Home / Bonk Me With A Female Cortex: Men Have Higher IQs Than Women

Bonk Me With A Female Cortex: Men Have Higher IQs Than Women

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The following article claims there’s scientific evidence that men are smarter than women. It’s from The Australian. Apparently there’s already been a big debate about it in London.

Men win IQ test in battle of sexes

Half the population will dismiss this story – but a new study claims the cleverest people are far more likely to be male than female. Men are more intelligent than women by about five IQ points on average, making them better suited for tasks of high complexity, according to the authors of a paper due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology.

Genetic differences in intelligence between the sexes helped explain why many more men than women won Nobel Prizes or became chess grandmasters, the study by Paul Irwing and Richard Lynn concludes. They showed that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rose. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, typical for people with first-class degrees. When scores rose to 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, said he was uncomfortable with the findings. However, he said, the evidence was clear, despite the insistence of many academics that there were no meaningful gender differences in levels of intelligence. “For personal reasons I would like to believe men and women are equal, and broadly that’s true,” he said. “But over a period of time the evidence in favour of biological factors has become stronger and stronger. I have been dragged in a direction that I don’t particularly like, but it would be sensible if the debate was based on what we pretty much know to be the case.”

The findings come from a study of 24,000 British students, and will intensify a battle of the sexes that was triggered last week by a BBC newscaster, Michael Buerk, who complained that life was now being lived according to women’s rules. Buerk said men had been reduced to little more than sperm donors because of the female dominance of society.

Professor Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, is no stranger to inflammatory conclusions as the author of several publications arguing there are differences in intelligence between racial groups. He published a study in 2003 that identified a clear correlation between the levels of prosperity in 60 countries and the average IQ of their populations. Professor Lynn argued in a letter to The Psychologist this month that differences between the sexes were explained by a link between IQ and brain size.

“Men have larger brains than women by about 10 per cent and larger brains confer greater brain power,” he said. “So men must necessarily be on average more intelligent than women.”

I don’t know what to think of this. It might unleash a firestorm on this side of the pond, too, methinks.

Anyway, some points against, mostly from a comments thread at Bitch Ph.D.:

1. IQ tests are not the best measurement of intelligence.
2. Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman tested only 125.

3. IQ tests are devised by a patriarchal society to favor the patriarchy.
4. Women won’t do well on IQ tests because they’re taught that smart isn’t sexy.
5. They say male distribution is broader, meaning men have more geniuses yet also more low-IQ members. That may explain these results.
6. There’s the Flynn Effect, which shows that IQ points have gone up over the last 100 years by a point a year, which might mean that people fought the First World War because they were morons. Or that two hundred years ago, people were dumber than dogs.
7. IQ tests don’t measure social intelligence. Studies show women are smarter at social relationships than men.
8. The newspaper might be lying. It’s owned by Rupert Murdoch.
9. The research might be biased. Who are these guys anyway?
10. IQ measures an abstract puzzle-solving intelligence. According to Gardner, there are many more intelligences than are measured by IQ tests. Emotional intelligence, for one.
11. Click here for an article on gender brain differences.
12. In the election, men favored Bush by a 55% to 44% margin. Women favored Kerry by a 51% to 48% margin.
13. Elephant brains are bigger than men’s brains. But they don’t take IQ tests.
14. The only thing IQ tests measure is the ability to take IQ tests.

For the record, my Dad was great at Math, but couldn’t hold a tune, and my Mom had perfect pitch, and could play the piano like Horowitz.

Powered by

About Adam Ash

  • IQ tests are not the best measurement of intelligence.

    Very true…

  • There are flaws and significant cultural biases in IQ tests, but general intelligence measures are a good analysis and predictor of a specific form of intelligence valued by white Western societies. It’s a measure of the kind of information and knowledge types valued by the victors, the wealthy nations outlined by the sociobiologist scientists in these studies, and should be evaluated accordingly.

    I kind of believe in their value when it comes to things like academics or writing ability, for example, in Western developed nations. I don’t think we should draw conclusions on people’s innate abilities or moral or social character based on IQ results.

    Why are there less women geniuses? I think it has something to do with nurture rather than nature. We don’t encourage or even allow our young girls to become obsessive about science, computers, math, music, or art. Women are always caught up in more complex webs of social responsibility due to socialization than men are and have a harder time achieveing the level of social detachment and abstract reflection that genius probably requires. Perhaps there’s some genetic component to the overdevelopment of certain parts of the brain in the rare breed of people who have extraordinarily high IQs (I’m talking above 165, not just MENSA) which probably correlates with the exclusion of other developmental skills, such as social or emotional intelligence.

    Rarely do you find one of these super-geniuses who’s a genius in every area, if such a thing exists. Normally, the most socially adapted, successful, well-rounded people are of slightly above-average intelligence but who exhibit more types of intelligence.

    That is all.

  • Marcia L. Neil

    The foisting of circumcision permission forms upon the child-bearing woman — so as to develop a particularly evil and slanted form of male intelligence
    — has yet to be fully documented or appreciated.

  • You’re a weird chick, Marcia Neil. Lay off those brazil nuts, hippie 🙂

    That is all.

  • From my internet Diary for August:

    SEX DIFFERENCE IN IQ RANGE RE-ASSERTED Differential psychologist Richard Lynn (ex-U. Ulster) and organizational psychologist Paul Irwing (ex-U. Ulster, then Manchester Business School) managed to score big-time in the media by reporting, (apparently from a worldwide literature review of cognitive tests in 57 studies [sampling unknown] and perhaps new material involving some 24,000 adult testees since 1960), that males were substantially over-represented at higher levels of IQ (some five-fold at over IQ 145) (Times, 25 viii; Sun, 25 viii; Herald, 25 viii; Daily Mail, 25 viii, p.29; BBC 25 viii (where Lynn & Irwing promptly attracted a score of responses, all critical); Glasgow Evening Times, 25 viii); The Australian (26 viii – taking the trouble to mention Lynn’s involvement in the (2002) discovery of a clear correlation between national prosperity and national IQ). The finding, to be published in the British Journal of Psychology (the flagship journal of the British Psychological Society), due out 4 xi, was in line with Charles Murray’s (2003) estimate that only 2% of the world’s top 4,000 ‘achievers’ (till 1950) had been women. {Males also scored on average 5 IQ points higher than women but this may have reflected well-known higher male spatial abilities – since spatial tests are often used (instead of verbal or numerical tests) to achieve ‘culture-fair’ assessment of intelligence.} {Good news for women was that, matching for IQ, women actually achieved more than men — perhaps because of conscientiousness or better memory due to lower alcohol intake.} {The Education Guardian (25 viii} did its best to hold the line for sex equality by having Cambridge University professor Simon Boring-Cohen reject Professor Lynn’s attempt to rope him in as to a 5-IQ-point average male superiority , saying he still believed “overall intelligence is not better in one sex than in the other” – Boring-Cohen had become well-known for acknowledging attentional sex differences in breadth of intake (pointed out in Chapter 1 of The g Factor).} {Some journalists found it odd that, despite Lynn & Irwing’s result, female students today excel males at all levels of educational achievement except Ph.D. level – neglecting that today’s “educational achievement” in Britain is largely a matter of rote learning of spoon-fed material together with hyperconscientious application to time-wasting ‘projects’ undertaken with the help of parents.} {The Guardian (Sam Jones, 26 viii, p.15) provided a handy summary of Richard Lynn’s views over the years on race, sex and class – including his brave 1996 acknowledgment (in response to my own trials in Edinburgh) that he could be called a ‘scientific racist.’ (Like William McDougall, Hans Eysenck and myself, Richard is essentially a democratic elitist.) In America, Exhibit.net (25 viii) offered a similarly wide attack on Lynn’s eugenic views. In South Africa, Mahaba.net (26 viii) drew attention to Lynn’s being supported by the ‘Nazi-connected’ Pioneer Fund. The American Outside the Beltway (26 viii) settled sensibly enough for doubting any substantial average sex difference in the g factor but agreeing that men have a wider standard deviation and thus produce far more geniuses.}

  • It seems, on the surface atleast, to be a rather irrelevant discovery, if true. First, what’s a few IQ points mean either way to actual intelligence? Second, high IQ does not have all that much of a correlation to any real world success or failure. Plenty of very smart people have done very stupid things. Just look at Gena Davis. Being MENSA didn’t stop her from making Cutthroat Island.

  • Wish these geniuses could use paragraph breaks.

  • WarHoover

    I would have difficulty thinking of a more contentious issue than this.

    First of all, the study is based on 24,000 students, which seems a fairly small sample from a narrow demographic. How do you include (or even assess) the IQ of an Mbuti Pygmi or Inuit?

    While I have never taken an IQ test, I have difficulty believing that they can accurately quantify “Intelligence” across the vast spectrum of human culture and experience. Geniuses (and simpletons) should have equal distribution across national and cultural lines, yet very unequal exposure to education in the Western sense of the word.

    Keeping gender out of the equation for now, am I supposed to believe that a person raised and educated in America or Europe and a person raised with no conventional education on a farm in the Fiji highlands with IDENTICAL intelligence will have comparable scores on an IQ test? Even if the test were somehow altered to better reflect Fiji upbringing and culture, then it would skew the results by the very fact that it is a different test. Either the same person writes both tests (in which case I would submit it would be impossible to keep that person’s cultural bias from affecting one test or the other), or a European writes the test for the first person and a Fiji native writes the test for the second person (now the tests have been written by two completely different individuals – how can the results be quantifiably measured against one another now?)

    The very nature of human intelligence makes efforts to quantify it virtually impossible, in my opinion. While it may be possible to achieve some success in crudely mapping some narrow slice of the human condition amongst a population of similar individuals, what do these results mean when they are not (or cannot, in my opinion) be taken in context with the vast reserve of human intelligence that was NOT measured? Beethoven and Einstein were geniuses in their respective fields, but how well would a standard IQ test reflect that?

    So for the group this study focused on, men scored higher in the areas tested than the women did. I think much more data is needed before you can extrapolate those results to the rest of humanity. Even if you could, what would it mean, given the narrow confines of a standard IQ test?

    I happen to believe that men and women are fundamentally different on several levels. I don’t care what Hollywood would have you believe or what is considered politically correct at the moment. Millions of years of evolution and physical differences (body chemistry, etc) aren’t going to change in a Darwinian blink of an eye just because the last 100 years have seen significant changes to our social structure.

    But you could make a case that these differences encompass only parts of a whole that could be considered “Intelligence”. For example, based on my own crude observations throughout the years, it appears that on average, the men I have come into contact with have better spatial skills, and the women I have come into contact with are more empathetic. Even more significantly, the two sexes at times seem to view the world through a different prism, interpreting the same events in fundamentally different ways. I don’t ask you to agree with me, but assuming for the sake of argument that I was right, how could I say that one is more intelligent that the other? Rather, I think that the relative strengths and weaknesses that are exhibited between the sexes tend to complement one another when viewed objectively. I belive that men are probably “Superior” in some areas and women are “Superior” in others. But I find it hard to believe that one side or the other corners the market when it comes to Intelligence because:

    A. Human Intelligence is so complex in itself that it can scarcely be defined, and
    B. Due to it’s complexity, true Intelligence most likely includes some facets that are dominated by men, and others that are dominated by women.

    Even if these results were plausible, the IQ tests infallible, and term “Intelligence” wrapped up in a neat little definition, society would never accept the conclusion. Individuals may be capable or making rational decisions at times, but as a society we are selfishly divided along political, cultural, and economic lines. We’ve all seen groups of individuals joined behind an agenda, who selectively present evidence that supports their claims while hiding, ridiculing, or undercutting evidence that refutes it.

    At this point in time it is fashionable to say that men and women are equal across the board. I intuitively know this to be false; this study actually supports my conviction (only by showing that for a small group of individuals tested across a narrowly focused set of parameters, there were indeed differences between the sexes) but misses the mark entirely in a broader sense by claiming that men are somehow smarter than women. In fact I celebrate the differences between men and women and enjoy the yin-yang relationship we seem to have developed over the eons. Our strengths and weaknesses seem to complement each other well. But if I were to try to provide firmly grounded scientific evidence to support a claim that we were fundamentally different, I would be roundly attacked by those with purely ulterior motives. Just think what would happen if I tried to introduce a purely scientific study that proved women were on average 30% less effective in combat than men? Or that men were 30% less effective politicians? Any rational discourse would be drowned out by a cacophony of emotionally- or idealistically-driven responses. What’s the use of a strongly supported theory if it’s not adopted for emotional reasons? I initially found it ironic that this study of intelligence is being met with such a visceral reaction, yet it made intuitive sense the more I though about it. Intelligence and emotion will always be inexorably intertwined, and any attempt to study one will be contaminated by the other – on both ends of the microscope!

    Keeping emotional bias out of science is a laudable goal that is only met with a measure of success. I think it’s probably easier when studying celestial bodies or the Higgs particle (although ego-driven debate erupts regularly in these fields too). But studying the vagaries of the human mind using other human minds, when the subject and the instrument of study are the same – how does one remove inevitable, intrinsic bias? The very complexity (a vast amount which is unconscious and/or emotional) of a single brain makes it uniquely unsuited to explain something as fundamental as Human Intelligence. I won’t say it’s impossible; but I won’t believe it until we as a species can create artificial intelligence that is every bit as nuanced and self-aware as we are.

    Until that time, studies like these will always be tinged with at least one very unscientific facet: human arrogance.

  • D.C.

    Who cares about this stuff?

  • Carolyn

    There is plenty of evidence from psychology, biology, sociology and anthroplogy that shows the sexes are much more alike than different and they find much greater indiviudal differences between people in most areas. Also there is plenty of good studies from parent child psychologists that show male and female babies are born bilogically more alike than different with very few differences and yet they are perceived and treated systematically very differently from birth on by parents and other care givers!

    There is a great book that came out in 1979 by parent child psychologists Wendy Schempp Matthews and Dr. Jeane Brooks Gunn called,He And she:How Children Develop Their Sex Role Idenity that documents all of these psychologists studies. Dr.Jean Brooks Gunn is an award winning parent child psychology professor at Columbia University.

    I spoke with her about this in 1994. And I asked her how she can explain all of the studies by so many psychologists that document that male and female babies are born biologically more alike than different with very few differences but they are perceived and treated systematically very differently from birth on by parents and other care givers,and she said that’s due to socialization,and then she said There is no question that socialization plays a very big part.

    Also,check an excellent thorough book called, Myths Of Gender by Brown University biologist Dr.Anne-Fausto Sterling which debunks these popular gender myths that are also common in scientific studies.

  • Carolyn

    I also want to add that it has been proven that the human brain is plastic and is easily molded and shaped by the enviornment. Certain life experiences and,social conditioning,can actually change the structure of the brain and effect the funtion of the brain. Men and women’s brains are more alike than different anyway.

    For the record, my father is a lawyer and he always said himself that he’s always been terrible in math and spatial abiliy!

  • An update on this study.

    One of the studies authors has tried this ‘higher IQ’ tactic before, but in the area of race.

    source: pandragon and article from alternet.

  • It may be true. Set aside all the arguments of test bias, examiner bias, and whether the test really reveals intelligence. In this case it doesn’t matter.

    Men may test better on IQ tests, but women have (on average) a thicker corpus callosum than men. This is one area where it doesn’t pay to be slender, since the broader pathway makes it easier for a woman to multitask.

    And “it ain’t what you got, it’s how you use it…”

  • Carolyn

    I also want to complain about you even posting such a sexist woman hating titled article and the sexist unproven claims in it! Would you have had a title and article called,White People Are Smarter Than Black People making racist claims!? You probably wouldn’t have just like you shouldn’t have promoted this either!

  • Carolyn

    In Several MRI studies of living men and women *NO* difference was found in the size of the corpus callosum! And I see all of the books you feature on here for this article all re-enforce the same popular gender myths and biases!

    Why don’t you show Dr.Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Book Myths Of Gender,and Sociology Professor Dr.Michael Kimmel’s excellent detailed study called,The Genderd Society! And a very good book by an award winning British cognitive social psychologist Dr. Gary Wood called,Sex,Lies & Stereotypes Challenging Views Of Women,Men And Relationships. Which has a lot of good research studies and examples to debunk common gender myths and stereotypes!

  • Carolyn, when YOU post an article, you’ll get to pick the books you link to. The writers here pick items that have relevance TO THEM to what they’re discussing.

  • Also, Carolyn, did you click the link in Adam’s article? He’s citing Scientific American, not Ann Gallagher’s or Deborah Blum’s books…

    Meanwhile, where’s your link to the “Several MRI studies” you cite?

  • Carolyn

    I’s mentioned in Dr.Michael’s great book,The Gendered Society and it’s mentioned on a web site called, Out Of The Cave:Exploring Gray’s Anatomy by Kathleen Trigiani who also quotes Dr.Michael Kimmel’s information. You can also probably find this on the google.com search engine.

    But my point is,would they have posted a very racist unproven article with the title,White People Have Higher IQ’s than Black People?

  • Carolyn

    By the way,

    my whole point was this article and the books featured with it re-enforce popular gender myths and gender stereotypes. Why doesn’t anyone of the Blogcritics here write an article debunking gender myths?

  • Write that article, Carolyn.
    I posted this to stimulate debate, and included many lines of rebuttal in my piece.

  • Carolyn doesn’t appear to have read further than the title, Adam – oh, excuse me, she also looked at the links.

    If I were going to argue with the Australian article, I might include Stephen Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (ASIN: 0393314251), which explores the checkered success of IQ tests in showing anything except “the ability to take IQ tests.”

    Or I might point to my spouse, whose IQ is 20 points higher than mine, or to my mother-in-law, whose IQ was only slightly lower than her genius husband’s – but that would be anecdotal.

    IMHO (and since I haven’t done studies on the topic, it’s only opinion), the biggest gender myth of all is that there is NO difference in brain development and organization between the sexes.

  • WarHoover

    Bravo DrPat. I agree wholeheartedly.

    Carolyn, when you say that studies show that men and women are “much more alike than different”, I fear that the statement is too general. Compared to what? Aren’t we genetically 99% similar to some of our simian cousins?

    I like the fact that you brought up the “Nature vs. Nurture” issue (which could fill up an entirely different forum by itself!). I’m not disagreeing with your statement that “Babies are born biologically more alike than different”. Although I’m not an expert on human biology, it seems reasonable that the earlier you go in an individuals development, the more generalized they are. Until prepubescence, I think boys and girls are very similar biologically, and it is only natural to assume that they are extremely similar as infants.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to sexually mature adults, there are too many events that occur after birth (on both sides of the nature/nurture equation) to make me believe that the similarity still exists. I think that simply stating “Babies are the same when they’re little, therefore any differences exhibited from that point on must be the result of socialization” is really missing a huge piece of the puzzle. While I agree that socialization has a critical impact in an individual’s development, I feel that failing to account for the incredible chemical and biological changes that occur as young men and women age is irresponsible.

    The real debate is how much of each factor – external societal influence vs. the biological “Clock” – affects each person’s development. I won’t even pretend to know, except to say that without a doubt, the chemical changes undergone by developing individuals DO play a role in their development, and that these changes that are experienced between men and women ARE different. Considering the staggering complexity of these changes and their role on the complex neurochemistry of the brain, I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to definitively pin down the magnitude of these effects on human intelligence or even the degree that they in turn are affected by cultural stimuli.

    As far as your spatially-challenged father is concerned, I have no trouble believing – assuming, even, that when one makes generalizations about male traits vs female traits (as I did in my post), that there will ALWAYS be individuals that don’t conform. The complex nature of the human mind virtually assures that this is so. But I still stand by my own observations that men seem to have better spatial skills and that women seem more empathetic – in general. And I feel that this is merely the tip of an iceberg. But finding an individual that doesn’t meet those criteria doesn’t poke a hole in my argument; it’s expected.

    My question to you is: What is wrong with differences between the sexes? I’m not talking about inequality or persecution here, because I support neither. But I do think that differences don’t have to imply superiority. If I were to find out it has been scientifically proven to the Nth degree that women are better multi-taskers than men, what would be wrong with that? Hell, considering my own one-track mind, I’d believe it! Similarly, even if the study in question actually did conclusively prove – over the entire population of males in existence (instead of 24,000 students) – that men are able to take the IQ test and perform better than women by an average of 5 points, what does that mean? Does a high IQ actually make one intelligent?

    There are people out there with 190 IQ’s that can barely dress themselves, let alone function socially. IQ is just a tiny slice of a greater whole when it comes to human intelligence.

  • Shark

    Jeesus, people.

    The authors of this “report” are PSYCHOLOGISTS; that’s about one rung up the ladder from Astrologer


    1) …Psychology is NOT a science.

    2) …There is no real ‘definition’ of ‘intelligence’ — and so there can be no ‘measurement’ of ‘it’.

    ~ carry on…

  • Shark

    PS: Shark believes there are a number of hard-wired [ie. nature, not nurture] ‘differences’ between male and females — but a glance at our history would show that most of those characteristics point to women as being the “superior” gender.

    ~ end of “debate”

  • Shark

    * re: “…but a glance at our history would show that most of those characteristics point to women as being the “superior” gender.”

    *assuming you value survival of the species as the main goal.


  • As a female Mensan and a non-white, I would say that if we are to believe that these tests prove that men are more intelligent than women, then these same tests should also assert that white men and white women are more intelligent than men and women of other races.

    Yet in reality, the problem that many female heterosexual Mensans face is finding a male person who is also heterosexual and as intelligent and/or doesn’t mind being with a woman of high intelligence. Gay men are not threatened by highly articulate and opinionated women who are gifted, usually in more than one way.

    The problem that has surfaced within Mensa is the inability of some Mensans to accept non-white Mensans, meaning usually black Mensans.

    The problem of being a Mensan is that you have outscored 97 percent of the population. You don’t think like the majority of the people in this country or the whole planet and yet you must work with people who do not think like you because so few people do.

    Further the danger for a Mensan is to believe, as humans have a tendency to do, that because you are a Mensan you are superior to other people.

    Three people in my family were identified as gifted: my sister, my cousin and myself. That was in elementary school. I am the only one to have gone on to a higher degree. I have not been encouraged by my family, by counselors, by most other women or by most men. One of the outreach programs of Mensa is to deal with the education and encouragement of gifted children because most educational institutes, public or private, are not structured for the exceptionally gifted child.

    I do feel that psychology is an important field of science. However, perhaps the better question is why we have a continual need to define which gender is more intelligent?

    The facts quoted seem to ignore the data from Iceland in which girls outrank boys in math, consistently throughout high school. Time magazine had an article about this, citing mostly nurture over nature and the psychological and economic environment of Iceland.

    Moreover, we do not seem to question why women in certain countries consistently outrank men in our country in math. Would this mean that Asian women are superior to American men and American women?

    As for the old brain size argument, any one past the age of two can see this is a false argument–not only across species (e.g. gorilla, whale vs. man) and interspecies (between dogs breeds, races and gender).

    Why do people feel the need to prove superiority? Isn’t that more the problem? I notice people continually need to find which dog breed is better or smarter when that really isn’t important just as whether a cat is better than a dog.

    People are not cats or dogs. People are under a lot of psychological pressure to conform to their gender, their race, their religion and their socio-economic status.

    The urge to define one over the other as superior in intelligence is more a point of egocentricism and seems to be an unfortunate human universal. Perhaps a better study would be to define what culture do not have it if any and how that informs their culture and what positive and negative effects this might have and what we might do to gather some of the positive effects.

  • G. Oren

    The current level of research in psychometrics indicates many unpalatable conclusions for those bound to a PC perspective. There are many studies that indicate the differences in male and female intellectual, social and emotional strengths etc… That there are more men with IQ’s above 125 and markedly more with IQ’s above 155 should not be surprising. It mirrors the observations of male strengths in linear thinking. The cost in asocial or antisocial behavior, complexes etc.. is also marked.

    The strength and resiliency of the female brain in multitasking and a fuller and more nuanced understanding of their environments is also well documented.

    It would be an awfully boring world if these differences didn’t exist.

    To those who claim that behavioristic changes would improve female IQ’s, I would agree to a point. Certainly, learning of math and science can be improved for girls in secondary schools. That these tests of IQ or cognitive ability, or “G” may appear sexist or racist should surprise no one. The reality of G is not the same as our egalitiarian assumptions, that does not negate the value of individuals or the basis of a pluralistic society.

    What is disturbing about the trends of modern society is not that these differences exist between gender and race, but that the future will look vastly more stratified by cognitive class as nearly all those above one standard deviation from the mean, say 115 or so (16% of the population), meet and marry each other. The demographic separation of the cognitive elite from the average and below average will continue at an accelerated pace. In addition, those below one standard deviation, say 85 or so (again 16%)have more children and have them sooner. With G having an inheritability factor of from 40% to 60%, the dysgenic effect on our society will be marked.

  • I do agree that between the sexes there are differences just as between races there are differences.

    How much of that is nurture over nature, I am not sure.

    For example, women in Japan are expected to be responsible for the household budget and for that reason math skills are considered more important for them. Here, in America, it seems the general assumption is the man is better equipped to take care of budgeting since women are not generally good with math. Also, I again refer to the study in Iceland.
    I used to believe nurture over nature until I met my second and third cousins in Japan. We have many behavioral characteristics in common.

  • Nancy

    LOL, since men are more intelligent, and they rule the world (provide almost 100% of the leaders, etc.), then that means they have even less excuse than before for botching it so badly.

  • Steve

    You raised some good points, Purple. I would also agree with those who posted saying there are various kinds of intelligence, not just cognitive.

  • Steve

    Careful, Nancy, if women really were less intelligent the mess would be bigger! Also, they say, behind every good man is a good woman..maybe the bad men don’t have good women to back them up!

  • Incidentally, folks, since studies have shown that the intelligence (as measured by IQ tests, naturlich) of a couple’s sons is more likely to be predicted by the IQ of the mother than the father, we all ought to be preferring them brainy-type womens.

    Over time (an eon or so), that preference will result in a switch between whether more women than men get high marks on the test.

    Okay, tongue out of cheek now…

  • Actually there is at least one religion, the Baha’i Faith, that believes the education of the woman is more important than the education of the man because as mothers, women are the first educators of children.

  • Adam A.

    A woman, Lisa H., picked you for a pick of the week, so I’m not too sure what that does for the theory. 🙂

    Click HERE to find out why.

    Thank you for the writing.

  • Thank you Lisa. I’m sure your navigation skills are better than mine. And thanks, Temple.

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    yeh men MAY be SLIGHTLY smarter than women but it is a fact that women are better at things such as, multi tasking, spacial awarness, comunicating and are less likely to get altsimers , downsindrom ( im not good at smelling) and other mental disabilities and are more likley live longer and be healthier. so HA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! HA

  • I think you smell just fine, KIK!

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    ok…..who r u talking to?…….

  • Ricardo

    The nature versus nurture debate is over. Thank you.

  • Angela

    I think that if it is fair to speculate on intelligence by gender then it should not be taboo to speculate on intelligence by race.

    Studies have shown racial disparity exists in IQ and it is wrong to only skewer women for lack of high IQ, and it’s destructive aspect in society.

    I am a woman (IQ 126) and I agree that men are generally smarter than women and society should take that into account. Men and women are better at different things, both are equal in their contributions to society but unequal in their abilities(I think the same is true of different races). Sorry ladies but you usually don’t do so well at business and technology. By the same token men are usually not the most caring and understanding (or law abiding) people–imagine a one sided world for a second–all men and there would be perpetual war and not one flower or cute little animal in sight–all women and there would be no technology, limited medicine and science. Not saying that NO women do well–many women do, but in todays society well qualified men are overlooked in favor of women because of the PC bias (same with affirmative action for minorities) and it’s rubbish!!

    Men should have had respect for the vital role women play instead of forcing them to gain respect by taking the jobs of men. Facts are men made us feel stupid and worthless for being the nurturers and carers–betcha wish you could eat all those barefoot and pregnant jokes now huh? Women who are smart should be encouraged to pursue intellectual endeavours (after all worlds highest recorded IQ was Marilyn Vos Savent at 228!!) but we shouldnt kid ourselves with this everyone is equal crap. I’m a fairly intellectual woman and I just cannot have an intellectual conversation with a woman!!! They are too liberal, too PC, too bleeding heart to be logical. Many have accused me of being more like a man in thinking–so there ya go! Men and women provide BALANCE by complimenting each others strengths and compensating each others weaknesses. Women are more honest, kind, and resillient (we have to be to deal with cruel men), better at english in school than men. Men are more logical, technical, and cutthroat (have to be–either on the hunt or in the business world), better at math than women in school.
    Now–just because men and women aren’t equal does not mean one is inferior to the other. If your child was lost would you prefer it to seek the help of a women or a man? Why would you prefer a woman? Is it because women are less dangerous, and have more of a desire to help than to hurt or exploit? In matters of morality women would be superior, but who do you call when the computer is on the blink or the refrigerator has stopped running?

    I hope that these type of studies extend to race as well and hopefully we can end the bulls*!t that is political correctness and get back to a peaceful (well somewhat) harmonious (at least in our homes!!) society.

    Liberal PCers please don’t respond–I used to be one of you and it darn near killed me!!

  • Jan

    I think it’s a social thing – women may have the potential for genius, but don’t often use it as much as men, because you have to have a certain confidence, even arrogance about your inner world – your inner conviction that stands apart from the crowd. In the past, it was a matter of survival for women to not do that. Humility and taking a backseat to men was the order of the day, once upon a time, and a lot of that social conditioning is still with us.

    I think a lot of women have poor self-esteem compared to men, basically. We’re socialized so it’s harder for us to learn to take criticism, to believe in ourselves enough to really aggressively defend ourselves or our ideas when it goes counter to social norms. You may have genius, but in order for that genius to be recognized you have to have that assertive power.

    It’s also part nurture. It was said that Mozart had a sister who was as talented as he was. But her music and her talent were just not encouraged and developed and her music lost. I wonder how many women geniuses in history had talent like that, and it was just wasted, deliberately shut down, or ursurped by others?

    Take the case in this century of Lise Meitner (who’s sad story is acted out in part of the new PBS movie “Einstein’s Big Idea.”) She dedicated her whole life to her work, only to have her ideas taken and her role downplayed by her male partners, who won the Nobel Prize while she was shunned and shoved to the back seat like so many women before her. Siegbahn, the head of the institute where she worked in Stockholm was actively anti-woman and was believed to have worked against her at the Nobel committee.

    Even today, there is sexism still floating around in mainstream culture. It always surprises me when people say we’re living in a “post-feminist” world. Yeah right. In some fields women’s contributions are downplayed and their ideas not taken as seriously. Some people are still also extremely threatened by a woman who wins, who is more powerful and successful than her peers. So there is always the potential for receiving anger rather than accolades. The reward system isn’t always in place for women. Take a sensitive genius type and place them in a position where they feel threatened or unrewarded and they just might keep their secret genius to themselves next time. We all lose.

    The world is slowly changing now, though, and I bet we see more women geniuses in the future. I may be an optimist, but I see women forging new ground in arts and sciences, religion, perhaps new forms of thought altogether – just gaining the confidence in our visions that we were denied in history when we had no feminism and democracy to protect us. That atmosphere will allow our intelligence free rein.

  • somer

    my iq is 113 is that good

  • Carolyn

    I had read the entire article! And I pointed out that the there is a large amount of research studies that have found much greater individual differences between people and much greater similarities between the sexes. There is a new major study that combined over 40 studies done in a 20 year period by psychologist Dr.Janet Hyde that found very few gender differences including in math,communication,verbal abilities,and cognitive abilities and there is a recent article in The Guardian Online about it written by Oliver James where he says at the start of this article,that genetic determinsts are wrong,there are few inborn gender differences. And the study was published in the American Psychologist in September. It’s really sad to see a few women on here have been taught to believe the sexist inaccurate biased myth that men are smarter than women and still believe it in this day and age! Of course the study and claims made in this article on here don’t help dispel these myths! It’s also true that many if not most people are threatened by debunking of gender difference myths since they have been taught to believe them all of their lives and our society is saturated in them and re-enforces them everywhere everyday! Men and women are more biologically alike to each other that’s who even our gentitals are very similar the clitoris and penis remain very similar because we start off exactly the same in the womb and our human similarities remain,as I said our brains have been found to be more similar than different as well. The sexes have also been found in decades of studies and tests to not be different in general intelligence.

  • Ricky

    tiger, women arent the supier gender, men are because god is a man and he created everything and eveyone, plus about the history thing, thats not true way more men are commonly known for famous history.
    women clean cook annoy lol,help reproduce etc

    men build a home, make money, reproduce,buy useless thing that a women begs for, make peace, protect, do all the building work out side.

    women complain about how men lay around the house all day, well women should try building heavy shit and other fucking hard shit

  • sr

    Ricky. Not sure if I want to waste my time in this sandbox. If I had half the brain of my wife and daughter I would consider myself a genius. My wife is an accountant and great at math. She at one time worked on the MX Missile System. My daughter fly’s million dollar jets with the US Navy. At one time during the cold war I worked with nuclear missiles. What I do know is men and women were created equal except for brest’s and other body parts. Screw this IQ crap. It’s bullshit.

  • poopy

    Bottom Line…..Shows/contests such as JEOPARDY,(with no gender bias;if any towards non white males),ovewhelmingly have white males as winners,Thank You!Good Night

  • Sean

    “In the election, men favored Bush by a 55% to 44% margin. Women favored Kerry by a 51% to 48% margin.”

    What would this have to do with anything? Based on military officer entrance exams, George W Bush was found to have approximately a 125 IQ and John Kerry only 120 anyway.