Population of Male/Female by IQ

[Trausti]

What's the point of any science? To help us understand objective reality and to guide us to potentially applicable knowledge in the future. The difference in standard deviations would help us to explain why women are underrepresented in high-IQ careers. Putting the egalitarian blinders on our heads means that we must think institutions and the patriarchy are at fault for keeping women out of high-paying STEM fields. The president of Harvard was fired for suggesting such a thing. If it was plausible and based on actual fact, then we are targeting reasonable people for the sin of being reasonable.

You're getting ahead of yourself. While genetics plays a role in determining IQ, you cannot discount the influence of social structures and norms on a person's development.

Well, yeah. No one says that intelligence is 100% genetic. Just, mostly so. That's why it's one of the most replicable findings in psychology.

It’s now possible, in theory, to predict life success from a genetic test at birth

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/09/12/its-now-possible-in-theory-to-predict-life-success-from-a-genetic-test-at-birth/

Why was this moved to pseudoscience? When did supposed freethinkers start to fear science they don't like?

 

[bigfield]

You're getting ahead of yourself. While genetics plays a role in determining IQ, you cannot discount the influence of social structures and norms on a person's development.

Well, yeah. No one says that intelligence is 100% genetic. Just, mostly so. That's why it's one of the most replicable findings in psychology.

What convinced you that intelligence is mostly genetic?

It’s now possible, in theory, to predict life success from a genetic test at birth

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/09/1...ct-life-success-from-a-genetic-test-at-birth/

The blog title is clickbait:

Using an even newer polygenic education estimate from a more recent gene-finding study (published in Nature this year), Saskia Selzam and colleagues found that their polygenic score explained a remarkable 9.1 per cent of the variance in age-16 GCSE results in a sample of 4,300 British teenagers.

First, these results ‘explain variance’ at the group level, and we can’t easily translate this to individual prediction – yet. To do that, we’d need a representative reference panel with which to compare individuals, like the standardization samples used in IQ research. It’s only a matter of time before this becomes a reality for many traits.

Ritchie is exaggerating: the most successful study can only explain 9.1% of the variance in academic achievement

Why was this moved to pseudoscience? When did supposed freethinkers start to fear science they don't like?

You can contact the moderators here: http://talkfreethought.org/forumdisplay.php?53-Private-Feedback

 

[ApostateAbe]

Nice work on that. The OP's graph exaggerated the difference in respective variances, but your graph correctly portrays it. Even for such a seemingly small difference in variance, it becomes far more relevant at the tail ends. The professions of greatest relevance to sexual inequality are commonly taken to be the high-IQ professions at the right tail end of each distribution. Successful doctors, lawyers, engineers, and executives tend to have an IQ greater than 130. The further along the right tail end, the greater the difference between the lower-variance group and the higher-variance group, and that seems to be correctly and usefully illustrated in the graph provided by the AEI. By zooming into the area of your graph that has the difference between males and females at the IQ of 140, then 57.7% for males and 42.3% for females seems plausible, and it is therefore the percentages we may expect in the respective careers, but other sexual differences would complicate it, such as females dominating the verbal component of intelligence and males dominating the mathematical component, and such as males having a slightly higher average IQ than females as adults, not as children, much like the sexual height difference.

Hauser (2002) finds that very few professionals in any field have an IQ greater than 130:

Show

Graph from: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx
Source paper: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf

I also question our assumption that a study based on 11-year-olds can be used to predict outcomes for adults. I suspect that puberty and high-school education influence a person's cognitive abilities and may change the relationship between girls and boys.

"Hauser (2002) finds that very few professionals in any field have an IQ greater than 130." I concede that point. Good catch. Doctors are dumber than I thought. I am not ready to downplay the importance of IQ on professional success, as there is a clear upward trend between IQ and occupational prestige, and, plausibly, the higher the IQ, the easier it is to succeed. At the least, the high-IQ occupations require the ability to score sufficiently high on tests to either graduate or pass licensing exams, and, if there are fewer women at the right-tail end of the IQ distribution, it would be expected that fewer women occupy those professions.

What's the point of any science? To help us understand objective reality and to guide us to potentially applicable knowledge in the future. The difference in standard deviations would help us to explain why women are underrepresented in high-IQ careers. Putting the egalitarian blinders on our heads means that we must think institutions and the patriarchy are at fault for keeping women out of high-paying STEM fields. The president of Harvard was fired for suggesting such a thing. If it was plausible and based on actual fact, then we are targeting reasonable people for the sin of being reasonable.

You're getting ahead of yourself. While genetics plays a role in determining IQ, you cannot discount the influence of social structures and norms on a person's development.

No, I am NOT discounting the influence of social structures and norms. I am not getting ahead of myself here. You seem to be getting ahead of me. The firing of the president of Harvard would make sense only under the belief that genetic influences on the differences in IQ distributions between men and women are absolutely non-existent, not intermediate. Even an intermediate genetic influence would be expected to cause fewer women in the higher-IQ occupations.

 

[beero1000]

Hauser (2002) finds that very few professionals in any field have an IQ greater than 130:

Graph from: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx
Source paper: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf

Just FYI, the above graph is based on the 1956 IQ test scores for male Wisconsin graduates of the high school class of 1957 who reported a job during 1992-94. Not a great sample, and there were also apparently serious methodological issues with the study.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Just FYI, the above graph is based on the 1956 IQ test scores for male Wisconsin graduates of the high school class of 1957 who reported a job during 1992-94. Not a great sample, and there were also apparently serious methodological issues with the study.

Maybe, but, without better data, then the given data must stand.

 

[George S]

Just FYI, the above graph is based on the 1956 IQ test scores for male Wisconsin graduates of the high school class of 1957 who reported a job during 1992-94. Not a great sample, and there were also apparently serious methodological issues with the study.

Maybe, but, without better data, then the given data must stand.

Yes indeed. And what do we do with that data? Just one thing: give everyone equal opportunity but don't expect equal results.

Everyone has the opportunity to try out for the NFL. The fact that 77% of the NFL lineman are black is expected due to racial differences in physique. It does not mean that whites should be given special slots because they are a majority. Females are welcome to try out. Some have.


Do not expect equal results. Everyone is created unequal, but must be treated equally by the government, and law.
And do not expect equal results. Men and women are different. And their minds are one of the differences. Do not expect equal results.

Perhaps the glass ceiling is just difference in leadership ability. Or some other inherited characteristic. Do not expect equal results.

If more women than men are nurses it may be that there are more women who like to nurture than men. Do not expect equal results.

I liked in the 1960s when you knew there was no difference between me and the black student next to me in the advanced computer class. I knew he got there on merit. Today? Meh.

 

[untermensche]

The fact that 77% of the NFL lineman are black is expected due to racial differences in physique.

There are more "white" people, in total numbers, the size of NFL lineman than "black" people.

Getting to the NFL has a lot to do with desire and lack of other opportunities besides sports and peer group influences.

 

[Trausti]

The fact that 77% of the NFL lineman are black is expected due to racial differences in physique.

There are more "white" people, in total numbers, the size of NFL lineman than "black" people.

Getting to the NFL has a lot to do with desire and lack of other opportunities besides sports and peer group influences.

Why do West Africans dominate in sprints while East Africans dominate in long runs? Lack of other opportunities, of course!

 

[Juma]

There are more "white" people, in total numbers, the size of NFL lineman than "black" people.

Getting to the NFL has a lot to do with desire and lack of other opportunities besides sports and peer group influences.

Why do West Africans dominate in sprints while East Africans dominate in long runs? Lack of other opportunities, of course!

Your point being ... what exactly? Of course there are similarities among related people. But ehat has this to do with alleged differences between men and women?

Anf I still wait for George S to comment the fact that he published an outright lie in the thread start.

 

[untermensche]

There are more "white" people, in total numbers, the size of NFL lineman than "black" people.

Getting to the NFL has a lot to do with desire and lack of other opportunities besides sports and peer group influences.

Why do West Africans dominate in sprints while East Africans dominate in long runs? Lack of other opportunities, of course!

What does this have to do with NFL lineman?

There are many South Americans or Europeans who are faster than the majority of West Africans.

What does that mean?

You want to draw general rules from very rare individuals. Irrational.

 

[bigfield]

Hauser (2002) finds that very few professionals in any field have an IQ greater than 130:

Show

Graph from: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx
Source paper: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf

Just FYI, the above graph is based on the 1956 IQ test scores for male Wisconsin graduates of the high school class of 1957 who reported a job during 1992-94. Not a great sample, and there were also apparently serious methodological issues with the study.

Thanks--I'll disregard the graph.

 

[bigfield]

Maybe, but, without better data, then the given data must stand.

Yes indeed. And what do we do with that data? Just one thing: give everyone equal opportunity but don't expect equal results.

<snip race derail>

Do not expect equal results. Everyone is created unequal, but must be treated equally by the government, and law.
And do not expect equal results. Men and women are different. And their minds are one of the differences. Do not expect equal results.

What results should we expect?

The Scottish IQ study shows very little difference between the sexes. If we assume that IQ predicts occupation then we should see close to equal numbers of men and women in every occupation.

IQ doesn't explain a 3:7 ratio between women and men in STEM occupations.

Perhaps the glass ceiling is just difference in leadership ability. Or some other inherited characteristic. Do not expect equal results.

If more women than men are nurses it may be that there are more women who like to nurture than men. Do not expect equal results.

<snip race derail>

You've presented no evidence to support a difference in leadership ability between the sexes and you've presented no evidence regarding interest in nurturing.

 

[Bomb#20]

The difference in standard deviations would help us to explain why women are underrepresented in high-IQ careers. Putting the egalitarian blinders on our heads means that we must think institutions and the patriarchy are at fault for keeping women out of high-paying STEM fields.

Why do people keep saying that? No, it doesn't mean we have to think that. Institutions and the patriarchy are not the sum total of environmental influences on individual results.

Purely anecdotal evidence follows: I went to a high school that posted an honor roll, with highly ranked students' grades from the previous term listed, in percentages. Funny story about that. When I got there the grades 9 and 10 honor rolls were heavily dominated by girls. The grades 11, 12 and 13 honor rolls were heavily dominated by boys. It looked as though a passel of super smart girls had graduated from elementary school at about the same time as me. Observing this, I expected to be one of the few boys on the honor roll all through high school. That's not what happened. Year after year the pattern was maintained. Most of those super smart girls dropped off the honor roll around grade 11, while new smart girls arrived from elementary school each year. Meanwhile, boys who hadn't stood out when they arrived made it onto the honor roll after two or three years.

The boys in my classes did not appear to getting smarter or studying harder. As near as I can tell, an awful lot of high school girls were socializing one another to stop focusing on schoolwork.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The difference in standard deviations would help us to explain why women are underrepresented in high-IQ careers. Putting the egalitarian blinders on our heads means that we must think institutions and the patriarchy are at fault for keeping women out of high-paying STEM fields.

Why do people keep saying that? No, it doesn't mean we have to think that. Institutions and the patriarchy are not the sum total of environmental influences on individual results.

Purely anecdotal evidence follows: I went to a high school that posted an honor roll, with highly ranked students' grades from the previous term listed, in percentages. Funny story about that. When I got there the grades 9 and 10 honor rolls were heavily dominated by girls. The grades 11, 12 and 13 honor rolls were heavily dominated by boys. It looked as though a passel of super smart girls had graduated from elementary school at about the same time as me. Observing this, I expected to be one of the few boys on the honor roll all through high school. That's not what happened. Year after year the pattern was maintained. Most of those super smart girls dropped off the honor roll around grade 11, while new smart girls arrived from elementary school each year. Meanwhile, boys who hadn't stood out when they arrived made it onto the honor roll after two or three years.

The boys in my classes did not appear to getting smarter or studying harder. As near as I can tell, an awful lot of high school girls were socializing one another to stop focusing on schoolwork.

Don't be so sure. Cultural differences can't be ruled out, but there is a plausible hypothesis advanced by intelligence researchers, including Rushton and Lynn, that the equal IQ averages between the sexes is true only for children. As the children become adolescent, the brain growth of females tends to stop, but the brains of males continue to grow, much like with bodily height, so grown men supposedly have an average IQ advantage over grown women of about 5 points.

 

[Juma]

And the tests that shows that femals do better on tests when asked to think like men? Even just thinking/discussing how men think increases the results for women.

 

[ApostateAbe]

And the tests that shows that femals do better on tests when asked to think like men? Even just thinking/discussing how men think increases the results for women.

Could be so, that's new to me. Do you happen to have any more details or leads?

 

[fromderinside]

Its at least face valid. It sounds right. Not enough I know, but, there's my two cents. Comes from the notion that tests are male oriented which when seen compared to other bias propositions reads true.

 

[Trausti]

And the tests that shows that femals do better on tests when asked to think like men? Even just thinking/discussing how men think increases the results for women.

Pretty sure those studies didn't survive the psychology replication crisis.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In the Wiki of Sex Differences in Intelligence we find:

Variability[edit]
Some studies have identified the degree of IQ variance as a difference between males and females. Males tend to show greater variability on many traits, for example having both highest and lowest scores on tests of cognitive abilities,[18][62][63] though this may differ between countries.[64][65][66]

Feingold (1992b) and Hedges and Nowell (1995) have reported that, despite average sex differences being small and relatively stable over time, test score variances of males were generally larger than those of females.[67] Feingold found that males were more variable than females on tests of quantitative reasoning, spatial visualisation, spelling, and general knowledge. […] Hedges and Nowell go one step further and demonstrate that, with the exception of performance on tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, more males than females were observed among high-scoring individuals.[67]

Some recent studies also suggest, that greater male variability has decreased in time[68] and disappears at countries with more gender equal cultures.[69][70]
_____
18 Wai, Jonathan; Cacchio, Megan; Putallaz, Martha; Makel, Matthew C. (2010). "Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30year examination". Intelligence. 38 (4): 412–423. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006. ISSN 0160-2896.
62 Lehrke, R. (1997). Sex linkage of intelligence: The X-Factor. NY: Praeger.[page needed]
63 Lubinski, D.; Benbow, C. P. (2006). "Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth After 35 Years: Uncovering Antecedents for the Development of Math-Science Expertise". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 1 (4): 316–45.

What hypothesis do you draw from all this data?

 

[DrZoidberg]

View attachment 8068

Prediction: IQ doesn't measure what you think it measures.

IQ is great for identifying retardation in children. Which is why it was created and which is what it's for. Any results above 70 IQ are all equivalent as far as intelligence goes.