Study: "Men are smarter than women"

[windcatcher 0]

Okay.

Mother to the cutest little thing in the world...

[kbordson 8]

Quote

See, if you were a man you wouldn't have to ask all those questions, you'd know the answers!

As a woman, I like asking questions - the more philosophical, the better. And if I get answers, bonus!!

(but I definatley won't take part in this debate.... I have been known to be quite foolish at times )

[happythoughts 0]

"A British researcher reported today that he hadn't been laid in the 8 years following his publication of a report..."

[Lindsey 0]

lol....for generations women have let men hang onto the belief they are both smarter and stronger....lol. They must be starting to catch on if they're trying to "prove" it now with their little tests...

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Tonto 1]

I think we all know the research is bullshit. I think what's scary is 37% of people here think men are smarter.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm sure one could find a 4 pt range, and it would be statistically significant. It's nearly half a standard deviation.

Statistical significance is based on 4 things, delta (percent of standard deviation as you note), sample size, and risk assessment alpha (or 'confidence', which is mainly our willingness to be wrong in an innocent until proven guilty scenario) and beta (or 'power' which our willingness to be wring in a guilty until proven innocent scenario).

so 1 out of 4 isn't bad though. Though we need 3 of 4 to assess significance.

And, BTW, it's too late. For it to be truly meaningful, this should be determined before data gathering to avoid biasing based on the gathered results. Hind site statistics is what gives it such a bad name. Poorly conducted study - as most are.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

What a wonderful opportunity for gross generalization . The statistical significance of 4 points is what exactly???? What's his margin of error? What's his methodology? What's his test look like?

I'm sure one could find a 4 pt range, and it would be statistically significant. It's nearly half a standard deviation.

.

No it's not. More like 1/4 sigma.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pirana 0]

Quote

And the most important question of all, why is that controversial?

My thought also.

It's really not very different than if I conducted a study and determined that, on average, men weigh more than woman. Would that offend people?

I think the analogy is valid because like weight, intelligence is heavily influenced by genetic make-up. Estimates I've seen indicate roughly 50% of intelligence is genetically determined.

The tests I've seen do not appear to be gender biased. A case could be made that what is being measured (ability to assimilate, process, and use information) is known to not be an attribute perfectly evenly distributed; and possibly for very good reasons. While that is a whole different conversation, it does leave open the possibility that, depending on the needs. the intelligence represented by 4 puny little points on a test may be less important than other attributes.

For example, faced with a physically formidable foe, it might be more valuable to be able to exert strength or wield a certain type of weapon than have 4 more points (on average) of intelligence.

I by no means would advocate that intelligence is not important, but it is not some kind of over-riding solution to every situation; and it should not offend any group of people to find they are, on average, slightly less capable than some other group - be it based on gender, ethnic background, occupation, location, or anything else.

IQ measures the ability and speed of certain ways of processing information. It does not mean a person is overall good or bad, valuable or invaluable.

My guess is that anyone offended by this is hung up on the meaning and judgements they assign to the statement, not the statement itself.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

I have read some studies that point to women having better verbal capabilities and men having better mathmatical capabilities,..but some argue that sexes are socialized in school and community toward these areas. So much still to learn about intelligence!

Welcome to my old sociology class debates.

Lindercles are you here? Are you sitting down?....

I have NO IDEA which sex is smarter or even if one is measurably more intelligent than the other; soooooo many variables. I like variables, but that many scares me from declaring anything as fact in such a discussion or study and rather just continue to oppose any such "facts" stated--you know--for amusement purposes.

As for IQ tests---depending on the day and my mood I can score 8 points differently. There was/is a thread in Bonfire on various DZ.com'ers IQs that is about as scientific as this new study.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

And the most important question of all, why is that controversial?

My thought also.

It's really not very different than if I conducted a study and determined that, on average, men weigh more than woman. Would that offend people?

I think the analogy is valid because like weight, intelligence is heavily influenced by genetic make-up. Estimates I've seen indicate roughly 50% of intelligence is genetically determined.

The tests I've seen do not appear to be gender biased. A case could be made that what is being measured (ability to assimilate, process, and use information) is known to not be an attribute perfectly evenly distributed; and possibly for very good reasons. While that is a whole different conversation, it does leave open the possibility that, depending on the needs. the intelligence represented by 4 puny little points on a test may be less important than other attributes.

For example, faced with a physically formidable foe, it might be more valuable to be able to exert strength or wield a certain type of weapon than have 4 more points (on average) of intelligence.

I by no means would advocate that intelligence is not important, but it is not some kind of over-riding solution to every situation; and it should not offend any group of people to find they are, on average, slightly less capable than some other group - be it based on gender, ethnic background, occupation, location, or anything else.

IQ measures the ability and speed of certain ways of processing information. It does not mean a person is overall good or bad, valuable or invaluable.

My guess is that anyone offended by this is hung up on the meaning and judgements they assign to the statement, not the statement itself.

I bet that the breakdown between number based, word based, spatial relation based and pattern based questions affects the outcome in a way that can favor one gender over the other without any obvious gender bias.

Pattern recognition and word based questions favor females, number based and spatial relationship based questions favor males.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And the most important question of all, why is that controversial?

My thought also.

It's really not very different than if I conducted a study and determined that, on average, men weigh more than woman. Would that offend people?

I think the analogy is valid because like weight, intelligence is heavily influenced by genetic make-up. Estimates I've seen indicate roughly 50% of intelligence is genetically determined.

The tests I've seen do not appear to be gender biased. A case could be made that what is being measured (ability to assimilate, process, and use information) is known to not be an attribute perfectly evenly distributed; and possibly for very good reasons. While that is a whole different conversation, it does leave open the possibility that, depending on the needs. the intelligence represented by 4 puny little points on a test may be less important than other attributes.

For example, faced with a physically formidable foe, it might be more valuable to be able to exert strength or wield a certain type of weapon than have 4 more points (on average) of intelligence.

I by no means would advocate that intelligence is not important, but it is not some kind of over-riding solution to every situation; and it should not offend any group of people to find they are, on average, slightly less capable than some other group - be it based on gender, ethnic background, occupation, location, or anything else.

IQ measures the ability and speed of certain ways of processing information. It does not mean a person is overall good or bad, valuable or invaluable.

My guess is that anyone offended by this is hung up on the meaning and judgements they assign to the statement, not the statement itself.

I bet that the breakdown between number based, word based, spatial relation based and pattern based questions affects the outcome in a way that can favor one gender over the other without any obvious gender bias.

Pattern recognition and word based questions favor females, number based and spatial relationship based questions favor males.

Very good points. And I think they provide support for my contention that people should nor be offended by this. If I took a pattern recognition test and the result said I was below average, That is all it would mean to me. It would not mean I am a less worthwhile person to know, work with, play with, etc.

Like I said, I think people get upset with the trends in test results (if they are reported to be on the low side of the trend) because of what they read into it.

BTW, if what you say is true (I have no reason to doubt you) I am an anomaly in a way I didn't know before - because my pattern recogntion is off the charts.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[brianfry713 0]

I wonder how many of the guys versus girls voted for about the same.

BASE 1224, Senior Parachute Rigger, CPL ASEL IA, AGI, IGI
USPA Coach & UPT Tandem Instructor, PRO, Altimaster Field Support Representative

[Darius11 12]

I agree with Wendy 100%.

The biggest problem is how do you determine what intelligence is. The only way to get an accurate measure is to make it very specific to the task.

I know many people with PHDs who don’t know how to change the oil in their car, as a matter of fact I know many people who were honors students in school but have zero social skills.

I know a few people who can make the best chocolate chip cookie I have ever had. When I have a tall cold glass of milk their abilities and intelligence is what I value at that moment.


IMHO- There is no real way to determine intelligence as a whole.

There is also another big point.
There are some people who do not have the genetic backbone for an extremely high IQ but they make up for it with Effort, at the opposite end of that there are people who score high on IQ test but never do any thing with there gift. Then there are the truly blessed who are smart and work hard to learn more.

Saying someone is really smart or a cretin group is smarter is simply a stupid statement.



FYI I didn’t vote.

Non of the options make since to me.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

I agree with Wendy 100%.

The biggest problem is how do you determine what intelligence is. The only way to get an accurate measure is to make it very specific to the task.

I know many people with PHDs who don’t know how to change the oil in their car, as a matter of fact I know many people who were honors students in school but have zero social skills.

Don't confuse education with intelligence. Not the same thing at all.

Quote

I know a few people who can make the best chocolate chip cookie I have ever had. When I have a tall cold glass of milk their abilities and intelligence is what I value at that moment.


.

I like cookies too.

I can change the oil in my car (I have completely rebuilt a car from the frame up), I do my own taxes, and I can make chocolate chip cookies and pour milk into a glass. How about you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

The biggest problem is how do you determine what intelligence is.

Nah. The biggest problem is that it is not politically correct.

If a woman has a "girls rule, guys drool" t-shirt on, all the women high-five her. "You rock girl..." That apparently is ok.

Ever notice how you can watch Everybody Loves Raymond ? All the guys are brain-dead lumps of protoplasm that move, but all the women just suffer from one bumble to the next with them ?

King of Queens ? Attractive woman married to overweight bumbling moose.

My son asked me who I thought our role models were.
It doesn't matter if I have an answer.
The problem is, he had to ask.

[adventurechick 0]

What type of sampling was this? Standard deviation of the mean? Was this a true random sample? Statistics can be skewed to look a certain way.

PMS #449 TPM #80 Muff Brother #3860
SCR #14705 Dirty Sanchez #233

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

My son asked me who I thought our role models were.
It doesn't matter if I have an answer.
The problem is, he had to ask.

Hmm, without knowing more about the situation, I would say the problem is that he thinks he needs to have a role model.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I took a pattern recognition test and the result said I was below average, That is all it would mean to me. It would not mean I am a less worthwhile person to know, work with, play with, etc.

I don't think I can look at you anymore.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Holy donkey, ROFLMAO - I love your posts - telling a lot about you, cowboy

I posted an interesting news report about a study on intelligence and gender. So what exactly does that "tell you" about me? (Please see the following message response to vortexring.)

And why are you calling me a "cowboy"?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

your mental wee man

Personal insult noted.

You should not presume that just because I post news about a study which seems to demean women, that I personally harbor the same belief.

[quade 4]

Quote

You should not presume that just because I post news about a study which seems to demean women, that I personally harbor the same belief.

While I agree with John about not making presumptions . . .

John, based on your previous body of posts on this web site, I think it's pretty safe to say that you do, frequently (really frequently!) quote material from other sources to support your favorite topic and a certain viewpoint.

When it appears that you've carried this same modus operandi to other topics, I think most people would assume you share the opinion of the matierial you've quoted simply because, well, as I've said, you've done it so many times in the past.

All of that said, did you not notice the little smily faces? -----><---- things that look like this.

I believe most of the people you say have been "attacking" you are really just showing their frustration with the concept in general.

All of THAT said . . . EVERYONE . . . please . . . no personal attacks.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John, based on your previous body of posts on this web site, I think it's pretty safe to say that you do, frequently (really frequently!) quote material from other sources to support your favorite topic and a certain viewpoint. When it appears that you've carried this same modus operandi to other topics, I think most people would assume you share the opinion of the matierial you've quoted simply because, well, as I've said, you've done it so many times in the past.

So, when I post gun-control stories, does that mean that I am in favor of more gun control? Nope. Quite the opposite is true.

I just posted a story about a group of scientists who believe that the White House engineered the 9/11 attacks. Does that lead you to believe that I too am a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

Your presumption is wrong.

Sometimes I agree with the stories I post. Sometimes I post them because I disagree with them. And sometimes I don't care either way, but just think that others might find them interesting. In short, you should presume nothing about my beliefs from the title of stories which I post.

Quote

I believe most of the people you say have been "attacking" you are really just showing their frustration with the concept in general.

Then they should express theirself properly, and attack the message, rather than the messenger.

[quade 4]

Quote

Then they should express theirself properly, and attack the message, rather than the messanger.

Just make YOUR point of view clear and I don't think there will be any confusion between the two. Notice that in your original post in this thread you did not, but that in the new thread you reference you did. I doubt anyone will have any confusion in your new thread.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver