded, fair test, they’re literally better at the material.
It’s meritocratic.

*Spatial should be studied separately from mathematical.
They are different types of intelligence.
It’s kinda like conflating a false equivalence of dancing and music composition.
Similar but very different.

The fake male co-founder

https://www.fastcompany.com/40456604/these-women-entrepreneurs-created-a-fake-male-cofounder-to-dodge-startup-sexism

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.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/29/china.rent.white.people/index.html

Studies have shown competence is assumed where it is undeserved.

Blame stock images IDK.

Such men consistently over-estimate their competence.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-28/confessions-of-a-confident-mediocre-man/8562708

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).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

OLD.

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.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12848221

“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.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/workplace-gender-quotas-incompetence-efficiency-business-organisations-london-school-economics-lse-a7797061.html
“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.
https://hbr.org/2013/08/why-do-so-many-incompetent-men
Bravado and popularity over actual performance metrics.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/men-and-women-biased-about-studies-stem-gender-bias-opposite-directions/
“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.

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.

Tech journo Milo Yiannopoulos has lost his claim to ethics

When he does an opinion piece on a point of active science. (Minus experts to support his specious claims). I have lost my former high regard for him. He became a sophist. Oh, the things I am sent by infuriated research psychologists. You should see how blue the air turned at this one.

Title: Sorry girls! But the smartest people in the world are all men!

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?
(patronizing Buzzfeed-esque address)+(claim to scientific authority against presumed naive reader)+(geniuses+polymaths subgroup)
= claim: no women (ever, at present or in future)

Operative absolute highlighted for your scorn.

I won’t link to the troll and the article is a patronizing piece of shit. You can tell he has no critical training in the field of data interpretation even if you took a drunken night class 10 years ago for a semester. It’s that painfully bad. Either he didn’t do the research (his actual job) into the history of females in that group, or he would’ve immediately found this, to look for the negative evidence, the black swan OR he knew, he bloody knew and left it out. The disclaimer required. The distinction to be made. One line:

It is fine to critique performance, but impossible to disprove potential.

Rarity speaks nothing of ability. As we say, to omit this distinction would remove all claim to both internal and external validity. Rendering it totally invalid….?
The ethical obligation (journalists take training courses) must have …slipped his mind. To get the clicks from the fake MGTOWs putting down women (a group) as if that has anything to do with individual variance (themselves), as I’ve stated before in excruciating take-down style detail. I believe someone actually linked to me for it, I see clicks on the traffic.
He’s become the enemy, a clickwhore lying about science for political grievance (his ‘side’ doesn’t make it right). He cherry-picked a study like Anita does with male violence and his foundation of relative morality has evaporated.
It would be as specious, unethical and rampantly dishonest as if I had said that, say, drugged-up Ritalin boys were innately retarded instead of <insert alternative nurtured explanation here>.

I guess you could say, it’s about ethics in psychometrics journalism.

burn gif

After his great and professional work on Gamergate and he pulls this shit.

tyra rooting for you
I feel so betrayed, and I’d been defending him to people, too.

Wikipedia could prove this bitch wrong. WIKIPEDIA. THINK ABOUT THAT.
Here are the actual categories and stratification of IQ scores. Look at the words.

IQcategories1 IQcategories2 IQcategories3

IQcategories4 IQcategories5

I guess the whole research field is fucking wrong, and Milo Yiannopoulos is right.
#GalileoGambit I guess no adult woman is in the Superior Group over IQ130.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=girl+mensa+age&tbm=nws
Pass Go. Collect your Nobel.

I made a chart too, Milo! About my opinion, of your opinion!

fucksgivenme

The IFLScientism Crowd will be totes impressed! Because the scientific method is like Mythbusters, anyone can do it! If you do a random thing, like find a thing and write about it, you can throw on a lab coat and call it a day. You earned that degree, that PhD in Internetz. If I write in a diary about an ice cream I just consumed, it’s science! And going by your logic, nobody can claim otherwise! If I claim the ice cream opened a portal to another dimension, and made a moral value judgement that it was, in fact, evil, an evil ice cream, I am under no positive Burden of Proof for this negative opinion, in fact, the burden shifts onto everyone else! Isn’t science fun? You can just make it up, all day! It counts! And I made charts so it’s legit, fam! It has Hindu numerals and shit!
Because dissent isn’t the natural process of scientific progress or anything, it’s a conspiracy theory like Patriarchy!

You would think that a technology journalist, who rely on personal popularity, wouldn’t alienate half the STEM field? How is this a plan for career longevity, exactly? I know people who are now blacklisting him for this, since he clearly doesn’t expect people he works with, in-industry, to have read it.

Milo, if you’re reading this;tyra take responsibility

UPDATE: 48h later, I can see comments defending Milo for the article.
Comments from feminists. I leave you to your conclusions.

Video: Charles Murray on IQ, Race and Gender | The Bell Curve

Stefan seems to be on a one-man mission to redpill the internet. He’s been getting really redpill recently.

How the hell did he get the big CM on?

I love that guy. I love them both. I love that this is happening.

His fair argument about high IQ female fertility is somewhat echoed in: captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/08/how-socialism-makes-women-barren.html

Considering we all complain geniuses don’t have enough kids, I don’t think we can criticize those women smart enough to know “the future belongs to those who show up” by contributing multiple copies of their genius DNA into the future, some of which must be male and not constrained in the same way.

For most women, the best job in the world is motherhood:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/womens-role-in-the-workplace-and-history/

In few other avenues would we *generally* have the same control over the future (the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world) and raw ability to further the human horizons.
However, this doesn’t discount the rare few who should use their extreme outlier skills, if possible:

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/manosphere-fake-mgtow-claim-women-cant-do-science-or-women-cant-invent/

Usually, the woman’s best claim to fame in history is as “Mother to (VIP)”.
What a compliment that must be! Hey, you not only made life, you raised it better out of practically all other examples of your sex on the planet at the time. 

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw391.html

BLESSINGS on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace.
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world….