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.

Fuckboys in business suits

Still trash.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/krishrach/a-woman-who-asked-a-man-for-career-advice-was-told-does

I clicked on this expecting some SJW over-reaction but men have no idea what it’s like to get messages like this for no reason. They could open a fake female account and see but they won’t because deep down, they know.

Since they’re one of the weirdos doing it.

Maybe women wouldn’t find you so creepy if you didn’t keep acting like unprofessional creeps?
White woman, guy with a first name like that. She shouldn’t have bothered.
It’s like if some random man from India tries to add you, it won’t go well.
The mixed black or Asian men think all white women are whores, they’re totally unprofessional because their cultures expect corruption and they think business is only for men (ignore the data).

That’s why they fail, they can’t cooperate for shit.

I mean on something as simple as a coffee run. Many are incompetent narcissists. They don’t do the work and sit with their feet up claiming to be the ideas guy (they steal ideas).

You cannot work with them, imagine if your competition was trying to screw you over AND screw you.

Oh, the horror stories I’ve heard.

Scum. Like finance types but with less brains, can’t do maths, pure sales shit-talking types. Slimy as a worm.

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.

Video: Feminists rentseek in Technology and encourage fake geek girls to get into a career they’ll hate

This is what I’m up against. Heavens above…

Who do they think they are?

Women coded the first computers and various satellites and rockets, before most of them were even born.

We don’t need you.

Who are you?

They actually make women in Technology look bad. All women in STEM, but Technology has a lot of excess VC money floating around in this bubble so they focus on that, like good little leeches. It makes any honest, quiet worker in Tech look like One of Them. Like we have had to be coerced into it and we’re scared, dumb and weak and need other women to hold our hand and make the nasty men respect us. Pass the bucket?

Any career is daunting, how old are you?

Nope, the only people ‘scared’ of Tech are the dimwits who go on and on about STEM (trying to convince someone to pay them to complain) when they can barely pass Calc 1.

ugh why no please stop god kill me now rdj tony stark

STFU. Some of us are working here.

To use a crass expression, shit or get off the pot. Do the work, but don’t complain about what other people are doing when you’re that one guy that doesn’t pull his weight and carry his fair share. We don’t need middle managers, that’s why techies earn decent wages, there’s less parasitism from talentless hacks and more pay-per-results. The tone of this, the fake saccharine sweetness of the Mean Girls, ‘Let us help you!’, is pathetic schoolgirl-level manipulation. Instead of going into the data, factsheets and perhaps case studies – the technical stuff, the relevant, objective stuff, they bellyache about their feefees. Guess what? No one cares, just like the men and no one is going to baby you as an adult in any line of work. They’ll fire you and you’ll bloody deserve it for dragging the rest of us down.

that's enough stop please karen will and grace

Don’t bully anyone into any career. Anyone, male, female, both, purple, blue, brown. The people doing this, pushing for politics refuse to go into it themselves, what does that say? Either they can’t, in which case their opinion is worthless, or they won’t, in which case you’re a sucker. Gloryhounds don’t last long anyway. They’re unpopular and mocked for pompous incompetence. If you have to be persuaded into going for it, it’s wrong – for you. It isn’t a brave thing, it’s just another job, unlike, say, the Marines. Go join the Marines if you want to make a ‘courageous’ statement with your occupation. Now we seem to have all the fake geek girls with their ‘#suchanerd’ selfies suddenly claiming to be IN Tech without actually, you know – BEING in Tech.

I may appear smug, in fact that's just the sound of maths rushing through my mind

I don’t have a gif that can adequately express my disdain at that.
Here’s the handsome visage of Michael Fassbender instead.

If you bring up any political points during a professional discussion, it is not a professional discussion, but political showboating. We don’t want to hear it. The best places will kick you out for disrupting the culture. No politics at work, idiots. No sex either. Although, with most people in Tech that never arises as an issue.

As for confusing Ad/Marketing and Fundraisers (charity workers) with people IN Technology, a forprofit cut-throat industry, that’s not even wrong.

All non-profit is the same, all for-profit is specialized. What have you done that has specifically moved Technology forward, that you couldn’t have done in any other sector? Oh, no? You’ve done Sweet FA? Then sweetie, you are not in Tech.

Ah. Can you hear Orwell laughing?

The virtue signalling is sickening. When the third along said “As a white woman…” I wanted to hurl. That has nothing to do with it. Really, if somebody makes your race (or sex) a thing you shrug it off because they lose out on your talent. They’ll literally pay in lost earnings. It’s high risk, high reward. Bring it or go while you have some dignity left. If you can’t work in a team, you can’t work in this industry, baby. If you must insist on pointing out why you’re different and a Special Snowflake, you won’t be ‘boss’ and you certainly won’t be respected, it’s a major point against. Divas belong in showbiz. You are not judged as an individual but by the quality of the work you do, in about 95% of situations. If you did happen across a dinosaur, you move on knowing they’ll die soon and their bigoted opinions of female potential with them. Rarely, some men do get threatened. The younger people call them all pussies, they’re isolated in general. Honestly, who’s threatened by a young woman? That’s silly. They’re losing out on intelligent people who do good work …on the basis of chromosomes. Duh!

Formally, the worst aspect of this manipulation is the fallout on the below-grade women who get played. These people won’t be paying their debts. These people will blame all their lack of progress on all men. They’ll be taking up valuable places on courses they didn’t really earn as diversity quotas, and garner less respect for it, and finally, in the job market, they’ll be blown out of the water by those with talent and aptitude to work hard and have to retrain. Again. I’ve seen it all before. It’s despicable to push people into a career, I don’t care if you’re their priest or parent and nobody has the right to be so damn controlling. What nutbars.

There is a grand irony in this.

In ‘pushing’ aka bullying men like this and encouraging women to back one another whatever their claims and regardless of evidence, they’ll never improve those numbers. Because who has to concede that ground? Oh right, the men you’re alienating. It’s a business, sweetheart. If you threaten them, you lose.

This isn’t a war, this is capitalism.

As for the point about other women being misogynistic, to try and guilt trip us into going along with their crusading, I can’t roll my eyes far back enough into my skull.

“This is a complex area”? No. It isn’t. You’re full of shit.

“We need to face it.” Who is We? You don’t speak for me. That’s more patronizing than any man has ever been to me. Claiming this blase, like all women all have the exact same opinions, like a Feminist Hivemind?

What do you mean we, paleface?

You can tell they don’t really do ‘profits’ when they call competition ‘silly’. Ugh.
Why should I put down my advantage for you? Hm? How is that ‘fair’? That isn’t fair, but it is equal, and those are polar opposites. Why should women with power feel obligated to mentor, and mentor other women? That’s the very definition of sexism, since it’s purely ‘on the basis of’ one’s sex in both occasions. There is no obligation. If a mentorship role is not chosen, it will be harmful, much like a therapist. You don’t ‘let them’ do anything, those who deserve the positions will earn them.

“We definitely need to do it.” I didn’t get lectured this much in academia.

I hope this tosser lives long enough to die in a riot without a pension

Hell, I wasn’t this tough giving a lecture.

Why do I need to do it? To make you feel better? Sorry if I refuse to organize my entire life around your menstrual cycle’s emotional needs masquerading as realpolitik. I thought we were professionals here.

Get over yourself and learn something or GTFO loser

However, there are fundraising issues. Blind applications would resolve this, like music auditions behind a screen but pitching culture is face-to-face. do they mention this? No. Because they haven’t the slightest clue what they’re talking about. No woman really in Tech would do a panel like this, willing, because they wouldn’t want to be confused with This Lot, who aren’t even all female (male SJWs), so they’re bloody hypocrites banging on about Sisterhood. I can’t watch past five minutes, sorry. Roosh’s rape fantasies I can handle but this is too close to home.

Littlefinger would own you at Rock Paper Scissors

Instead I looked up their bios and put what they actually do in bold. For lolz.

Women Shift Digital http://www.womenshiftdigital.com/about/

“As a female led interdisciplinary design collective, body>data>space and its Creative Director, Ghislaine Boddington are recognised as international long term figures involved in the women in technology debates and networks, promoting and supporting the work of many female artists and researchers.

Since the early 90’s members of the body<data<space team have demonstrated passion and expertise in mentoring young women and girls through the delivery of  learning experiences.

…Nothing practical.

HelpingB https://helpingb.co/

“HelpingB is an award-winning crowdfunding platform for businesses that are:

    Revolutionary, innovative and ground-breaking [DS: here are some impressive words]

    Financially sustainable [well yeah]

    Socially, environmentally and/or economically conscious” [charity work]

SJW-specialized funding. And what’s the average annual profit of these ‘businesses’? I don’t know, because they don’t tell us.

£55,000+ raised

I could raise more at a bake sale.

250+ lives changed

Wait… is that it?
Sounds a little pricey for so little impact, where’s it going? Let’s see the first project to catch my eye…

Children’s Colour Changing Bath Book

~sigh~ I don’t know what I expected. They aren’t even charity status, I wonder how much bank the top people are making.

HelpingB is a for-purpose organisation dedicated to providing social entrepreneurs with a platform to bring their ideas to life.”

So they were purely hired because they were born women. Sounds fair.

“There is nothing wrong with profit, it’s what you do with it that matters.”

translation: ‘You don’t have to feel guilty about earning money, but you have to give it away. You don’t have to give it away to someone who didn’t do the work …but give it to charity cases we like. Oh, we won’t give them anything, we aren’t a charity.’

Sounds like a really bitchy aunt.

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….