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 sexesHalf 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.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Tan The Man
IQ tests are not the best measurement of intelligence.
Very true...
2 - Bob A. Booey
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.
3 - 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.
4 - Bob A. Booey
You're a weird chick, Marcia Neil. Lay off those brazil nuts, hippie :)
That is all.
5 - Chris Brand
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.}
6 - The Errant Fool
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.
7 - Victor Plenty
Wish these geniuses could use paragraph breaks.
8 - 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.
9 - D.C.
Who cares about this stuff?
10 - 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.
11 - 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!
12 - Steve S
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.
13 - DrPat
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..."
14 - 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!
15 - 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!
16 - DrPat
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.
17 - DrPat
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?
18 - 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?
19 - 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?
20 - adam
Write that article, Carolyn.
I posted this to stimulate debate, and included many lines of rebuttal in my piece.
21 - DrPat
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.
22 - 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.
23 - Shark
Jeesus, people.
The authors of this "report" are PSYCHOLOGISTS; that's about one rung up the ladder from Astrologer
...since...
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...
24 - 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"
25 - 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.
[heh]