Women Perform Better in College?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Bias rears its ugly head again in this article. While it is true that women perform better than their male counterparts and are more likely to graduate is because of the fact that women are more likely to enroll in "soft academic programs", such as: Nursing, Elementary Ed, Psychology, and Social Work. These programs have a reputation for low standards, easy degrees, and uh...very low enrollment of men.

Men prefer harder subjects that actually take work and effort to complete like engineering, computer science, the hard sciences and mathematics.

Pity that the leftist dominated academia establishment can't muster up an actual research report that documents a little objectivity and critical thought.

Link to story (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/womcolge.htm)

[RedAnarchist]

Instead of believing what others say, go to your nearest college and have a look around, and see what the truth is. I bet there will eb a lot more women in "hard" subjects than you may think.

[wtfm8lol]

Instead of believing what others say, go to your nearest college and have a look around, and see what the truth is. I bet there will eb a lot more women in "hard" subjects than you may think.

wrong. in my computer science lecture, there are less than 15 females out of around 200 students and there are 6 females out of 25 or so in my physics class. On the other hand, my economics class is about half and half.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Uh, what's your point? Are you claiming women to be inferior or something? :unsure:

First of all, I have never seen anything near concrete to suggest that men are better than women in the first place. Women frequently outperform men in high school, or over here, secondary school, and I'm not sure about the US but here in Ireland there are several core subjects that must be taken by all, including Irish, English and Maths (some foreign language is usually taken as well).

Also, you seem to be dismissing degrees such as "Nursing, Elementary Ed, Psychology, and Social Work" and somehow "inferior", which is ridiculous. If these degrees are so easy and require so little work then why don't more men take them? Surely you aren't asserting that all men are superior, intelligent hard-working beings. Many want to take the easy way out (explain why the Arts course in UCD isn't dominated by women). Indeed, some of the subjects you mentioned aren't even known as easy paths; Psychology is apparently quite a difficult course and Nursing, at least as a career, is far from a "lazy choice". The fact of the matter is that the subjects you listed all require a certain nurturing and caring disposition, which is found far more regularly in women than in men.

Nothing to do with women being lazy or stupid, I'm afraid :rolleyes:

[IcarusAngel]

Funny that the article contains hard evidence to support itself, but the capitalists have nothing other than unrepresentative samples.

The article correctly notes that women receive about 58% of all bacheolor degrees granted. It is true that their degress are most likely to be in some social science like economics or psychology, but that is true regardless of whether you're male or female -- less than 5% of majors indicated as a choice by incoming freshman are in the "Natural Sciences." An overwhelming majority of incoming freshman in the US indicate they are going to major in business, social science, or some medical field.

As for Computer Science, using that example is misleading. Interest in Computer Science as a major has dropped among all incoming freshman, and the proportion of women in the field has fallen to levels unseen since the 1970s. Furthermore, according to the National Science Foundation, while women are not likely to receive a Bachelor's in technical fields like Engineering or CS, they are _more_ likely than men to receive a degree in the Biological and Agricultural sciences (about 56% of these degress are given to women) -- for the "physical" sciences, it's nearly even, with women receiving just under half of the BS degrees given.

What's alarming is that "Business" degress are more popular than the natural sciences. That's probably because we live in a capitalist system, and so real science takes a back seat to capitalist garbage.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Instead of believing what others say, go to your nearest college and have a look around, and see what the truth is. I bet there will eb a lot more women in "hard" subjects than you may think.


Boys in the survey tended to rank the utility of mathematics more highly, while girls placed a higher value on English. In addition, girls were more likely to be people-oriented. "Given this data, it's not surprising that there are many more men than women in math-based majors and careers," Eccles said. "Boys' beliefs and values are pulling them toward those areas while girls' are pushing them in other directions."

Eccles points out that women are going into science, but they tend to concentrate in the life and social sciences. For instance, in 1997, 63 percent of psychologists and 42 percent of biologists were women, compared with 10 percent of physicists and astronomers and 9 percent of engineers. In 2002, women made up 43 percent of the incoming U-M Medical School class, but were just 14 percent of doctoral students in the College of Engineering.

The study also has implications for universities and industry. "Both undergraduate and graduate programs in engineering and the mathematical sciences will need to take a hard look at their curriculums if they want to increase the number of women," Eccles said. "It's not enough to concentrate solely on abstract mathematics. Women (and more people-oriented men) need to be able to make the link to wider societal values.


http://www.umich.edu/news/Releases/2003/May03/r052203.html

Graph Showing 75% Women Awarded BAs in Education (http://www.umich.edu/~hraa/womenatum/pdf/chart_10.pdf)



in my computer science lecture, there are less than 15 females out of around 200 students and there are 6 females out of 25 or so in my physics class. On the other hand, my economics class is about half and half.


Try this: Only 15 women out 300 grads were awarded Engineering Degrees at my school but yet, women to men ratio was 5:1.



Uh, what's your point? Are you claiming women to be inferior or something?

Nope, just dispelling a skewed view of facts.

Take your knee-jerk responses somewhere else.


Also, you seem to be dismissing degrees such as "Nursing, Elementary Ed, Psychology, and Social Work" and somehow "inferior", which is ridiculous.

Oh really? Take a look at any education or psychology program at any school and look at the prerequisites that a student needs in order to get accepted into the program.

Here's a hint: You won't need 2 years of calculus to be rewarded a degree in Elementary Education.


The fact of the matter is that the subjects you listed all require a certain nurturing and caring disposition, which is found far more regularly in women than in men.

So what explains the presence of men in those subjects?


Nothing to do with women being lazy or stupid, I'm afraid

I never implied that but the article that I posted implies that men are "lazy and stupid" which is why they don't achieve the same results as their female counterparts.

[IcarusAngel]

Also, if one is going to claim that the social sciences (economics, political science, blah blah) are inferior to the humanites and the hard sciences, we could pretty much draw the conclusion that Libertarian-Socialists have been smarter than Libertarian-Capitalists, by the comparison that Libertarian-Socialists are more likely to be in the "hard sciences." Observe:

Some famous libertarian-socialists:

Proudhon (philosopher, artist), Bookchin (philosopher), Kropotkin (anarchist-philosopher), Rudolf Rocker (anarchist historian) Godwin (English Political philosopher), Bakunin (russian anarchist philosopher), Noam Chomsky (Linguist, Philosopher, public intellectual, computer science), Howard Zinn (Historian; Political Scientist), Bertrand Russell (mathematician, philosopher and logician), Albert Einstein (theoretical physicist), Richard Stallman (Computer Scientist), Antonie Pannekoek (Astronomer), Paul Goodman (intellectual and poet; not to be confused with the musician), Tolstoy (Russian writer), Shusui Kotoku (japanese anarchist writer and journalist), Peter Neville (Sociologist), George Orwell (writer, literary critic), de Cleyre (Feminist), Goldman (feminist, writer), Rousseau (Philosopher, famous enlightenment thinker, founder of the "autobiography"), Castoriadis (philosopher, economist, psychoanalyst), Robin Hahnel (Professor of Economics at AU), Michael Albert (economist), David Graeber (Anthropologist)

some famous Libertarian-Capitalits:

Milton Friednman (economist), Ludwig von Mises (Economist), Brian Caplan (Economist), Thomas Sowell (economist), Hans Herman Hoppe (Economist), James Buchanan (Economist), Friedrich Hayek (Economist), Vernon Smith (Economist).


Whereas about 50% of the LS's were involved in hard science (some of them being some of the best in their field, i.e. Graeber and antropology, Einstien in physics, Chomsky in linguistics) , 100% of famous LC's were involved in the heavily ideological social science known as "economics" ("All economists are merely apologists for the existing capitalist order" -- Karl Marx).

Thus it follows that LS intellectuals are smarter? I'd tend to agree with that.

[Demogorgon]

Anyone struck by the irony of Capitalist Lawyer wittering on about intellectual prowess

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Take your knee-jerk responses somewhere else.
Inquiry != knee-jerk response.



Oh really? Take a look at any education or psychology program at any school and look at the prerequisites that a student needs in order to get accepted into the program.
A course being easier to get into doesn't mean that it is inferior. Nor does it mean that only stupid or lazy people take the course. I knew a fucking genius of a guy who got in the really high 500's in his points when he did his leaving cert last year (in case you don't know, 600 is the absolute maximum you can get, so low 500 is considered really good). He took music, for 150 points (which, for clarity, is about half what the class clown will get).


Here's a hint: You won't need 2 years of calculus to be rewarded a degree in Elementary Education.
Yes, because calculus is the only challenge known to man :rolleyes:

And by the way, over here anyway primary teachers need to have a good grasp of Irish. I'm only currently in my final year of secondary school, but any calculus I have done so far I have found extremely easy. Irish, on the other hand, I'm absolutely useless at. Primary teachers also have to be good at handling children, which is quite a challenge I would imagine (as you can't simply answer inquiries with "OMGWTF KNEE JERK REACTION :ph34r: ")

Incidentally, I have a friend who is incredibly good at maths and the sciences and the like, he plans to do theoretical physics in Trinity or UCD next year. Yet the very first time he handed up a history essay the teacher thought he was dyslexic. No joke.


So what explains the presence of men in those subjects?
Same thing that explains the presence of women in "big manly matcho" subjects such as maths or science, I guess?



I never implied that but the article that I posted implies that men are "lazy and stupid" which is why they don't achieve the same results as their female counterparts.
So you filed a complaint on the Opposing Ideologies section of a leftist forum, which is the obvious thing to do?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:38 pm
Instead of believing what others say, go to your nearest college and have a look around, and see what the truth is. I bet there will eb a lot more women in "hard" subjects than you may think.
my engineering class begs to differ. its like 80% guys.

but i'm actually going into economics, which has only a slight majority of men, and polisci, which is pretty balanced if not having more women.

[TC]

Maybe, while theres considerable overlap in terms of capacities and you can't really tell anything about an individual man or woman by their gender, men just aren't as smart or hard working on average when taken as a whole population.

[Publius]

Maybe, while theres considerable overlap in terms of capacities and you can't really tell anything about an individual man or woman by their gender, men just aren't as smart or hard working on average when taken as a whole population.

I thought leftists were supposed to oppose this ignorant bullshit...

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:19 pm
Also, if one is going to claim that the social sciences (economics, political science, blah blah) are inferior to the humanites and the hard sciences, we could pretty much draw the conclusion that Libertarian-Socialists have been smarter than Libertarian-Capitalists, by the comparison that Libertarian-Socialists are more likely to be in the "hard sciences." Observe:

Some famous libertarian-socialists:

Proudhon (philosopher, artist), Bookchin (philosopher), Kropotkin (anarchist-philosopher), Rudolf Rocker (anarchist historian) Godwin (English Political philosopher), Bakunin (russian anarchist philosopher), Noam Chomsky (Linguist, Philosopher, public intellectual, computer science), Howard Zinn (Historian; Political Scientist), Bertrand Russell (mathematician, philosopher and logician), Albert Einstein (theoretical physicist), Richard Stallman (Computer Scientist), Antonie Pannekoek (Astronomer), Paul Goodman (intellectual and poet; not to be confused with the musician), Tolstoy (Russian writer), Shusui Kotoku (japanese anarchist writer and journalist), Peter Neville (Sociologist), George Orwell (writer, literary critic), de Cleyre (Feminist), Goldman (feminist, writer), Rousseau (Philosopher, famous enlightenment thinker, founder of the "autobiography"), Castoriadis (philosopher, economist, psychoanalyst), Robin Hahnel (Professor of Economics at AU), Michael Albert (economist), David Graeber (Anthropologist)

some famous Libertarian-Capitalits:

Milton Friednman (economist), Ludwig von Mises (Economist), Brian Caplan (Economist), Thomas Sowell (economist), Hans Herman Hoppe (Economist), James Buchanan (Economist), Friedrich Hayek (Economist), Vernon Smith (Economist).


Whereas about 50% of the LS's were involved in hard science (some of them being some of the best in their field, i.e. Graeber and antropology, Einstien in physics, Chomsky in linguistics) , 100% of famous LC's were involved in the heavily ideological social science known as "economics" ("All economists are merely apologists for the existing capitalist order" -- Karl Marx).

Thus it follows that LS intellectuals are smarter? I'd tend to agree with that.
what does intelligence in hard sciences have to do with intelligence in social sciences?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Inquiry != knee-jerk response.

Implying that I was "sexist" was knee-jerk.

How come you didn't condemn the article I posted as "sexist"?


A course being easier to get into doesn't mean that it is inferior.

Why is it that people constantly complain that we don't have enough science/math students, phd's etc? Have you ever heard anyone complain that we don't have enough liberal arts or education majors? We've got tons and tons of history majors, English majors and yes, education majors (these people are the smartest of all - they end up with bloated salaries in education administration doing the 9-5 routine with not liability and little or no chance of ever being fired, unless they use the "n" word --WOW).

The government should apply tax policy to education. if you want more of something, tax it less. if you want less of something, tax it more. so, they could continue giving student loans for science and math majors and cut them out for liberal arts and education majors (unless of course they are minorities - we still need many more minority history majors so they can tell the "plight of their peoples" in historical context at the hands of the fucking United States of Amerikkka). *end sarcasm


Yes, because calculus is the only challenge known to man

You want some hay with that straw?



Yet the very first time he handed up a history essay the teacher thought he was dyslexic.

I'm sure we all have anecdotes to share and I have one about a former friend who received a 10% for a final grade in statistics of all subjects.

He was a psychology major. Teacher probably thought he was retarded.


Primary teachers also have to be good at handling children, which is quite a challenge I would imagine

Sure it is, but not as challenging as constructing a space module or a 747.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:48 pm


Maybe, while theres considerable overlap in terms of capacities and you can't really tell anything about an individual man or woman by their gender, men just aren't as smart or hard working on average when taken as a whole population.

I thought leftists were supposed to oppose this ignorant bullshit...
it doesn't follow that men should be discriminated against on an individual level if they are, collectively just not as smart though...and you can't subordinate science to your ideology... ;)

[IcarusAngel]

what does intelligence in hard sciences have to do with intelligence in social sciences?

I'm saying that the hard sciences teach you something about rationality and logic and reason, and if you want to believe that makes you smarter, we can see those socialists would be smarter than the capitalists. You can "divide" people in a lot of ways.

I do agree though that the real sciences, the so-called "hard sciences," teach you more about what rationality means and so on So when you go to graduate school in the natural sciences, you're immediately brought into critical inquiry - and what you're learning is kind of a craft. The goal is to learn how to do creative work, and to challenge everything; people have to be trained for creativity and disobedience - because there is no other way you can do science. But in the humanities and social sciences, and in fields like journalism and economics, etc, it's often crucial to conform; people have to be trained to be managers, and controllers, and to accept things, and not to question too much.

Really most of the social sciences -- especially economics, totally laughable in terms of scholarship -- suffer from a lack of integrity. Of course there is a "difference" between mathematics and science on one hand, and the social sciences on the other. In the former, integrity counts more than ideology. It's not that scientists are more honest, it's just the way science works and natue itself is a harsh taskmaster.

You can lie or distort the story of the French Revolution or the nature of taxation as long as you like, and nothing will happen. Propose a false theory in chemistry, and it'll be refuted tomorrow. (Perhpas with dire retributions, such as a firing or loss of reputation.)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

How come you didn't condemn the article I posted as "sexist"?
The article you posted was sexist.

:rolleyes:



Why is it that people constantly complain that we don't have enough science/math students, phd's etc? Have you ever heard anyone complain that we don't have enough liberal arts or education majors? We've got tons and tons of history majors, English majors and yes, education majors (these people are the smartest of all - they end up with bloated salaries in education administration doing the 9-5 routine with not liability and little or no chance of ever being fired, unless they use the "n" word --WOW).
That's all got to do with the economy and the way it's going at the moment. In Ireland I rarely hear anyone complain about how we need more maths or science students. I do, on the other hand, hear vast amounts of demand for nursing staff and primary teachers, so you really have no argument here.


I'm sure we all have anecdotes to share and I have one about a former friend who received a 10% for a final grade in statistics of all subjects.

He was a psychology major. Teacher probably thought he was retarded.
See, psychology can't be that easy :P


Sure it is, but not as challenging as constructing a space module or a 747.
Perhaps, but not all men can construct a space module or a 747. Also, put an aeronautical engineer in a classroom full of 32 young, eager, emotionally vulnerable 7 year olds and see how far his intelligence takes him. And it should be pointed out that primary school teaching is just as if not more important than building a 747 or a space module.

Incidentally CapitalistLawyer, in what field would you place Law? Easy, unimportant or hard, important?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:44 pm

Instead of believing what others say, go to your nearest college and have a look around, and see what the truth is. I bet there will eb a lot more women in "hard" subjects than you may think.

wrong. in my computer science lecture, there are less than 15 females out of around 200 students and there are 6 females out of 25 or so in my physics class. On the other hand, my economics class is about half and half.
In my graduate class on quantum gravity, it's 75% women and 25% men...so therefore quantum gravity is "easy" right? :lol:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:44 pm
Maybe, while theres considerable overlap in terms of capacities and you can't really tell anything about an individual man or woman by their gender, men just aren't as smart or hard working on average when taken as a whole population.
Men are intellectually below average? On what grounds do make this assertion?

[Zero]

I suppose that is why I find a 50-50 split in Philosophy, 75-25 in Mathematics, and a 25-75 split in Computer Science?

Yeah, there are more men than women in Computer Science, that could be because traditional gender roles don't place women in front of a computer. It doesn't have to do with what people can and cannot do. I've met quite a few ladies who could out match any guy at DEFCON, BHSC, or any other computer security conference.

This "logic" is completely worthless. I could say that 50% of blacks in America are required to steal to feed their children. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if that stat was true; what with the racist power structure we have in America. But because a stat may or may not be true, from a moral standpoint it is completely antithetical to a free society (or one that attempts to be one) to enforce anything based purely on that alone.

[Publius]

it doesn't follow that men should be discriminated against on an individual level if they are, collectively just not as smart though...and you can't subordinate science to your ideology... ;)

I know of no science that actually demonstrates this.

I'm not being an ideologue here, I just don't actually know of any science that supports this conclusion, so I'm understandably wary about reports about race/sex and IQ. Most of them are bullshit.

I mean, I could link you to studies 'proving' whites have higher IQs than blacks, but that doesn't mean shit, because the studies are flawed. That's what I'm saying.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by TragicClown+March 30, 2007 11:59 pm--> (TragicClown @ March 30, 2007 11:59 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 11:48 pm


Maybe, while theres considerable overlap in terms of capacities and you can't really tell anything about an individual man or woman by their gender, men just aren't as smart or hard working on average when taken as a whole population.

I thought leftists were supposed to oppose this ignorant bullshit...
it doesn't follow that men should be discriminated against on an individual level if they are, collectively just not as smart though...and you can't subordinate science to your ideology... ;) [/b]
blacks arent collectively as smart just look at the iq tests

their braisn are made out of chocolate

[Ihavenoidea]

Awww did Cappi lawyer have a bad day at school? Where some mean femme-nazi beat him at a spelling bee? LMAO.

Sexism has several differant layers. If there are less women in collage or univercity it is because they are under pressure. Or are going to have children in tow, slowing them down. There are so many differant things that stop women from reaching their potential. The media, family, religion. Its crazyness.

But on a more interesting note, what word did you get wrong?
:rolleyes:

You moron. lol

[Publius]

Awww did Cappi lawyer have a bad day at school? Where some mean femme-nazi beat him at a spelling bee? LMAO.

Sexism has several differant layers. If there are less women in collage or univercity it is because they are under pressure. Or are going to have children in tow, slowing them down. There are so many differant things that stop women from reaching their potential. The media, family, religion. Its crazyness.

But on a more interesting note, what word did you get wrong?
:rolleyes:

You moron. lol

Actually, more women than men are in college, I believe.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 30, 2007 10:23 pm
Bias rears its ugly head again in this article. While it is true that women perform better than their male counterparts and are more likely to graduate is because of the fact that women are more likely to enroll in "soft academic programs", such as: Nursing, Elementary Ed, Psychology, and Social Work. These programs have a reputation for low standards, easy degrees, and uh...very low enrollment of men.

Men prefer harder subjects that actually take work and effort to complete like engineering, computer science, the hard sciences and mathematics.

Pity that the leftist dominated academia establishment can't muster up an actual research report that documents a little objectivity and critical thought.

Link to story (http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/womcolge.htm)
Your ignorance infuriates me.

I am male, I am currently studying psychology and sociology (as you describe 'soft academic programs')

I struggle profusely with mathematics, hard sciences and the like.

Which subjects people pursure is down to individual, personal differences. It has nothing to do with gender whatsoever.

And if you think it's easy to pass in subjects like psychology, hear this.

On May 22nd I will walk into an exam hall, and write a 3 hour long psychology exam in which we are expected to write non-stop for the entire 3 hours if we want to get a decent grade and for which I have to learn countless different theories and studies on countless different areas of study to support my answers during the exam.

Now try telling me it's easy to pass.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Performance in education between the genders has been debunked so hard its not even funny.

Male students used to be better at maths and english in the 60's than today (in Britain). So unless there has been significant genetic regression in 40 years, there MUST be something else at work.

One argument is that young male students, go through there education having a vastly disproportionate amount of female teachers compared to that of male teachers.

With standardised education in Britain between boys and girls, no evidence for one gender having any overt signs of higher brain power than the other leaves you with little else to choose from.

> So its got to be, the lack of male teachers at an early age.
> the nature of the teaching has changed, from a way boys were able to learn well, to a way they find it harder to learn.
> Or other societal problem which has had a significant impact on young boys willingness to learn.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Huh, CL hasn't replied. I should take this opportunity to point out that I agree with Publius on this one, there is absolutely nothing solid to indicate that there in an intelligence gap between the sexes. All the studies on the subject so far have been crap, probably because anyone who actually wants to waste time and resources on the issue usually has a personal incentive to make a "breakthrough" in favour of one sex or another.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Perhaps, but not all men can construct a space module or a 747. Also, put an aeronautical engineer in a classroom full of 32 young, eager, emotionally vulnerable 7 year olds and see how far his intelligence takes him. And it should be pointed out that primary school teaching is just as if not more important than building a 747 or a space module.

Remember, we're talking about degree programs and not the actual work on the job.

I'll ask you again, which degree programs are harder who are the bulk of its graduates? Education, Social Work or Engineering or the hard sciences?


On May 22nd I will walk into an exam hall, and write a 3 hour long psychology exam in which we are expected to write non-stop for the entire 3 hours if we want to get a decent grade and for which I have to learn countless different theories and studies on countless different areas of study to support my answers during the exam.

Now try telling me it's easy to pass.

I didn't say they were "easy" per se but rather not as challenging as the subjects that men tend to gravitate to.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 01, 2007 03:01 pm

Perhaps, but not all men can construct a space module or a 747. Also, put an aeronautical engineer in a classroom full of 32 young, eager, emotionally vulnerable 7 year olds and see how far his intelligence takes him. And it should be pointed out that primary school teaching is just as if not more important than building a 747 or a space module.

Remember, we're talking about degree programs and not the actual work on the job.

I'll ask you again, which degree programs are harder who are the bulk of its graduates? Education, Social Work or Engineering or the hard sciences?
That depends entirely on who is being educated, dumbfuck. If you put me on, for example, an engineering course I would grasp most of it fairly quickly but I'd be fucked on a Social Work one.


I didn't say they were "easy" per se but rather not as challenging as the subjects that men tend to gravitate to.
You assume that the reason men gravitate to these things is because of how men behave naturally right? Would you not think that social conditioning would play a part?

[Choppy deroute]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:10 pm
Huh, CL hasn't replied. I should take this opportunity to point out that I agree with Publius on this one, there is absolutely nothing solid to indicate that there in an intelligence gap between the sexes. All the studies on the subject so far have been crap, probably because anyone who actually wants to waste time and resources on the issue usually has a personal incentive to make a "breakthrough" in favour of one sex or another.
Sex differences on r, the group factors, are not really controversial, where men has a higher visiospatial performance and women consistently show a higher verbal capability, which would help explain why the sexes gravitate towards different occupational groups.

Sex differences on the primary component g however has been showed recently in several massive studies.

These are the two primary studies by Rushton and Lynn respectively, showing a small but consistent difference at around 3-5 IQ points:

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/r...&%20Rushton.pdf (http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20Intell%20Jackson%20&%20Rushton.pdf)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4183166.stm

[Publius]

Originally posted by Choppy [email protected] 08, 2007 08:28 pm




These are the two primary studies by Rushton and Lynn respectively, showing a small but consistent difference at around 3-5 IQ points:

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/r...&%20Rushton.pdf (http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20Intell%20Jackson%20&%20Rushton.pdf)

I don't know if I like the methodology here.

First, the SAT doesn't correlate exactly with IQ, as I'm sure you know. The SAT is not an IQ test, or at least not a good one. It's very knowledge-based, which says nothing about innate intelligence.

And of course all any test, including the very best IQ tests, can measure is your aptitude for taking that specific test. Anything outside of that is speculatory by nature.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4183166.stm

Alright, this seems to be a better test, since it's based solely on an IQ test, not on a standardized test misapplied at an IQ test. But again, IQ tests are by means definitive at anything other than determining your proficiency at taking IQ tests.

I can concede that men score higher than women on IQ tests, that's not a problem and, barring any science that I'm unaware of, seems to be fairly accurate. But I think it's still wrong to say this means men are 5 IQ points (then 5%?) smarter than women. Women seem to have a superior ability to empathize and understand social situations, a better 'emotional intelligence', as it were. How does this get factored in? The designation 'IQ' is based on a small set of basically arbitrary questions. Why not ask about interpersonal relationships? Why not ask questions about music, or a person's aptitude at remembering pitches or notes? Or test athletic ability? Reaction time? Most IQ tests that I've taken haven't really had reading sections where you analyze texts. Should they? I don't know. But what I do know is that IQ tests only measure 'intelligence' when 'intelligence' is defined as 'what IQ tests measure.'

Now none of this is to say that men aren't indeed smarter than women, as they indeed may be, merely that attempts to prove it must be regarded with serious caveats.

[Choppy deroute]

I don't know if I like the methodology here.

First, the SAT doesn't correlate exactly with IQ, as I'm sure you know. The SAT is not an IQ test, or at least not a good one. It's very knowledge-based, which says nothing about innate intelligence.

As the link to the study by Rushton says, the SAT is in fact an excellent measure of g, the general intelligence factor, which as the name implies, is the only thing that says anything about innate intelligence.

But you are of course right when you say, that the SAT is not intended to be an IQ test, but is instead intented to predict academic performance, which is why much of the test has a lower predictive validity of exactly academic performance ironically, than a highly g-loaded IQ test has.

In other words in order to predict academic performance, a test must nessecarily measure the same thing as an IQ test, namely g.



And of course all any test, including the very best IQ tests, can measure is your aptitude for taking that specific test. Anything outside of that is speculatory by nature.

The indirect evidence of the predictive validity of g in basically all social outcomes is overwhelming, so no, i disagree with you.

However, while i disagree with the term speculative, it's obvious that observed causality has not been established, exactly due to the nature of IQ testing.



Alright, this seems to be a better test, since it's based solely on an IQ test, not on a standardized test misapplied at an IQ test. But again, IQ tests are by means definitive at anything other than determining your proficiency at taking IQ tests.

As i said, the predictive value of IQ, or rather g, in determing job and school perfomance, income, health, SES, substance abuse, criminality and just about everything else where human beings differ is well established.

That's what an IQ test is, a prediction of real world social outcomes. A prediction that varies in accuracy according to the degree it measures g.

So, i have to disagree with you there.



I can concede that men score higher than women on IQ tests, that's not a problem and, barring any science that I'm unaware of, seems to be fairly accurate. But I think it's still wrong to say this means men are 5 IQ points (then 5%?) smarter than women.

It doesn't nessecarily mean that men are innately or irrevocably 5 IQ points more intelligent then women as a fact of nature.

5 points is after all a small difference that could disappear in theory, if radical changes in the environment surrounding men and women was realised. So one can interpret this difference as caused 100% by environmental differences between men and women.

However, as i see it, the hereditarian position, which both Rushton and Lynn represent, explains the difference better, by the reference to the know difference between the brainsize of men and women at around 100 gram. Since brainsize and IQ correlate at .35 the expected difference translates to around a 4 point difference (as explained in the Rushton study).

Since we also know that intelligence, g, is highly heritable, at 50-80%, it follows that it would be less likely that the 5 point gap would be caused by differences in environment.

Taken togheter the difference is best explained as i see it, by the hereditarian position.



Women seem to have a superior ability to empathize and understand social situations, a better 'emotional intelligence', as it were. How does this get factored in?

It doesn't.

While i certainly agree women generally are far better at navigating social situations than men, i also have to say that the problem with terms such as "emotional intelligence" is that they are obviously subjective.

One could simply say that women are more emotional than men. Why that would be imply "intelligence" however, well...



The designation 'IQ' is based on a small set of basically arbitrary questions. Why not ask about interpersonal relationships? Why not ask questions about music, or a person's aptitude at remembering pitches or notes? Or test athletic ability? Reaction time?

Because they have no relation to g, the general intelligence factor, which is the one thing in an IQ test that predicts anything. A test of musical ability would not be in any way indicative (or only ever so slightly) of a persons ability to perform in school, as an IQ test is, among other things.

Now interestingly, both musical ability and reaction time correlates with g, and as such one could test peoples RT and get a crude estimate of intelligence, but why should anyone bother to try and measure intelligence by measuring athletic ability? How could that possibly have anything to do with intelligence?



Most IQ tests that I've taken haven't really had reading sections where you analyze texts. Should they? I don't know.

Yes and no.

The "best" IQ tests are the ones that measure g. The more a test focuses on g alone the higher the predictive value of the test, such as Raven's progressive matrices, which is an entirely non-verbal test, that is as abstract as possible. Abstraction seems to be the essence of g.

But besides g, there also exist several cognitive group factors, r, such as memory, verbal and visualization ability. So if you wanted to measure say, verbal ability, or atleast include it in a measure, the progressive matrices would not be ideal.



But what I do know is that IQ tests only measure 'intelligence' when 'intelligence' is defined as 'what IQ tests measure.'

Yes, that quite correct, but by extention, IQ also measures large swats of human differences.

Really instead of calling that which is measured "intelligence", we should simply call it g.



Now none of this is to say that men aren't indeed smarter than women, as they indeed may be, merely that attempts to prove it must be regarded with serious caveats.

Of course.