Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:12:36 UTC No. 16476347

>>16476322
>They cannot represent the "masculine" in essence.
If the male population distribution is characterized by more extreme cases, then retards and geniuses are what makes males "masculine" compared to women.
Fascinating as you come to the exact opposite of the logical conclusion. I bet you're a woman.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:25:10 UTC No. 16476372

>>16476347
I'm not the OP, but I think what he/she meant is that geniuses are an extreme. and extremes are not good for forming medians. I mean, in all of history not even 20% of men were geniuses. the average is what matters. and the average is that men are a little dumber

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:26:17 UTC No. 16476374

>>16476347
>If the male population distribution is characterized by more extreme cases, then retards and geniuses are what makes males "masculine
however, you conveniently ignore the average

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:31:40 UTC No. 16476380

>>16476347
You use terms such "male-dominated" or some degenerate thing like that to denote the prevalence of a few men at the top of the Gaussian curve, but your connotative implication is that the few characterize all men, when that is NOT the case. It would be equally factual to point out that the base of the Gaussian curve is populated almost entirely by men.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:38:17 UTC No. 16476391

>>16476322
But you don't have skew there, and like any human data, IQ is skewed.

Stop guessing start learning at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:39:56 UTC No. 16476394

>>16476347
Lmao>>16476372

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:40:23 UTC No. 16476395

>>16476391
IQ is a joke. it doesn't mean anything.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:42:25 UTC No. 16476401

>>16476395
But I would sure look for high IQ person, if I wanted somebody who could recognize anagrams.

/thread

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:50:26 UTC No. 16476409

>>16476347
even assuming that distribution is true, people are calcualted by integrating area under the curve, not the height of the average.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:52:43 UTC No. 16476413

>>16476409
two Gaussian distributions with the same mean and different standard deviations, dumb

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:01:34 UTC No. 16476417

>>16476374
>>16476380
Reading comprehension issue?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:05:05 UTC No. 16476508

Isn’t this more or less confirmed by the total amount of mental illness and autism in men? There’s a lot more in men than in women.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:06:06 UTC No. 16476512

>>16476395
IQ is a narrow assessor of something that is very real—that of productive intelligence.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:16:57 UTC No. 16476537

>>16476395
midwit liberal spotted gfy

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:55:58 UTC No. 16476611

>>16476322
"There are no female "Isaac Newtons" for the same reason there are no female "Jack the Ripper."

Women don't operate at the "extremes" of IQ and are extremely risk averse, so even if they're capable of doing something challenging, they won't even bother. The also don't care about "Great" issues, having a "Life's Work", or anything much beyond the edge of their yard and the end of the week.

Trial and error combined with effort is how you actually achieve something of note. Not by taking a test, or playing safe.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:45:37 UTC No. 16476900

>>16476611
now tell me
how exactly does this refute the study?

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 02:24:31 UTC No. 16477377

>>16476900
There's no point in having a 20mph brain, if you only drive 10mph. At that rate, even an NPC that can drive 11mph will literally and figuratively get further and farther in life, especially as time goes by. Combine that with a much more rigorous work ethic and you'll have far more to show for your work than someone who is "really smart", but does nothing.

There's also the fact that women have never actually accomplished ANYTHING on their own without the help of men. Not once. Not ever. Not a single building. Not a single statue. No monuments. No tombs. Literally "no things" to show that 50% of the population ever existed. Not to smart, or interesting, if you ask me.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 03:25:21 UTC No. 16477431

>>16476372
>in history
>the average is what matters
The only men that are worth recording into history are the exceptional men, the decidedly non-average. Kings, conquerors, great poets and philosophers. Fascinating as you come to the exact opposite of the logical conclusion.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 04:03:19 UTC No. 16477452

>>16476322
Explained by XX vs XY chromosomes. There is more potential for variation in two mismatched chromosomes than in duplicated ones and the Y chromosome has a high mutation rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#High_mutation_rate

It's like you didn't even take biology.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 04:35:09 UTC No. 16477483

>>16476322
this is not even true
the variability only arises when testing prepubescents, cuz many boys still havent started developing
once you test adults, the standard deviations between genders is the exact same
but men have a higher mean

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 13:55:59 UTC No. 16477778

>>16476347
>then retards and geniuses are what makes males "masculine" compared to women.

Yes, somewhat. You have scientists and world leaders and also have bums and retards who do stupid shit. Why do you think most inventors are men and most murders are men? One of the defining features of men is their wide net over society that practically built it. However that doesn't fully define masculinity, you're narrow minded.

>>16476391

If you have a large enough sample the curve will approximate a normal bell curve, which has minimal if any skew.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 14:55:08 UTC No. 16477831

Y chromosome leads to more trait variability in males. This includes height as well as IQ.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 23:03:53 UTC No. 16478321

>>16476347
You was debunked here>>16477778

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 23:27:06 UTC No. 16478338

>>16476347
>>16477431
Best case scenario - a bait
otherwise - full on mental retardation

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 00:07:42 UTC No. 16478370

I've tested around 140 IQ, learned Japanese and Sanskrit, and research is my only passion in life. But I swear to God, all my friends have been low IQ. Not in a "fun chill normie" way, but like guys with developmental disabilities, a redneck who got his ass kicked and the video went viral on WorldStar, meth addict who had a stroke, guy who's been unemployed since the 80's, homeless stoner who slept on a minigolf course, etc. It's like they have one component for really, really steep intelligence baked into them, but it's tucked way far in the back, invisible on IQ tests, and cannot be summoned at will. It just randomly comes out and blows your mind. Just noticing some pattern that no one else would.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 00:37:06 UTC No. 16478393

>>16477377
>There's also the fact that women have never actually accomplished ANYTHING on their own without the help of men. Not once. Not ever. Not a single building. Not a single statue. No monuments. No tombs. Literally "no things" to show that 50% of the population ever existed. Not to [sic] smart, or interesting, if you ask me.
I mostly agree, just because "Women bumping up against the glass ceiling" is not something people seem to witness in real life, despite everyone claiming that it happens. Ramanujan was born in some dumpy hostel in India and taught himself maths from textbooks. Actually, we see geniuses discriminated against by institutions all the time & rediscovered by posterity because they said "You don't respect my work? Fuck it, I don't care. I'll produce a masterpiece and toss it in my bottom drawer, you can discover it after I die."

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 01:02:52 UTC No. 16478415

>>16476322
Thing that always skews studies on intelligence (and related things) that's hard to correct for is men take a /lot/ more childhood head injuries than women.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 01:54:27 UTC No. 16478441

>>16478370
>cannot be summoned at will. It just randomly comes out and blows your mind.

such as

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 02:22:15 UTC No. 16478473

>>16478441
Classic example is wordplay. Mentally stunted people and the insane are very very good at it, for reasons that are not quite clear.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 07:51:14 UTC No. 16478685

>>16476372
Why does the average matter? Or the median, for that matter? When do you encounter the "average" man or woman? Never. They do not exist. You can form a judgement about anyone you meet's intelligence almost immediately which overrides whatever idea of the average you might have.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 08:58:35 UTC No. 16478740

>>16476322
you know that depending on which specific variables you test for in iq tests then men are either average approximately equal to women or they are like 5 iq points higher.
the eventual score is highly dependent on how you bias the tests.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 09:02:13 UTC No. 16478744

>>16478393
>I mostly agree, just because "Women bumping up against the glass ceiling" is not something people seem to witness in real life,
I saw a wonderful quote recently.

>a glass door might seem like a ceiling if you spend your life horizontal.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 09:47:24 UTC No. 16478760

Women doomed for mediocrity for the whole story. Wonderfull.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 09:52:00 UTC No. 16478763

>>16478760
communism is feminism, it seeks equality by making everyone equal it's much easier to do this by dragging down the best than raising up the worst

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 10:25:06 UTC No. 16478779

>>16476322
Ah yes, psychology, the "science" which consists entirely of fabricating weak evidence to confirm the biases of upper-middle-class white men.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 10:35:56 UTC No. 16478782

>>16478779
iq is under psychometrics though?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 11:14:10 UTC No. 16478800

>>16478779
Upper class white men who are providing all your funding*

Now chop chop, go write me a study about how women prefer green m&ms on tuesdays /sci/wagie. Sorry, I meant Dr. /sci/wagie

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 11:16:57 UTC No. 16478804

>>16478779
Go back to studying critical nigger theory.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 13:14:24 UTC No. 16478924

>>16478740
Hello OP
Yes and?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 13:16:00 UTC No. 16478926

>>16478744
>>16478393
Avarage QI:

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 13:40:48 UTC No. 16478942

>>16478926
>Avarage QI:
I'm sorry master, I must cultivate deeper.