Log in

No account? Create an account
"In the city of my birth, I had a dream..."
The guy famous for "scientifically" concluding that blacks are innately stupider... 
14th-Sep-2006 02:48 pm
Well, guess what? He's back!

And this time, he concludes that women are more stupid than men.

Well, there are a lot of things that I could say, but let's start with the obvious one-track critique: Umm...HELLO test bias!? Your standard IQ tests (which I'll assume, unless proven otherwise, were used) are well-established to be biased in favor of white, (upper) middle class MALES. Not to mention that the way in which the study is presented to those females tested could cause them to underperform.

Also, I can't help wondering if the populations tested were actually representative. It's already known that males tend to skew more very high and very low on the bell curve, whereas women cluster more toward the middle. Did he randomly select that cohort of 17-18 year olds from a census, or did he only test those with at least enough mental capacity to function in a normal high school?
14th-Sep-2006 09:20 pm (UTC)
*rolls eyes*

The only reasonable conclusion you can draw on the face of it is that women subjects scored lower on average on a standardized IQ test than did male subjects.. And, like you say, such tests are of doubtful validity ^^

Personally I think IQ tests should be abolished, but that's just me......
15th-Sep-2006 01:36 am (UTC)
I think IQ tests can be an important diagnostic tool when in the right hands, but people seem to think that a single number can somehow encapsulate the entirety of our psyches--and that's just plain wrong, even a priori.
15th-Sep-2006 01:45 am (UTC)
Just the idea that intelligence is one isolated thing that can be tested in a standard way with every single person... I don't buy it........

There's also more focus on the EQ now, which would likely show me as a high functioning autistic ^^;;;
15th-Sep-2006 01:48 am (UTC)
*laughs* You never know! You might have a higher EQ than you think. After all, I'd always thought I had a touch of face blindness, but when I took those tests, I scored above average.
15th-Sep-2006 01:54 am (UTC)
I'd be afraid to find out ^_^;;
15th-Sep-2006 01:55 am (UTC)
Knowledge is empowering! Ignorance is NOT bliss! *ho ho ho*

Hey...why can't I highlight text on the LJ site anymore? *gargh*
15th-Sep-2006 02:04 am (UTC)
LJ seems to be playing with things today ^^;;

On the other hand, if you tell a kid he has a low IQ and will never do well in school, I bet there's a good chance he'll live down to it, no matter what......
15th-Sep-2006 11:13 pm (UTC)
My favorite part about the pseudoscience in the article was how men must be smarter because women only want to breed with men who are smarter than they are. Umm...like, HELLO? Even if IQ (whatever it actually means) is genetically pre-determined, both male AND female offspring of such a coupling would be equally likely to inherit his smarts...'cause whatever genes code for it, they ain't on the y chromosome.
14th-Sep-2006 11:01 pm (UTC)
Also, from what I've read about this, he tested more women than men. So how do we know the numbers wouldn't have changed a bit? I don't even want to give this a second thought. It's stupid. Besides things like the standard IQ tests, they used the example of chess champions. How many little girls do you ever see being groomed for something like that? That's like saying girls are more likely than boys to win the little Miss Go Texan pageants.
I love that when a scientific study comes out, it's never conclusive. They always have to do more studies and more research, etc. But whenever they get something sensational, suddenly it has to be broadcast all over the world.
That guy can kiss my ass. I'm smarter than every man I know in real life.
15th-Sep-2006 01:40 am (UTC)
But whenever they get something sensational, suddenly it has to be broadcast all over the world.

*nodnod* ESPECIALLY when it confirms the majority's superiority. I'm not surprised that it was the conservative Daily Mail that was fastest to pick up on this.
15th-Sep-2006 02:29 am (UTC)
I suspect that the results of this study have a lot to do with the results of this vastly more interesting and worthwhile study.
15th-Sep-2006 11:34 am (UTC)
There's another study I've never seen but my stats professor (clinical psych PhD) told me about. They found that the average measured IQ score for women actually starts declining at about age 15 or 16.. The theory to explain it is simply social influences, boys don't want girls to be smarter than them, so girls intentionally or unintentionally start dumbing themselves down to attract a mate >_< Not unlike the findings in your article...
15th-Sep-2006 11:17 pm (UTC)
*nods* Stereotype bias is a well-established aspect of standardized testing of the IQ/SAT/GRE sort. Also, scores on these tests are much less good at predicting future academic and employment success for minorities than they are for the white, middle class males. So not only are Rushton's premises misleading, his conclusions (women are stupid, therefore they aren't CEOs) are too.
15th-Sep-2006 09:52 pm (UTC)
Prof Rushton believes the differences are directly linked to brain size, with other studies showing men having slightly bigger brains than women.

It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it. Seriously though, there has been no correlation whatsoever with brain size and intelligence. We clearly have a Nobel candidate here who's going to revive craniology in 2006.

IQ tests can only accurately measure abstract thinking - not actually IQ. Anything else requires a certain context and vocabulary which would give unfair advantage to those with different backgrounds. However, it ignores the unfair advantage of someone with a strong math background, which will allow you to ace most IQ tests.

The whole concept of IQ is (or originally was) centered around child development. It's pretty much stupid and meaningless for anyone over the age of 18 IMO. It's mostly used by loser adults who can't point to any real achievement, so they point to a score on some silly test developed by psychologists that think craniology is a viable science.
15th-Sep-2006 11:20 pm (UTC)
IQ tests can only accurately measure abstract thinking - not actually IQ.

*shrugs* No one can really tell you exactly WHAT IQ is, anyway. IQ is simply that which is measured by IQ tests, and the number translates into a certain amount of predictive power (more for some than for others).
This page was loaded May 21st 2018, 10:35 am GMT.