To interact with this page you must login.
Signup
philosophy
understand
IQ scores have gone up over the last 100 years -- with women's IQ increasing faster than men's.
Also, white people also score better than black people. If you're going to argue that men are smarter than women by using IQ tests as evidence, then you must also accept that white people are smarter than black people.
OR just realize that IQ are not some "true" measure of intelligence. They are strongly affected by society -- hence the increase in scores.
So, no, science has not at all proven that men are smarter than women.
I have no doubt however that you'll reject all of this. You'll find some other way to explain the discrepancy between whites and blacks, and the rise in IQ scores, but continue to say that IQ scores "prove" how women are inferior. You latch on to any evidence suggesting the inferiority of women while rejecting any evidence that suggests that sexism might actually be a real issue.
Science has proven that females do better than males in school, and that the IQs of men range higher than the IQs of women. These are facts, unfortunately or not.
"You latch on to any evidence suggesting the inferiority of women while rejecting any evidence that suggests that sexism might actually be a real issue."
Do you think I actually enjoy saying women are inferior. Of course not! No, you refuse to admit that IQ is a great measure of intelligence. You think it's a terrible measure, which it's not.
"IQ is a terrible measure of intelligence. It's also not at all a measure of genetic, ingrained intelligence."
Are you sure about that?
Can you explain from the information in the table image above, of the rows I've highlighted, why there is DIRECT correlation? Of all the rows of the table I've highlighted (to do with money, education and prison), they move up or down in succession in each table column. The numbers do not alternate from higher and lower, instead they move in succession. This is not a coincidence!
The higher your IQ is, the more money you make, and the lower your IQ, the more likely you are to be in prison. These are basic facts, controversial yes, but it's true.
Considering that IQs of males range from low to high, and IQs of females sit in the middle, is it due to the patriarchy or genetics, why men make up the outstanding achievers in society (making more money as the table shows), as well as the scrap heap of society (in prison as the table shows)?
Also IQ is genetic and innate, it cannot be changed no matter how many degrees you have. You are wrong when you say IQ is not a measure of genetic ingrained intelligence, because IQ cannot be changed, it is genetic and innate. and will stay the same throughout your life no matter how many degrees you have. If IQ can be changed, you should be able to join Mensa? If IQ can be changed, why don't British people have higher IQ,s considering you cannot go bankrupt or in debt due to a student loan in Britain?
Yes I do know it is politically incorrect to say that men's IQ range higher (and lower) than women, making men more intelligent than women, but I felt I would be doing a disservice to the Quora Community if I kept the information to myself.
IQ scores have not gone up. They've gone down. In the olden days people had to utilise intelligence to hunt animals, create machines, make tools, work in factories. Nowadays we live off modern conveniences like the internet, television, supermarkets, iPhones, and have easier lessons compared to 100 years ago, so the need for intelligence among a wide spectrum of people has lessened. From an evolutionary standpoint, IQ was beneficial to people's survival, but now we have a thing called welfare where parents get more money for each kid they pop out, it is decreasing the IQ of the population. IQ is actually going down because people have less need for intelligence the more technologically advanced our societies get, because we can live off the successes of other people's achievements (ie. welfare, child support, alimony, smartphones, free education).
White people have higher IQs than black people due to genetics and evolutionary biology. As crazy as it sounds, this is true. Personality traits that people have, are passed down via genetics, such as mental disorders, mating strategies and fears of blood or spiders. The reason why white people are more intelligent than black people, is because in the olden days, white people had to utilise fire in order to keep warm (more than black people) as they could die in the cold, they utilised more tools like wheels and hammers (more than black people). If you look back at history, before the invention of farms, you will find that the white people were more intelligent than blacks. In the days of slavery, white people had machines and boats, and black people did not (as much). White people needed more intelligence because they lived in a harsher climate. White people living in a harsher climate compared to black people is why white people are more intelligent. These genes have been passed down to today, which is why white people are more intelligent than blacks and why black people are more agile than whites. I have actually researched this on the internet and am not making this up. I've seen several people give the same reasoning in this paragraph.
Science has proven that females do better than males in school, and that the IQs of men range higher than the IQs of women. These are facts, unfortunately or not.
Yes, but IQ != intelligence.
Okay, let's think about this. There are multiple types of questions on an IQ test, right?
Is there ANY type of question that a woman might, on average, do better on than a man (for example, verbal) than a man? Okay, now why are those questions worth X% of the test? What if you made it more? You would then see men with lower IQs than women.
Also, realize that IQ is hugely impacted by education and exposure.
This is not a coincidence!
The higher your IQ is, the more money you make, and the lower your IQ, the more likely you are to be in prison. These are basic facts, controversial yes, but it's true.
Of course it's not a coincidence. IQ scores is indeed correlated with income and all these other things. That doesn't make it an effective measure of intelligence. It might instead just be measuring education, test-taking ability, and some other things.
Considering that IQs of males range from low to high, and IQs of females sit in the middle, is it due to the patriarchy or genetics, why men make up the outstanding achievers in society (making more money as the table shows), as well as the scrap heap of society (in prison as the table shows)?
Genetics COULD be a factor. It could also be so many other things. Men and women are treated differently in society from the time that they are babies.
Also IQ is genetic and innate, it cannot be changed no matter how many degrees you have.
Really?
Ever heard of those poor children who are locked up in a closet for years and utterly deprived of all human contact? You think they would score just as well on an IQ test as a normal human being? You're arguing after all that IQ is genetic and innate.
What about a person who has suffered brain damage? Surely they might score much worse -- despite the fact that their genetic intelligence is the same.
You are wrong when you say IQ is not a measure of genetic ingrained intelligence, because IQ cannot be changed, it is genetic and innate. and will stay the same throughout your life no matter how many degrees you have.
Really? Take a kid who is easily distracted. He might measure poorly on an IQ test because he literally doesn't focus. If he then learns to focus (or starts taking drugs to help him focus), he might find a substantially increased test score.
If IQ can be changed, you should be able to join Mensa? If IQ can be changed, why don't British people have higher IQ,s considering you cannot go bankrupt or in debt due to a student loan in Britain?
What? I have no idea what you're talking about here.
IQ scores have not gone up. They've gone down.
False. There has been an 18 point increase between 1947 and 2002.
5 Experts Answer: Can Your IQ Change?
Yes your IQ can "change" if you change your lifestyle (eat healthily and get lots of sleep), and it can "change" if you become more educated, but IQ has a limit. Those experts are not telling you the full picture, because there is a limit, to how high someone's IQ can be.
There is no amount of education someone with a 120 IQ can do to raise it to 160.
1. Someone's intelligence is in fact impacted by their environment. There is a genetic component, yes, but there's also a strong environmental one. You seem to believe that, other than in extreme cases of neglect or brain impairment, your intelligence is totally hard-wired by your genes. This is false.
2. Intelligence is a very complex topic and there are many aspects of intelligence. There's verbal intelligence, emotional intelligence, spatial reasoning, etc. Trying to define a person's intelligence, when there are multiple factors in it, is like trying to create a single number of someone's health. How do you compare someone with cancer but full use of their limbs to a totally paralyzed person? Any single number for intelligence must choose some way to weight these different aspects (and it might even have left some parts out). This weighting is not necessarily correct -- nor is any weighting necessarily correct. What does this number even mean?
3. IQ tests are taking this flawed equation for intelligence and trying to test it, and those scores are inherently unreliable. Some people will be able to focus more than others, and this will impact their IQ score. Some people will have more confidence than others, and this will impact their IQ score. Some people will just be feeling sick or just in a bad mood that way, and that will impact their score.
So your reasoning is deeply flawed.
- Intelligence has a big environmental impact, so the discrepancy between men and women cannot be assumed to be genetic.
- The things that an IQ test attempts to measure aren't necessarily correct.
- And even if those things were correct, the scores aren't necessarily accurate.
Everyone in the Western world spends at least 12 years in education because the government makes it's illegal to not go to school. This means that by the time a child finishes school, their IQ would have already been optimised to its highest potential.
People in Scotland get free university and people in Singapore have to pay for it in advance. Does this mean that Scottish people have a higher IQ than Sporeans because they have a better environment (due to better access to education)? Of course not!
Intelligence is a very complex topic, but that doesn't mean that we can't quantify it.
How do you compare someone with cancer but full use of their limbs to a totally paralyzed person?
IQ tests are very good at quantifying someone's intelligence. This is a basic fact.
Some people will just be feeling sick or just in a bad mood that way, and that will impact their score.
Oh no! Do this mean that IQ tests should be scrapped for being flawed? Does this mean that English, Maths and Science exams should also be scrapped because some people won't feel good or might be sick? Don't be silly. The grades people get in exams or IQ tests are good indicators of how clever (IQ tests) or smart (exams) that person is.
So your reasoning is deeply flawed.
So the people doing the studies deliberately falsified their results, because there's no way in hell that people with higher IQs have more money and people with lower IQs are more likely to be in prison, so the results must be forged.
I cannot believe that you are calling the studies that have actual evidence, reasoning and causation behind them, wrong, when it has been backed up by science. Is this what feminists do, deny basic facts and blame everything on the patriarchy? (They also do this with the pay gap and unrealistic standard of beauty.)
There's no way that men's IQs can range higher and lower than a woman's, there's no way I'm going to listen to science and proven facts that have causation, and direct correlation in succession. I have an alternative theory. It's the patriarchy's fault. The patriarchy is causing it. The patriarchy is oppressing women in every industry in every country.
Stop looking at the world in binary.
Yes IQ does vary across countries.
A single number can represent intelligence.
No, IQ is a good measure of intelligence. You are denying this simple fact.
When people fail their exams, it is typically because they didn't revise or because they didn't know how to answer the questions, not because they couldn't focus properly, be confident or sit still. You are clutching at straws.
Your IQ cannot be increased as it has a limit. It can only be optimised.
So it's the education system's fault why the IQ of females doesn't vary from low to high like males? Typical feminist, saying "it's the patriarchy's fault!"
No. It is due to genetics. I can list several examples of such.
Feminism rejects all these ideas that men and women have different brains and says that all gender roles and stereotypes are a social construct, and blames it on men, blames it on the patriarchy.
Men's IQs range from low to high and women's stay in the middle due to genetics, because this happens in every country in the world.
The more we learn about the brain, the more we learn that free will doesn't exist. We like to think that people have what is called a "rational agent" that can interpret situations around them, and do the best possible action they can do in that situation, but often we find that people who choose wrong actions, do so because of their genetics or environment.
"We believe in free will because we understand behaviour but not its causes" ~B.F. Skinner
Hundreds of years ago if a psychotic person was to kill someone, they would go to prison, but now they go to a psychiatric ward instead. Because we understand the causes of someone's behaviour (mental illness), we deem them as not responsible for their actions. The same applies to mass murderers in prison, as many of them have what is called a Warrior Gene that genetically predisposes them to kill others - because of this we deem them not responsible for their actions. The same would apply to people with a low IQ. They would be genetically predisposed to go to prison, murder someone, be unemployed, sell drugs, because they have a lesser intelligence and therefore lack a rational agent.
People with less intelligence have less of a rational agent than people with a higher intelligence. It is simple as that.
Do you want to know how I've proved causation? Because the numbers in the graph move directly in succession? If 50% of the population have a 90-110 IQ, how come LESS of them are in prison compared to 5% of the population with <75% IQ?
This is not a coincidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone having a higher IQ is much more likely to be better educated and thus earn more money. Someone with a lower IQ will not be as educated as much and is thus likely to be selling drugs. These are basic facts!
The causation is staring you in the face. You just refuse to believe it.
1. Ability to focus affects someone's score. I didn't say that it would cause a person to "fail." Please stop looking at the world in binary.
2. I suspect I have far more knowledge about the tech company hiring process and why they ask you to design algorithms than you. I probably have more than whoever it is that you spoke to. They ask you as a measure of intelligence and problem solving skills, not IQ score. You might think these are synonymous, but I don't.
By the way, the reason that IQ tests were deemed to be discriminatory is that they couldn't be shown to have value.
3. There is a ridiculous amount of evidence that a better education causes people to do better on IQ tests.
IQ tests are not flawed because it is impossible for over 50% of the population to get their IQ as high as 160, but it is possible for over 50% of the population to get a degree. Explain that.
I don't even know what I'm trying to prove. Of course it's impossible for over 50% of the population to score above 160. The tests are curved to have the same average.
Because the numbers in the graph move directly in succession? If 50% of the population have a 90-110 IQ, how come LESS of them are in prison compared to 5% of the population with <75% IQ?
This is not a coincidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since they're all moving, how do you know which one is the cause? You assume that IQ is causing an improvement in education. What if the improvement in education is causing the increase in IQ?
There are so many links showing the impact of education on IQ I'm not even sure why you're debating this. Can you provide some research showing that education does not affect IQ?
IQ isn't fixed at birth, can increase with education
IQ Test Experts - Can IQ Be Improved? - IQ Articles
Environment and intelligence
Why are we getting smarter? Further reading on the “Flynn effect”
So the reason why women's IQs stay in the middle and men's range from low to high, is because women or men are less prone to being able to focus? Stop clutching at straws.
Technology employers wanting your intelligence and problem solving skills. is because they really want your IQ. I've spoken to a technology employer, and he confirmed that they give you puzzles because they really want your IQ. If "intelligence and problem solving skills" was so important in the hiring process, they would have gone by your qualifications and work experience, as those people can do the job too.
Education can give someone a better IQ score, but it cannot bring someone with a 100 IQ to 140 or someone with 140 IQ to 160. IQ cannot be improved, only optimised as it has a personal limit.
It's possible for over 50% of the population to get a degree, but it's not possible for over 50% of the population to get 120 or 140 on an IQ test, because the test measures someone's innate and genetic intelligence. Intelligence can only be optimised, not increased. Each person has a limit of how high their IQ can go, no matter how educated they are. You cannot educate yourself into having a high IQ (one that goes past the average).
The Flynn effect is wrong. We are actually getting dumber, not cleverer. The government is encouraging people with crappy genes to reproduce as the death rate among native citizens with high IQ is higher than the birth rate and intelligent people have less kids. This is partly why we have immigration.
I've given you evidence that IQ has fallen, and you've given evidence that IQ has risen. Who are we supposed to believe here?
Because the numbers in the graph move directly in succession? If 50% of the population have a 90-110 IQ, how come LESS of them are in prison compared to 5% of the population with <75% IQ?
This is not a coincidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since they're all moving, how do you know which one is the cause? You assume that IQ is causing an improvement in education. What if the improvement in education is causing the increase in IQ?
Stop denying factual things you don't want to believe. People with a higher IQ are more educated and more richer. People with a lower IQ are more likely to rely on welfare and end up in prison. These are basic facts which are directly caused by IQ. The fact that the numbers move up in succession and that less 90-110 IQ people are in prison despite being 50% of the population compared to 5% of the population, proves this.
You moan at me for not accepting that discouragement is primarily why women are under-represented in technology and other industries, whilst you refuse to admit that they IQs of women sit in the middle and for men it's low to high, and that the more IQ you have, the richer and more educated you are, the the lower IQ you have, the more likely you are to be on welfare and be in prison. These are basic facts that you are denying.
These are basic facts that have causation that you are denying because you are being ignorant and closed minded, but you accuse me of it for not accepting that women are under-represented 100% due to discouragement.
You are denying basic facts, that someone's IQ causes them to be having money, better educated if high, or on welfare or in prison if low - and then saying my answer is bigoted when I can back up my argument with science.
So the reason why women's IQs stay in the middle and men's range from low to high, is because women or men are less prone to being able to focus? Stop clutching at straws.
No. I didn't say that.
Technology employers wanting your intelligence and problem solving skills. is because they really want your IQ. I've spoken to a technology employer, and he confirmed that they give you puzzles because they really want your IQ.
Yeah, again, he's wrong. (Or, more likely, you misinterpreted what he said. Just like you do to me all the time.) It's not about IQ, it's about intelligence.
Education can give someone a better IQ score, but it cannot bring someone with a 100 IQ to 140 or someone with 140 IQ to 160. IQ cannot be improved, only optimised as it has a personal limit.
Great. We agree. Education impacts someone's IQ score.
It's possible for over 50% of the population, but it's not possible for over 50% of the population to get 120 or 140 on an IQ test, because the test measures someone's innate and genetic intelligence.
The Flynn effect is wrong. We are actually getting dumber, not cleverer.]
What do you mean, it's wrong? Are you saying that someone falsified data?
I've given you evidence that IQ has fallen, and you've given evidence that IQ has risen. Who are we supposed to believe here?
You found evidence that IQ score has fallen within a particular segment of the population. I have evidence that it's risen overall. These don't conflict.
These are basic facts which are directly caused by IQ. The fact that the numbers move up in succession and that less 90-110 IQ people are in prison despite being 50% of the population compared to 5% of the population, proves this.
No, it doesn't. Correlation != causation. How do you know it's not education causing this?
You moan at me for not accepting that discouragement is primarily why women are under-represented in technology and other industries, whilst you refuse to admit that they IQs of women sit in the middle and for men it's low to high, and that the more IQ you have, the richer and more educated you are, the the lower IQ you have, the more likely you are to be on welfare and be in prison. These are basic facts that you are denying.
Actually, I'm not denying any of that. Male IQ scores might be more extreme. I certainly agree that IQ is correlated with wealth and education and lower likelihood of prison. I have never denied that.
What I'm disagreeing with is the cause of that. You appear to see IQ as the sole reason for this, which is obviously wrong.
To be clear, I agree with you that:
- Higher IQ people tend to be wealthier and more education.
- IQ scores are correlated with intelligence.
- Intelligence causes you to attain more wealth and education.
Where I disagree is on the significance of that. The correlation between IQ and education is education causing an increase in IQ, much more so than the other way around.
I'm really not sure why I'm debating this. It's really very well established that education makes a strong impact on IQ.
These are basic facts that have causation that you are denying because you are being ignorant and closed minded, but you accuse me of it for not accepting that women are under-represented 100% due to discouragement.
I never said it was 100% due to discouragement. Please don't treat the world as binary.
It has been widely observed that the birthrate of countries tends to fall as they become more wealthy. Most countries in Western Europe now have birthrates below the replacement (death) rate; in the absence of immigration, their populations can be expected to fall in the future.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/
Tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period.
Among those in the upper half of the intelligence scale, a group that is typically dominated by children from middle class families, performance was even worse, with an average IQ score six points below what it was 28 years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4548943/British-teenagers-have-lower-IQs-than-their-counterparts-did-30-years-ago.html
People who are more intelligent and educated than average tend to have fewer children. This premise has been born out in numerous surveys conducted in many Western countries. Yet while this elite group is producing offspring at a rate close to their own natural die off rate (or less), the overall population continues to grow at an ever increasing rate. If intelligent people have fewer babies, then logic tells us that it must be the less intelligent, less educated people who are having more babies.
[source]
Source: http://ozziesaffa.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/apocalypse-of-stupidity-one-possible.html
People who are more intelligent have less children, so when poor people with lower IQs breed, they are making the gene pool have crappy genes and reducing the amount of good genes in comparison.
The bigger a population gets, the more the average IQ in that population lowers. As stated in the quoted paragraph above, there is evidence that the Flynn Effect has diminished. Although the population is growing, the rate of which the population is growing is slowing down, which causes the average IQ to continually lessen, more than education.
Also there is a direct correlation between IQ and wealth (yes causation). It's not just me saying it, other people are saying it (like in the source above that I just quoted that has bold text), and other statistics separate to the one I gave you in the image of the table are saying it (check the source above I quoted that has underlined text). It is no coincidence that multiple sources of information (I have given you two of them) says that money and education is directly correlated to IQ. I know you don't want to admit this, because feminists to blame men for all the problems and ills in the world. (Women are victims, men are villains. It's the patriarchy's fault!) If you want, you can go to the website and look at the statistics yourself.
Yes countries with better education have higher IQs, but the average of people's IQ is reducing over time, because the more technologically advanced a society gets, the less we need intelligence from an evolutionary standpoint. I have explained why this is, before.
The website I went on used statistics to say that the average IQ in the world, is falling. Look at the blue line.
If you look at the increasing or decreasing IQs in the graph above, you will find that countries with an increasing population growth rate (China) have an IQ that gradually keeps going down. On the flip side, countries with a decreasing population growth rate (like India) have an IQ that keeps going up. So much for education being a primary factor (as you said). (Yes more educated countries do have higher IQs [source]). It is more of a secondary factor.
Feminists reject all rational theories that IQ could be a major factor, and blame it all on men, the patriarchy, that the patriarchy is stopping women from entering these roles. Just like the pay gap, just like the "unrealistic standard of beauty" from the media, just like rape jokes allegedly trivialising/normalising/causing rape, just like how feminists say we live a society that tells women not to get raped but not telling men to not rape, feminists reject all rational explanations for why all those things don't exist (because they have a victim complex and participate in the oppression olympics), and blame it on men, the patriarchy, and say that only a matriarchy or 50/50 representation in everything will solve those things. Such a belief is misguided and is hard to reason with. This is partly why 71% of Americans aren't feminists, because they cannot be reasoned with reason or logic and because they blame everything on the patriarchy (which does not exist).
They are absolutely correlated. No dispute there.
China: 0.5%
India: 1.3%
United States: 0.7%
UK: 0.8%
Also, look at the years. China's IQ is actually increasing. The projection is that it will eventually decrease, but we don't know that.
I found statistics that the average IQ of people in the world is decreasing, and you found statistics that it is increasing. So who are we supposed to believe? I don't think we can ever have a resolution on that.
Remember the “Flynn Effect”? It turns out that even James Flynn now agrees with the new mainstream consensus that genotypic intelligence is declining over time. The Flynn Effect was merely capturing enviromental improvements that temporarily boosted average IQ for a few decades.
Author Richard Lynn is most responsible for noticing this more fundamental decline. So I propose we name this the “Lynn Effect” – the fact that world IQ is now declining over time — and the genetic contribution to intelligence appears to have been declining for over 100 years now.
So there you have it, the person who the Flynn effect was named after (of which you linked the Wikipedia page for me to read), now believes in the Lynn effect. How can someone believe in two contradicting theories, that the average IQ of the population is going up and down at the same time? The answer is that they can't. This means that he has implicitly implied that he was wrong about the Flynn effect, or maybe that the Lynn effect of decreasing IQs is more prominent than increasing IQs.
http://rockstarresearch.com/the-lynn-effect-how-the-worlds-iq-is-in-decline/
He says that the average IQ of people has been declining over the past 100 years.
You're right that I was wrong about China's birth rate. I assumed it was higher than India due to the line of IQ going down instead of up.
If you think that discouragement is primarily causing women to be under-represented in technology and leadership roles, then by definition, you are blaming the patriarchy for it. Also if you believe in the patriarchy, you'll also believe that it oppresses (or hinders) females, and benefits males. You'll then also believe in male privilege.
I am mentioning the patriarchy, because it is relevant in how Third Wave feminists think.
You cannot pick and choose when to believe in the patriarchy or not. You either believe in it or you don't. I don't believe we live in a patriarchy, and you do (because you're a feminist). So in my head, I would think that those teachers, managers and employers who you've seen do discouragement to women, are a part of the patriarchy (a male dominated management structure in society). So if you are blaming discouragement for why women are under-represented (which you did), you are by definition, blaming the patriarchy for it. You told me before that males dominating leadership roles was a male privilege, so by your viewpoint and world-view, the patriarchy oppresses or hinders women and benefits males.
Most people I know believe that men and women have already reached equality in society, so the fact that you would blame the patriarchy for why women are under-represented in technology and leadership roles (because men discourage women etc), shows that to people who are not feminists (me) and that you do not think that men and women have reached equality.
I think that men and women have reached equality in society, and you do not. That's why I'm not a feminist.
"For example, if I say that discouragement is a factor, you assume that I'm saying that discouragement is the sole cause."
In two different comment threads, it was the only factor you gave me for why women are under-represented, so it leaves me no choice but to believe that to you it was a primary factor.
"You also believe that discouragement is irrelevant as long as people are physically capable of doing something."
I am not the only person who has this view. I know several people who are not feminists, or are even anti-feminists, and they all share the same view, that discouragement is not a primary factor. No, I do not believe that the patriarchy is oppressing women in every country in every industry to ensure that women do not enter leadership roles. There is more evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I am not disputing that discouragement does exist and that it does affect people, but if a person is not stopped from pursuing their dream due to discouragement, it does not make much sense. Feminism is giving me the idea that women are not responsible for their own choices or for making decisions, because women willingly quit pursuing technology due to discouragement.
I looked at the Why don't more women attend hackathons question on Quora, and one answer said they stopped attending because they were asked questions like "How does it feel to be the only woman here", citing that as a reason why they quit. If you had reversed the genders and asked the only man in a room full of women "How does it feel to be the only man here", the man would not of quit going to hackathons because of that. So how come women do, and men don't?
I think it is bizarre to think that every industry in every country in the world has women being under-represented in leadership roles to primarily due to discouragement. There has to be something else at play. Blaming it primarily due to discouragement promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their own decisions. (Is this internalised misogyny?)
This is something that feminism does. Feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their choices, no matter how reprehensible, such as saying that women's prisons should close (as female murderers have mental illnesses but men ones don't), that fat acceptance should be embraced (for women only and not men), that statistics of women committing domestic violence in equal measure to men are flawed.
Feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their decisions, no matter how reprehensible. If you say it's primarily due to discouragement, you are implying that women aren't responsible for their decisions. The answer cannot be this simple and straightforward to just say it's discouragement primarily (as you have two times in two different comment threads with me). There has to be something else at play. I do not think it's very intelligent to brush it off as just due to discouragement, as male brains and female brains differ significantly.
I found statistics that the average IQ of people in the world is decreasing, and you found statistics that it is increasing.
These aren't in conflict with each other. The IQ of the world is decreasing. The IQ of many countries is increasing.
How can someone believe in two contradicting theories, that the average IQ of the population is going up and down at the same time? The answer is that they can't. This means that he has implicitly implied that he was wrong about the Flynn effect, or maybe that the Lynn effect of decreasing IQs is more prominent than increasing IQs.
No. You misinterpreted this.
What he says is that genotypic IQ -- the portion of IQ that is due to genetics -- has decreased in many countries.
The Flynn effect is measuring IQ in general, taking into account both genetic and environmental factors.
It is in fact entirely possible -- even likely -- that IQ within the US has increased why genetically this same group of people has gotten "dumber." This is what those links were describing.
The reason that you're getting so confused is that you are absolutely convinced IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence and that it's entirely genetic.
If you think that discouragement is primarily causing women to be under-represented in technology and leadership roles, then by definition, you are blaming the patriarchy for it.
It depends how you define "discouragement." When I say discouragement, I am also referring to subtle, implicit social pressures. I think environment, as opposed to genetics, is the primary cause for the underrepresentation of women in tech and leadership.
I am not disputing that discouragement does exist and that it does affect people, but if a person is not stopped from pursuing their dream due to discouragement, it does not make much sense.
Because you see the world in binary.
Feminism is giving me the idea that women are not responsible for their own choices or for making decisions, because women willingly quit pursuing technology due to discouragement.
That's not a logical conclusion. Recognizing that social pressures affect people does not mean that individual women aren't responsible for their choices.
I looked at the Why don't more women attend hackathons question on Quora, and one answer said they stopped attending because they were asked questions like "How does it feel to be the only woman here", citing that as a reason why they quit. If you had reversed the genders and asked the only man in a room full of women "How does it feel to be the only man here", the man would not of quit going to hackathons because of that. So how come women do, and men don't?
I'll bet men would do the same thing. In fact, I've had men tell me that they felt uncomfortable somewhere because it was largely women.
Feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their choices, no matter how reprehensible, such as saying that women's prisons should close (as female murderers have mental illnesses but men ones don't), that fat acceptance should be embraced (for women only and not men), that statistics of women committing domestic violence in equal measure to men are flawed.
These are not typical feminist beliefs, other than maybe the last one.
Feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their decisions, no matter how reprehensible. If you say it's primarily due to discouragement, you are implying that women aren't responsible for their decisions.
Nope. Doesn't follow.
Look, do you think black people are genetically more violent and more prone to abandon their children? Of course not (hopefully). So why are they more likely to? Because of a variety of social pressures. Recognizing that society plays affects behavior doesn't mean that the person has no responsibility.
The answer cannot be this simple and straightforward to just say it's discouragement primarily (as you have two times in two different comment threads with me). There has to be something else at play. I do not think it's very intelligent to brush it off as just due to discouragement, as male brains and female brains differ significantly.
Maybe there is something ingrained. I can't rule that out. However, since representation varies across cultures and times, it is pretty easy to conclude that society plays a very important role.
These aren't in conflict with each other. The IQ of the world is decreasing. The IQ of many countries is increasing.
So how come this article exists in the 7th richest country in the world where education is free? British teenagers have lower IQs than their counterparts did 30 years ago - Telegraph
This is just like how Boro Haram could burn hundreds of boys alive with impunity, but the minute he kidnaps girls and later lets them go, it's an international outrage and Ellen DeGeneres and Michelle Obama make placards saying #BringBackOurGirls. A woman's life is treasured and a man's life is worthless. The Disposable Male.
There are lots of different types of cancers, but the one that gets the most prominence in the media, is breast cancer. Testicular cancer or even lung cancer or leg cancer is not important (that affects everyone), only women's cancers are important. That is discriminating against men. Why can't the pink breast cancer badge be a badge for all cancers, why only for women? This is another example of The Disposable Male in action. The Disposable Male is present everywhere in society.
If you actually think that men commit more domestic violence than women, you are wrong, because statistics will prove you wrong. Your response supporting the opposite, shows that you support The Disposable Male without realising.
The difference between black people abandoning their kids more than white people, and women being under-represented in technology and leadership roles compared to men; is that black children do not blame their fathers being absent on the patriarchy where most of the people in power are white (black role models anyone?), whereas women blame being under-represented in technology and leadership roles, due to the patriarchy. This proves that feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their decisions.
Black people understand that if we lived under a 50/50 split of the genders in every industry or even lived in a matriarchy, it wouldn't affect whether their fathers are present in their lives, but feminists say that it's the patriarchy's fault why women are not in technology or leadership roles, which is ridiculous as the pay gap and glass ceiling does not exist.
Rather than listen to rational arguments and evidence, they instead blame it on the patriarchy. I know some feminists on this site who believe in the pay gap. This shows they are either naive, deluded or lying.
Tearing down the patriarchy is possibly feminists' number one goal, and they view the pay gap, airbrushed women, Barbie dolls and men dominating politics as patriarchal. Feminists blame all the problems and ills of the world on the patriarchy, and says that only a matriarchy can fix it. This is why it is wrong, because that is dumb. It also paints women as victims and men as villains, including the unemployed man because he has "male privilege". Feminism is about villianising men because feminsts compete in the oppression olympics and relish telling stories about how oppressed they are in the 21st century, talking about how evil the patriarchy is when in fact it's anything but that. This is partly why is a hate movement.
1. IQ scores have increased across most western countries. This is a fact. Do you dispute it?
2. You are correct that you can't clearly distinguish between genetic intelligence and environmental -- which undercuts your argument the people have gotten dumber. We can only take guesses that genetic intelligence has lowered. We can't know for sure.
3. It's widely known that intelligence has a major environment component. Look up studies on this.
4. Many men do not enjoy being in a female dominated environment. They might joke that they would, but they actually don't. They feel out of place.
5. The pay gap is not disproven. It's very complicated.
Almost all of these issues are too complicated for you to understand though since you continue to view the world in binary.
2. Yes.
3. I do know that IQ and intelligence has a major environmental component. Yesterday I saw a graph that showed that better educated countries had higher IQs, and Africa was the continent with the worst IQs.
4. I cannot be sure whether men feel insecure or intimidated in a female environment, as my life experience has showed me the opposite. However I can believe that it happens like you say it does, yes.
5. The pay gap is disproven. It is not caused by the patriarchy (men) but instead because of lifestyle choices (that women make). Feminists reject all rational explanations for why the pay gap does not exist, and blames it on the patriarchy. This is why people do not think they can have rational arguments with feminists.
Feminists prefer to and would rather blame things (like the pay gap) on the patriarchy, than to listen to rational explanations for it being anything but that, because they secretly enjoy villianising men and victimising women. This is partly why feminism is a hate movement.
This is why people do not think they can have rational arguments with feminists.
I'm sure the people in the statistic image I showed you, were able to complete an IQ test without being distracted.
As I said before, the person would have an low IQ because of their inability to complete the test *due to a lack of focus), not because they're dumb.
The easily distracted person is in fact able to complete the test. He just doesn't focus on the problems and so he makes too many mistakes.
I absolutely agree that his low score isn't because he's dumb, and that's my exact point. IQ scores are not a great measure of intelligence since they're impacted by too many other things, like education.
I'll link the graphic again.
The population distribution for >125 IQ and <75 IQ is both at number 5%, so how come more <75's are in prison compared to >125's?
If there's much more people with 90-110 IQ (50% compared to 5%), then how come LESS of them are in prison than the <75's? Shouldn't there be more of them in prison, considering there's much more of them? .......... Hmmmmmm.
Think about this stuff carefully. There's actual evidence staring in the face that actually puts reasoning behind statistics with a direct correlation with incremental changes in succession, rather than to quote statistics alone and have you put your own spin on it.
You cite: Ability to focus? Self confidence? So more people with a lower IQ are in prison, with a direct correlation in succession, because of lack of focus and self confidence? Really???????????
So much for calling me closed minded refusing to listen and consider opposing beliefs, who is doing that now?
I think it is very intelligent to consider other factors besides discouragement, as I do not think that discouragement provides the whole story.
IQ is correlated with lots of things (prison rates, teen pregnancy, etc). I totally agree with that. This doesn't mean that it's actually measuring intelligence.
If I created an "intelligence" test which measured someone's knowledge of vocabulary words (which I assume you'll agree is largely determined by education), I'd find a correlation between it and prison rates. Does this mean that I've measured intelligence? Of course not.
2. These things are not just correlated (IQ and prison rates), they are also causation as well.
IQ tests are made in such a way, that someone with less education can outsmart people with more education. Remember, IQ tests measure how clever someone is, not how smart they are. An IQ test would never test you on how many words you know, as that would be a "smart test" instead of a "clever test".
I did the 11 test when I was 11. They give you a verbal reasoning and non verbal reasoning paper to complete. Absolutely nothing I had learned about in school was in those exam papers, and I passed the exam and scored more than most adults. That test definitely does measure intelligence, how your brain works.
I think you should complete a 11 test paper and see.
Could you pass the 11-plus? Exam papers first used in the 1950s puts your family to the test
Intelligence is about piecing information together from your memory and environment and then finding patterns and making correlations with it so you can then understand the world around you better. Dumb people cannot do this as well as clever people.
The words that have to be filled in the blanks in order to answer the question, the person doing the test has probably seen hundreds of times (in school), so if they cannot complete those questions, it's not because their education is bad, but instead because their brain is not good at remembering words they've seen hundreds of times. This is a sign of having a bad brain, not a sign of a bad education.
I'm sure the people who make the test considered this.
Please show me what you think a good IQ test is. I would like to see some sample questions.
It's as simple as that.
If X and Y are correlated, then:
- X caused Y
- Y caused X
- X and Y have a common cause, Z.
1. Make more money.
2. Become more educated.
3. Be less likely to rely on welfare.
4. Be less likely to go to prison.
It's not just a correlation, it's a causation as well.
The more we learn about the human brain, the less evidence there is for free will. Maybe you should also accept that people in prison are only there due to their genetics.
The problem is that you are assuming that IQ tests are a great measure of intelligence and thus asserting that it's causal.
Do you think that poor people have genetics that hard wires them to have substantially lower scores?
People who are born poor are not born poor due to their IQ, but people with lower IQs are more likely to enter poverty or not be able to escape it, as the image statistic table I showed you, illustrates.
Can you point me to what you think of as a good IQ test?
You are wrong.
Society does not impact people's IQ scores. Everyone goes through at least 12 years of mandatory education, so it's the same.
Everyone might go through 12 years of education, but the quality of education varies dramatically.
Are rich people smarter? - Curiosity
hildren who are adopted by wealthy parents score an average of 12 points higher on standard IQ tests than children adopted by low-income families. This difference in scores persists regardless of the biological mother's socioeconomic status, suggesting that the influence of child's environment is more important than the influence of the child's genes.
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html
More time at school 'boosts IQ'
The research, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggested that an extra year in the classroom could boost IQ by nearly four points.
European IQ map proves Brits are brainy
He concludes that in Europe, adults in Germany and the Netherlands have the
highest average IQ at 107, compared with 100 across Britain. The UK is also beaten by Poland (106), Sweden (104), Italy (102), Austria (101) and Switzerland (101).
But Britons are brighter than people in Belgium (99), Spain (98), Hungary (98), Russia (96), Greece (95), France (94), Romania (94), Turkey (90) and Serbia, which finishes bottom with 89.
No. IQ has not risen over time. You are wrong. IQ is falling over time.
IQ has fallen because nowadays we live off modern conveniences like the internet, television, supermarkets, iPhones, and have easier lessons compared to 100 years ago, so the need for intelligence among a wide spectrum of people has lessened. In the West, a poor person with a low IQ can keep popping out kids who will as well have a low IQ while receiving more money for each kid they pop out. This makes the population more stupid, whilst a rich person cannot have loads of high IQ kids because of child support being proportionate to their income so they would risk bankruptcy. The government is making the population dumber and dumber on purpose.
Socialist countries make the population dumber by allowing those with crappy genes to reproduce (with welfare) and punishing rich people with good genes to not reproduce (with child support).
Also what are the chances that a child is going to be raised in an "upper middle class" background where they go to private school? .................. Negligible and very slim. You are using upper middle class backgrounds, 1% of the population, to say that the 99% of the population can be just like them. That makes no sense.
I know people earning £40,000 who still live with their parents, and they're in the global 1%, and they cannot afford to send children to private school or get a mortgage. You're comparing the majority of people, (the working class and middle class) to millionaires who make up 0.0000004% of the population.
IQ has fallen, not risen. This is a basic fact.
People with higher IQs are smarter due to genetics, not education.
Germany and Netherlands having the highest average IQ of 107 is an average IQ, not a high IQ. The evidence you are giving me to refute my argument and backup your claims, is futile and silly, because there is no country in the world where the average IQ is as high as Stephen Hawking's (160). The changes that countries do to IQ compared to each other, are mostly irrelevant due to their negligible differences..
The evidence you gave me said that the average IQs of countries range from 90 to 110. Well these are ALL average IQs.
This proves that the extent of which an IQ rises, is negligible, because you're still having an average IQ that is average, regardless.
Also I've watched a tv show where they got experts to improve people's lives in order to optimise people's IQ, and they couldn't improve their IQ more than 7 points.
It has been widely observed that the birthrate of countries tends to fall as they become more wealthy. Most countries in Western Europe now have birthrates below the replacement (death) rate; in the absence of immigration, their populations can be expected to fall in the future.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/
Tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period.
Among those in the upper half of the intelligence scale, a group that is typically dominated by children from middle class families, performance was even worse, with an average IQ score six points below what it was.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4548943/British-teenagers-have-lower-IQs-than-their-counterparts-did-30-years-ago.html
How do you explain the 15 point increase in IQ over a generation? Do you think people have been breeding more smart genes somehow? (with british teenagers somehow being left out of this)
Now you are hearing what you want to hear and are taking things out of context because you do not like the sources I have given you. This proves that you have lost the argument if you have to do that.
Global IQ: 1950-2050
The Flynn effect is an undisputed yet enigmatic aspect of IQ testing. Shortly after the first IQ tests were standardised, it was observed that the scores of those taking them tended to rise from year to year, as much as 15 points (one standard deviation) per generation.
British teenagers have lower IQs than their counterparts did 30 years ago - Telegraph
The trend marks an abrupt reversal of the so-called "Flynn effect" which has seen IQ scores rise year on year, among all age groups, in most industrialised countries throughout the past century.
...
He found that while children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by up to half a point a year over the three decades, teenagers performed less well.
This is due to evolutionary biology (as we can live off the successes of others with welfare etc) and because the government encourages poor people with crap genes to reproduce, while punishing rich people with child support proportional to their income.
When you change the dropdown box on the site to Animation, you see the bars in the bar charts getting smaller and the mean IQ getting lower, year by year.
Now for link number 2.
The trend marks an abrupt reversal of the so-called "Flynn effect" which has seen IQ scores rise year on year, among all age groups, in most industrialised countries throughout the past century.
Did you see what the sentence you quoted says, it marks an abrupt reversal of the Flynn effect, that's right, the Flynn effect is becoming obsolete. The information I am finding on the internet is saying that the IQ of humans is gradually decreasing over time (ie. the gif animation above with year by year metrics).
He found that while children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by up to half a point a year over the three decades, teenagers performed less well.
So if you compare a 5-10 year old to themselves as an adult, their IQ increases, but if you compare a teenager to an adult, their IQ decreases? I don't know about you, but a 5-10 year old's brain is not fully developed, so I would consider the teenager as a more reliable starting point, compared to the adult, to be any more reputable than comparing adults to 5-10 year olds. Of course an adult's IQ is going to be higher than someone who is very young. That's obvious. When a child goes through puberty and they physically and mentally become an adult (due to brain changes etc), that's when the real adult changes happen. Also, have you considered that a 5-10 year old's IQ is higher than a teenagers, because young children's brains are far more receptive to learning language, than an adult's?
The IQ of people in our society and the world is decreasing as our society becomes technologically more advanced and more populated. This is a fact that you do not think is true. The average IQ of people is decreasing, not increasing, as the gif animation above shows.
Feminists are the most vocal advocates of censorship in the West. Look at the way they respond to Facebook posts, tweets, tumblr posts, blog posts, etc. You say I'm not a Top Writer due to this answer I wrote being bigoted, when my answer is anything but that.
This shows that the average IQ is decreasing around the world.
Around the world, yes. Not in many countries.
This is due to evolutionary biology (as we can live off the successes of others with welfare etc) and because the government encourages poor people with crap genes to reproduce, while punishing rich people with child support proportional to their income.
But this hasn't been the case in the exact countries that have these welfare systems.
Now for link number 2.
> The trend marks an abrupt reversal of the so-called "Flynn effect" which has seen IQ scores rise year on year, among all age groups, in most industrialised countries throughout the past century.
Did you see what the sentence you quoted says, it marks an abrupt reversal of the Flynn effect, that's right, the Flynn effect is becoming obsolete.
No no. It says that the Flynn effect was otherwise true, but just not in a specific subgroup.
> He found that while children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by up to half a point a year over the three decades, teenagers performed less well.
So if you compare a 5-10 year old to themselves as an adult, their IQ increases, but if you compare a teenager to an adult, their IQ decreases? I don't know about you, but a 5-10 year old's brain is not fully developed, so I would consider the teenager as a more reliable starting point, compared to the adult, to be any more reputable than comparing adults to 5-10 year olds. Of course an adult's IQ is going to be higher than someone who is very young. That's obvious. When a child goes through puberty and they physically and mentally become an adult (due to brain changes etc), that's when the real adult changes happen. Also, have you considered that a 5-10 year old's IQ is higher than a teenagers, because young children's brains are far more receptive to learning language, than an adult's?
You misread this. First of all, IQ is measured using age, so the IQs of children and adults are the same. Second, this study was saying that children now outperform children from 3 decades ago.
The IQ of people in our society and the world is decreasing as our society becomes technologically more advanced and more populated. This is a fact that you do not think is true.
It's not true. It's false. The world's IQ is decreasing but NOT western societies.
You say I'm not a Top Writer due to this answer I wrote being bigoted, when my answer is anything but that.
Please stop making everything binary. That is not what I said.
This is what I said: you hold bigoted beliefs and won't consider that they might be wrong, or have a rational coherent discussion on them.
There are three things I mentioned there, not one.
The Flynn effect that you cite for why IQ in Western society was increasing, is only temporarily. The Lynn effect is not. My other comment explains this with an added source people can look at.
The link you speak of, did not say that the IQ of children improved compared to 3 decades ago. You are hearing what you want to hear."
British teenagers have lower IQs than their counterparts did 30 years ago - Telegraph
The world's IQ is decreasing in Western societies, I gave you a link showing you how it is in Britain, and that's the 7th richest country in the world.
If I hold bigoted beliefs, like you say I do, does that make me a bigoted person? In my opinion, I would come to the conclusion that the answer would be yes. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am capable of having a rational coherent discussion. It's just that you refused to admit certain things that are true.
You refused to admit that IQ was a great measure of intelligence, rather than terrible.
You refused to admit that IQ is innate and due to genetics, and it can only be optimised, not increased exponentially as there is a limit to how high a person's IQ can go, no matter how many degrees they have.
You refused to admit that someone with an IQ of 100 cannot improve it to get to 120.
You refused to admit that 50% of the population can get a degree but not 50% of the population can have an IQ higher than 120.
You refused to admit that IQ is what makes people perform better at education, rather than it be the other way around. Although the reverse is kinda true, it implies that a person's IQ is limitless, which it isn't, so it's misleading. IQ is what makes people perform better at education. Education has a limit of how much it can raise IQ.
You refused to admit that welfare, child support and alimony is making the IQ of the population decrease by encouraging people with crappy genetics to reproduce.
You refused to admit that the average IQ of people is going down because of our society getting so technologically advanced, that we can free load off other people's achievements (ie. welfare, child support, alimony, smartphones).
You refused to admit that the government is encouraging poor people with crappy genes to reproduce by giving them more money for each kid they pop out, whilst preventing the rich with good genes from reproducing due to child support proportional to their income.
You refused to admit that the Flynn effect of IQs increasing around the world (and in the West) is not the full picture, that it only works temporarily before going back to the original IQ, and that the Lynn effect talks about permanent IQ decreasing. Even when I gave you a gif animation showing you the decrease in IQ in every sequential year, you denied this.
I will let you off for thinking that puzzles in technology job interviews aren't about IQ, even though they should be going by your qualifications and work experience alone.
Although you admitted that people with a lower IQ are more likely to go to prison (because you don't care about the men in the scrap heap of society as much as you do about the men outnumbering women when it comes to elite positions), you refused to admit that the higher your IQ, the more education you have and the more money you have, and that these life chances are more rooted down to IQ (genetics) and not education (environment).
You do not want to admit that your IQ causes you to make more money any be better educated if it's high, and be on welfare or in prison if it's low, because you'd rather blame the patriarchy for the disparity between the genders. "It's the patriarchy's fault!"
It’s no coincidence that the most insidious ideologies of the world, those responsible for incomprehensible death and destruction, always portray their target market as victims. This is the first prong of the strategy. The second prong is to sell these emotionally vulnerable folks a beautiful dream in which they are elevated out of their quagmire with little to no effort on their part and are simultaneously revenged against their evil oppressors.
Communism, for instance, depends on poor people hating and feeling victimized by the rich, because it’s the rich’s fault they’re poor. “If only communism were instituted, our poverty would disappear!”
Communism, for instance, depends on poor people hating and feeling victimized by the rich, because it’s the rich’s fault they’re poor. “If only communism were instituted, our poverty would disappear!”
WWII Nazism depended on convincing the German people that the Jews were to blame for all their problems. “If only we got rid of all the Jews, our businesses and communities would be restored to their former glory.”
Feminism depends on convincing the women that the men are to blame for all their problems. "If only we got rid of the patriarchy, and we had 50% men and women in every industry and institution or 100% women, our lives and life chances would be better than men as male privilege would cease to exist."
When Martin Luther King aimed to end slavery, he never aimed to paint black people as victims and white people as enemies. He spoke of black boys being friends with white girls. When Rosa parks refused to get out her seat on the bus, she didn't see herself as a victim. However feminism paints men as villains.
Feminism is the only ideology that says you're empowered and a victim at the same time. That's why it's cancerous.
I can make a list of things that you believe in that I fail to admit. There are only eight of them.
1. My answer has bigoted views and I am a bigot.
2. I cannot have a rational discussion with you.
3. I don't want to consider I am wrong.
4. I do not believe that women are under-represented in technology and leadership roles primarily due to discouragement, as I believe there are other factors at play such as IQ
5. Someone's environment (education) plays a greater part in determining someone's IQ and potential IQ than their genetics.
6. Men and women are not equal in society (I believe that they are).
7. I do not think that the patriarchy exists (you do).
8. I should stop making everything binary.
Discouragement isn't a big evil scary thing as you would have me believe. Thinking that less women are in technology, politics or anything else due to a lack of role models, gendered toys and verbal discouragement, is silly, as it doesn't account for the huge disparity we see between the genders in society when it comes to leadership roles.
Feminism says that when women go into nursing or psychology fields it's due to internalised misogyny, but when men work dangerous jobs like fighting the war or being a firefighter, they're doing it out of their own free will. You think that society makes women not want to pursue technology (due to a lack of role models and other factors of discouragement). This double standard of women entering pink collar jobs due to internalised misogyny and men entering death professions due to their own free will, is a double standard and viewpoint that feminists have is ridiculous and flawed. Feminism is telling me (and other anti-feminists) that women are not capable of being responsible for their own choices if they are so easily swayed by discouragement (eg. lack of role models, gendered toys).
I bet if all discouragement ceased to exist everywhere in the world, and males still dominate technology and leadership roles (which they still will if discouragement was abolished everywhere worldwide, let's be real here, stopping discouragement isn't really going to open the floodgates), you still would have trouble considering that IQ differences between men and women has anything to do with human achievement, and you would have no patriarchal excuses to fall back on for why the gender disparity in certain jobs still exists.
That is why your argument is flawed.
You're talking all over the place and making up that I said things that I didn't. This is why I find it so difficult to have conversations with you.
There are well established facts by experts:
1. People score better on IQ tests now within most western countries as compared to several decades ago.
2. There is a large genetic component to intelligence and a large environmental component to intelligence.
3. The environment that impacts your intelligence is not only your official schooling. It also includes your early childhood exposure (for example, having parents who talk to you a lot).
4. IQ does not wholly define intelligence. It is probably correlated with intelligence, but it is not a perfect measure of intelligence.
It is LIKELY true that:
1. Genetic intelligence has dropped over the last 50 years.
Now, please tell me, clearly, whether or not you agree with those facts.
As for the rest of what you said I refused to admit: much of that you made up. In fact, a bunch of those I actually agreed with earlier.
Okay then. If you think I am making up things you said which you didn't, that is understandable and I apologise. The fact that I repeated myself some times, I had assumed that you had not understood certain things.That was a severe fault on my part.
I agree with everything you've said in your previous comment. Yes they are all facts.
There are certain courses and subjects at university which are dominated by males (technology), and certain ones which are dominated by females (psychology). It has hardly anything to do with discouragement (like you say) such as gendered toys, a lack of role models, and verbal discouragement, but more to do with genetics and male and female brains being different.
Every time science proves that men are better at maths and women are better at english via brain scans, or that men are better at logical thinking and women at intuitive thinking, or that men are better at being hairdressers and women are better at receptionists, or that the IQ of men ranges from low to high instead of in the middle like women which is why men make up outstanding achievers as well as the scrap heap, or that IQ is directly correlated and causes you to make more money and be more educated if it's high, or be on welfare or go to prison if it's low, guess what happens?
Feminists reject all rational explanations of those things which are backed up by science, and blames it on men, the patriarchy.
(And then you call my answer and myself bigoted for me enjoying proving that men are better than women)
Feminists blame the pay gap on the patriarchy when it has been debunked, they blame the "unrealistic standard of beauty" on patriarchy, they blame there being a culture of "teaching women not to get raped but not telling men to not rape" on the patriarchy, they blame women being oppressed on the patriarchy.
Feminists reject all rational explanations for why all these things don't exist, and blame it on the patriarchy.
It's as if they enjoy being in the oppression olympics in order to villianise men
Feminists reject all rational explanations for why all these things don't exist, and blame it on the patriarchy.
This is why people do not think they can have rational arguments with feminists.
You're not any different. The fact that you believe in the pay gap and that it's caused by the patriarchy, proves this. I read your answer on Why is feminism needed in first world countries and you list three examples why you think it is. Abortion being illegal (if feminism was just about that, more people would be feminists), rape jokes, and job listings that mention women fetching beer as a perk.
I can picture how a feminist would think reading your answer now. "It's the patriarchy's fault that abortion is illegal, men are oppressing women because of the patriarchy. It's the patriarchy's fault that rape jokes exist, as we live in a rape culture that the patriarchy causes and Axe and Old Spice adverts add to this by portraying the image that women exist solely for their bodies to please men. It's the patriarchy's fault that job listings list women fetching beer as a perk, as the patriarchial media teaches young boys that women are to be homemakers who cook in kitchens and play with dolls in toy adverts as well as patriachial institutions like Hooters which I do not recommend 8-12 year old boys, going to, to teach them how to be around attractive women, as it will warp their viewpoint on attractive women. It's the patriarchy's fault! Men (all of them) are the villains, all problems men face (which are much less than women's) are caused by the patriarchy, and male privilege exists!"
The words I've underlined, show typical feminist code words for man hating and sweeping men's issues under the carpet. It's no wonder that feminists are the most vocal advocates of censorship in the West (look at the way they react to quora answers, tweets, facebook posts, articles etc). Do you see Nokia asking the government for help to defend against Apple? So why do feminists censor opposing views?
Feminists reject all rational explanations for why all these things don't exist, and blame it on the patriarchy. Men are not routinely oppressing women on many different levels by outlawing abortion as prostitution being illegal oppresses against men so it's equal on both sides, there is no rape culture, Hooters isn't sexist, and gendered toy adverts aren't responsible for why more women are homemakers than men.
The patriarchy does not exist. I'll repeat that. The patriarchy does not exist.
Read this. It is written by an anti-feminist (like myself), and he gives the same reasoning I give, for why women are not CEOs not as much as men (lifestyle choices and genetics). It's not a minority antithetical view, except on feminist heavy sites like Quora,
However, you'll read it, disagree, and say "It's the patriarchy's fault!"
http://allthingswittyandneko.tumblr.com/feminists
PS. He said that feminism is a hate movement aiming for gender supremacy and free rides. Have a think about why many people - outside Quora - nowadays think that.
FYI, patriarchal oppression is a code word for man hating. Open your eyes. Feminists love talking about how much they are oppressed by the patriarchy in the 21st century, because it gives them a good excuse to man hate and villianise all men.
FFYI. Male privilege is a code word for trivialising men's suffering and throwing it under a bus. This is why feminists accuse men of male privilege when they disagree with them. A feminist on this site said that unemployed men benefit from male privilege and that an unemployed man would have it harder if they were a woman. Such irrational views, prove that feminists are misandrists, because feminists do not listen to reason or logic. They rely on censorship for this reason.
FFFYI. Feminists construct mythical and trivial issues such as hurricanes being named after women or the Blurred Lines lyrics being about rape (the fact that Robin complains about blurred lines says he wants a clear yes or no answer), because they find any excuse to villianise men.
Feminism is a hate movement about gender supremacy and free rides.
This is an official report that clearly screams that women taking the SAT are weaker in maths when compared to men. There is 32 point difference in the mean scores of 2 genders. That definitely says something.
Either feminists are full of doublespeak or they are ignorant. It's as if feminists enjoy having a victim complex. It's as if feminists, enjoy being oppressed, because whenever you prove them wrong in any aspect, they refuse to listen.
You cannot have a rational argument with a feminist if they believe in the pay gap and still do even after you've debunked it. Next time you have an argument or debate with a feminist, convince her that the pay gap is not real. It shall provide a good "litmus test" as to whether she is a rational thinker or not.
I did research on this, and I found a good theory as to why black people are inherently less intelligent. Various traits are passed down through our genetics, and as Europeans lived in a harsher climate, they had to utilise more intelligence than black people in order to survive. They could have died in the cold for example, so they needed better shelters and they needed to use fire more often.
Searching "african tools hunting" and "european tools hunting" "white people tools hunting" "african hunting tools" "european hunting tools", shows that Europeans had better hunting tools than black people did.
500,000 years ago, Africans used hunting tools such as these.
540,00 years ago, Europeans used hunting tools such as these.
Why are Africans born 40,000 years after Europeans, having worse hunting tools? This proves their intellectual inferiority.
This proves that black people in the hunter gatherer days had worse tools than white people in those days, which further proves the theory why black people are less intelligent than white people today.
Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2233557/The-birth-weapons-Man-began-hunting-stone-tipped-spears-200-000-year-earlier-previously-thought.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2443667/Melting-snow-reveals-remarkably-preserved-5-400-year-old-bow-arrows-used-hunt-reindeer-Norway.html
====================================================================
A feminist told me that a lack of role models in the media (such as a lack of role models or seeing men dominating them on tv) causes women to not enter male dominated fields. I thought for a moment, and asked her how that can be the case. I said, "If you as a woman kept applying for programming jobs and kept getting rejected, you could attribute it to being a woman and then give up because of it, but if you applied for a computing course and got rejected, it would have nothing to do with you being a woman, so wouldn't the logical conclusion to make, is that discouragement isn't a major factor, as if it was, there would be a 50/50 split in all courses, as discouragement should only affect people in environments of inequality?" What do you think about that argument?
Isn't a bigot someone who is intolerant of other people's views or creed? Are you confusing bigotry with prejudice? Yes I do have prejudices, but doesn't everyone else? Having prejudices doesn't make someone intolerant.
Having prejudices doesn't mean I'm intolerant of their views of other people. It's human nature to put people into categories and define them by their labels. Everyone does this. I think it would be naive to believe that most people don't have prejudices. The fact is that most people are too scared to reveal their prejudices on an open forum.
What do you think is the reason for the disparity between the scores of men and women?
PS. I'm neither white nor black. I'm Asian. I'm sorry for any hurt sentiments. It is
Well if a racial or gender disparity exists in every country in the world, then I cast that off to a genetic difference rather than an environmental one.
For example, women live longer than men in every country in the world and have more mental illnesses than men in every country in the world, so it's obviously to do with genetics and not the environment.
The IQ differences between men and women are like that in every country in the world, so it's obviously to do with genetics and not the environment.
Feminists have a double standard. If you say that females are superior to males in one aspect, they don't bat an eyelid, but the minute it's the other way round, they scream sexism and "gender is a social construct".
Also, I agree with everything you have said. This double standard feminism irks me to no end. Hell, even the country I live in-which is India- has extremely sexist laws. No one- NO ONE- has a problem with that, but as soon as a single person proposes a thing which is remotely biased towards men, everyone starts screaming at the top of their lungs on social websites and is seen with MASSIVE respect. That's why I never associate myself with feminism; I'm all for equality in opportunities, but if they can't utilize those opportunities, I will say that women are indeed unable/unwilling- or do not have the abilities- to excel in X. X maybe politics, academia or anything for that matter.
Until the last 50 or so years, women were essentially slaves to their reproductive systems. Deaths in childhood were extremely common, to the point where women would have 10 or so children only to have a couple make it to adulthood. Many women died in childbirth along the way.
When women spent much of their lives pregnant, breastfeeding, and then raising young children, it would be very difficult for women to simultaneously run a country.
On top of this, much of human life has been controlled by violence. Men are genetically stronger than women. When it was common place for a ruler to be killed by the successor, of course women aren't going to stay in power. Power struggles were often physical and women will lose that battle.
So you see, there are excellent reasons -- that have nothing to do with the mental differences -- why there are few matriarchies.
You'll brush this off though and hold true to your belief that women are mentally inferior. You want to believe that and so you won't let any evidence that conflicts with it enter your mind.
Adisa: you hold bigoted beliefs and won't consider that they might be wrong, or have a rational coherent discussion on them. This is why many of your answers are downvoted. If you've been blocked by a bunch of people (and I suspect you have been, as I'm near blocking you as well), this is why. It's also probably why you weren't made a top writer, despite being quite active and well known. It's not because feminists refuse to consider your points; it's because you refuse to consider the other side.
"You'll brush this off though and hold true to your belief that women are mentally inferior. You want to believe that and so you won't let any evidence that conflicts with it enter your mind."
I do not want to believe that women are mentally inferior. I am not a bigot. I don't get off on thinking women are inferior.
I hold bigoted beliefs? That was not my intention. I don't enjoy finding arguments and evidence to support bigoted beliefs.
I'll break it down for you.
There are over 200 countries in this world, and every single one of them, or most of them are ruled by males, and most of the people in the leadership positions are males, and most of the people who are the richest are males.
Now which of the following explanations are more likely for this.
1. The patriarchy is oppressing, discriminating and discouraging women from becoming on equal stature or par with them. It's the patriarchy's fault.
2. Genetics or women's intelligence being different to a man's.
I am open to considering the idea that women are discriminated, oppressed or discouraged against. I do not dispute that this happens on a daily basis. I actually found a study on the internet of women having a low acceptance rate in orchestras, but when they switched to blind auditions, the acceptance rate of women was then of equal measure to males, instead of a pitiful acceptance rate. I bookmarked the link, as I find it reputable and true. Sadly the people who made the study did not question the judges to ask them why they didn't accept the women when they showed their faces.
Maybe attitudes to women need to change, so that them being under-represented and them being neglected of the chance to aspire, can be eradicated. Although I'm not a feminist, I agree with the link below. Maybe the attitudes in the link below is the cause why they are under-represented, but is it the patriarchy's fault?
http://newwavefeminism.tumblr.com/post/72913468081/infernumequinomin-nicolas-christ-pantene
So because women are discriminated against (intentionally or unintentionally) in orchestras, does that mean that every other industry discriminates against women too? I've seen many women in leadership roles in my life, so I wouldn't think the study would apply to every industry in every country. Sweden is a feminist heavy country with a feminist political party that actually passes laws.
Would the study have the same results in Sweden? I think not, because I would think people there would like women in power and leadership, more than in America.
Do the police, hospitals, technology, politicians, the media, theatres, finance, shops, schools, colleges, shops and every other industry discriminate against women?
Do you really think that the patriarchy is discriminating against women in every single industry in every single country? If this is true, why don't I see much evidence that it happens, other than statistics of them being under-represented?
If it is true, why hasn't the media spoken up about it providing evidence that it happens and why hasn't the government addressed it or been more proactive in solving it? I've seen articles about women being oppressed in technology, but does that mean they are oppressed in every male dominated industry?
Why are tv shows increasingly putting homosexuality in it, but not empowering women to aspire to leadership instead of playing with dolls? Why is the government more accepting of homosexuality and giving them rights to marry, than it is of women or their rights of abortion or changing damaging stereotypes (gendered toys)? Is this due to oppression or not?
If this is true, why do feminists care more about fighting objectification, than they do about providing evidence that women are discriminated against in every industry in every country?
Why hasn't anyone made a documentary about women being under-represented in every industry in every country?
Do you understand why the word patriarchy sounds like a conspiracy theory to suggest that men everywhere in every industry think of ingenious ways to keep women down? Am I really expected to believe that male executives sit in offices in private meetings, thinking of more ingenious ways to keep men down and stop them from getting to their level? Most women I know think that men and women are already equal.
I hope you can understand why I find it hard to believe that every industry in every country is discriminating against women, considering that I have not find much evidence that this happens, other than statistics.
The word patriarchy paints the image that there is a conspiracy theory of powerful men everywhere who are deliberately trying to keep women down and that the patriarchy oppresses women. Do you expect me to think this true?
I'm not disputing that women like yourself and many others get discriminated in technology, but does that nessacarily mean that they are discriminated against in technology in every single country in the
world?
The question below might surprise you, or sound like I'm insulting your intelligence (which I'm not), but the majority of men in the world do not think the answer is yes, hence why 71% of Americans are not feminists. The majority of people think that men and women are already equal.
Question. Does the patriarchy oppress women in every industry in every single country in the world?
Say yes or no to the question above, then we can have a rational discussion, because I don't get off on saying women are inferior to men.
I hold bigoted beliefs? That was not my intention. I don't enjoy finding arguments and evidence to support bigoted beliefs.
Of course you hold bigoted views. Look at your answer. It's bigotry, by definition. You just don't think it's bigotry because you think it's true.
Now which of the following explanations are more likely for this.
1. The patriarchy is oppressing, discriminating and discouraging women from becoming on equal stature or par with them. It's the patriarchy's fault.
2. Genetics or women's intelligence being different to a man's.
These aren't either/or things. My explanation does involved genetics. It can be simultaneously true that women are discouraged from entering leadership roles.
Look at the differences across time and, even now, across different cultures. Very different representation of women. Which is more likely:
1. Cultures used to discourage women from leadership, but now all that pressure has vanished. There are culture-specific reasons (like the size of the country) that just so happen to result in fewer women entering leadership as compared to women in another country. But, is there pressure against women in some western countries? No. All the pressure has, now, been instantly removed.
2. Cultures have less pressure against than they used to, and some have progressed faster than others.
So because women are discriminated against (intentionally or unintentionally) in orchestras, does that mean that every other industry discriminates against women too? I've seen many women in leadership roles in my life, so I wouldn't think the study would apply to every industry in every country.
These orchestras also had women. Just because some women get hired doesn't mean that it isn't harder.
Do you really think that the patriarchy is discriminating against women in every single industry in every single country? If this is true, why don't I see much evidence that it happens, other than statistics of them being under-represented?
You do see evidence, you just explain it away in convoluted ways. You refuse to accept the simplest, most obvious explanation: sexism and discouragement exist and have a real impact.
Part of the problem is that you continue to stubbornly talk about it as discrimination. You refuse to consider that if people are discouraged, but not wholly prevented, from doing something that it could make a real impact.
If it is true, why hasn't the media spoken up about it and why hasn't the government addressed it?
Both do.
If this is true, why do feminists care more about fighting objectification, than they do about providing evidence that women are discriminated against in every industry in every country?
They do both. The issues are linked as well.
Why hasn't anyone made a documentary about women being under-represented in every industry in every country?
I'm sure people have produced similar documI'm sure people have produced similar documentaries.entaries.
Am I really expected to believe that male executives sit in offices in private meetings, thinking of more ingenious ways to keep men down and stop them from getting to their level? Most women I know think that men and women are already equal.
No. Few people think that male execs do this. In fact, I've never heard anyone argue this.
I hope you can understand why I find it hard to believe that every industry in every country is discriminating against women, considering that I have not find much evidence that this happens, other than statistics.
Please stop talking about discrimination. It's not about discrimination. It's about discouragement.
The word patriarchy paints the image that there is a conspiracy theory of powerful men everywhere who are deliberately trying to keep women down and that the patriarchy oppresses women. Do you expect me to think this true?
No. I don't think that's true either.
I'm not disputing that women like yourself and many others get discriminated in technology, but does that nessacarily mean that they are discriminated against in technology in every single country in the world?
Not talking about discrimination.
Question. Does the patriarchy oppress women in every industry in every single country in the world?
In most, yes. In every? I don't know. That's very absolutist.
PS. I have a lot of politically incorrect controversial antithetical beliefs. My family say I have a warped view on the world.
Perhaps you should consider that your views are, in fact, warped.
Adisa: you are a bigot. The fact that you think your views are correct does not mean that you're not bigoted.
"You refuse to consider that if people are discouraged, but not wholly prevented, from doing something that it could make a real impact."
Maybe I am emotionally inept at certain aspects of life. Maybe I'm projecting my beliefs and values onto other people. A 15 year old girl called Hannah Smith killed herself because she got abusive anonymous messages on Ask.fm, while other people get that and cope completely fine. Some people aren't affected by bullying in school and some people leave with their education ruined and self esteem damaged because of it.
When a woman stops pursuing something due to discouragement, does she come to regret her decision later on in life, or does she accept it as a sad fact of life that she can never be as powerful as a male and that there's nothing she could have done about it to help herself?
The idea that women are affected by discouragement, I find bizarre, as it gives the image in my head (well not in yours), that women are not fully responsible for their choices who are not capable of making decisions (you might find this warped). Imagine how anti-climatic it was for me to be told that discouragement was responsible for the lack of women in male dominated industries. If you have an ambition, it is very hard to achieve. Getting a degree is not easy. Most people aren't in the job industry they wanted to be in when they were younger. The idea that someone would quit due to discouragement, I found bizarre, because life is hard to achieve your dreams in whether you are discouraged or not, so the idea that you would be faltered by discouragement, doesn't mean that you would have life any much easier if it didn't exist.
Although having programs and shortlists to put women into STEM careers is a good thing, but it can also be perceived as a bad thing as it shows that women are not capable of making their own decisions
> "If it is true, why hasn't the media spoken up about it and why hasn't the government addressed it?
Both do."
Are there any links on this?
"You do see evidence, you just explain it away in convoluted ways. You refuse to accept the simplest, most obvious explanation: sexism and discouragement exist and have a real impact." "Part of the problem is that you continue to stubbornly talk about it as discrimination. You refuse to consider that if people are discouraged, but not wholly prevented, from doing something that it could make a real impact."
Yes sexism and discouragement can have an impact, but is it in every country? Feminists like to talk about how men dominate leadership roles in every country, so I think I have a right to ask whether sexism and discouragement, affects women in every country.
> The word patriarchy paints the image that there is a conspiracy theory of powerful men everywhere who are deliberately trying to keep women down and that the patriarchy oppresses women. Do you expect me to think this true?
No. I don't think that's true either.
Feminists blame the patriarchy for everything, it paints men as villains and women as victims, and says that all problems and ills of society can only be solved under a matriarchy.
> Question. Does the patriarchy oppress women in every industry in every single country in the world?
In most, yes. In every? I don't know. That's very absolutist.
I'm sure that most people will agree that men and women are already equal which means that feminism is redundant. This is why 71% of Americans don't identify with feminism. That's not me discrediting what you're saying, it's just me saying that most people today think that feminism is irrelevant.
If I believed that women were under-represented in leadership roles in every country primarily due to discouragement, I would agree that it is fully due to discouragement, but as I think discouragement doesn't happen in every country in the world in every industry with enough severity, I then look for other factors that are causing it. I think it is naive to 100% put it down to discouragement. I think it's rational to try to look for other factors. When I mention IQ as a factor, you think that is bigotry of me trying to say women are inferior, when I do not think it is very intelligent to class it 100% due to discouragement in all industries and countries, considering discouragement has a relatively low severity. However, that's what feminists put it down to 100%. Feminists blame males, the patriarchy for this.
I don't think I am a bigot, which I can address in my next comment about how IQ is a good indicator of intelligence.
Would feminists prefer a meritocratic or a half male-half-female system?
philosophyunderstand
tynamite
Me
What do you think about this answer Gayle Laakmann McDowell? Science has actually proven that men that men are designed to be the majority of the outstanding achievers in society as well as the majority of the scrap heap, due to genetics. This evidence proves it.
tynamite
Gayle
IQ is a terrible measure of intelligence. It's also not at all a measure of genetic, ingrained intelligence.IQ scores have gone up over the last 100 years -- with women's IQ increasing faster than men's.
Also, white people also score better than black people. If you're going to argue that men are smarter than women by using IQ tests as evidence, then you must also accept that white people are smarter than black people.
OR just realize that IQ are not some "true" measure of intelligence. They are strongly affected by society -- hence the increase in scores.
So, no, science has not at all proven that men are smarter than women.
I have no doubt however that you'll reject all of this. You'll find some other way to explain the discrepancy between whites and blacks, and the rise in IQ scores, but continue to say that IQ scores "prove" how women are inferior. You latch on to any evidence suggesting the inferiority of women while rejecting any evidence that suggests that sexism might actually be a real issue.
tynamite
Me
"So, no, science has not at all proven that men are smarter than women."Science has proven that females do better than males in school, and that the IQs of men range higher than the IQs of women. These are facts, unfortunately or not.
"You latch on to any evidence suggesting the inferiority of women while rejecting any evidence that suggests that sexism might actually be a real issue."
Do you think I actually enjoy saying women are inferior. Of course not! No, you refuse to admit that IQ is a great measure of intelligence. You think it's a terrible measure, which it's not.
"IQ is a terrible measure of intelligence. It's also not at all a measure of genetic, ingrained intelligence."
Are you sure about that?
Can you explain from the information in the table image above, of the rows I've highlighted, why there is DIRECT correlation? Of all the rows of the table I've highlighted (to do with money, education and prison), they move up or down in succession in each table column. The numbers do not alternate from higher and lower, instead they move in succession. This is not a coincidence!
The higher your IQ is, the more money you make, and the lower your IQ, the more likely you are to be in prison. These are basic facts, controversial yes, but it's true.
Considering that IQs of males range from low to high, and IQs of females sit in the middle, is it due to the patriarchy or genetics, why men make up the outstanding achievers in society (making more money as the table shows), as well as the scrap heap of society (in prison as the table shows)?
Also IQ is genetic and innate, it cannot be changed no matter how many degrees you have. You are wrong when you say IQ is not a measure of genetic ingrained intelligence, because IQ cannot be changed, it is genetic and innate. and will stay the same throughout your life no matter how many degrees you have. If IQ can be changed, you should be able to join Mensa? If IQ can be changed, why don't British people have higher IQ,s considering you cannot go bankrupt or in debt due to a student loan in Britain?
Yes I do know it is politically incorrect to say that men's IQ range higher (and lower) than women, making men more intelligent than women, but I felt I would be doing a disservice to the Quora Community if I kept the information to myself.
IQ scores have not gone up. They've gone down. In the olden days people had to utilise intelligence to hunt animals, create machines, make tools, work in factories. Nowadays we live off modern conveniences like the internet, television, supermarkets, iPhones, and have easier lessons compared to 100 years ago, so the need for intelligence among a wide spectrum of people has lessened. From an evolutionary standpoint, IQ was beneficial to people's survival, but now we have a thing called welfare where parents get more money for each kid they pop out, it is decreasing the IQ of the population. IQ is actually going down because people have less need for intelligence the more technologically advanced our societies get, because we can live off the successes of other people's achievements (ie. welfare, child support, alimony, smartphones, free education).
White people have higher IQs than black people due to genetics and evolutionary biology. As crazy as it sounds, this is true. Personality traits that people have, are passed down via genetics, such as mental disorders, mating strategies and fears of blood or spiders. The reason why white people are more intelligent than black people, is because in the olden days, white people had to utilise fire in order to keep warm (more than black people) as they could die in the cold, they utilised more tools like wheels and hammers (more than black people). If you look back at history, before the invention of farms, you will find that the white people were more intelligent than blacks. In the days of slavery, white people had machines and boats, and black people did not (as much). White people needed more intelligence because they lived in a harsher climate. White people living in a harsher climate compared to black people is why white people are more intelligent. These genes have been passed down to today, which is why white people are more intelligent than blacks and why black people are more agile than whites. I have actually researched this on the internet and am not making this up. I've seen several people give the same reasoning in this paragraph.
tynamite
Science has proven that females do better than males in school, and that the IQs of men range higher than the IQs of women. These are facts, unfortunately or not.Yes, but IQ != intelligence.
Okay, let's think about this. There are multiple types of questions on an IQ test, right?
Is there ANY type of question that a woman might, on average, do better on than a man (for example, verbal) than a man? Okay, now why are those questions worth X% of the test? What if you made it more? You would then see men with lower IQs than women.
Also, realize that IQ is hugely impacted by education and exposure.
This is not a coincidence!
The higher your IQ is, the more money you make, and the lower your IQ, the more likely you are to be in prison. These are basic facts, controversial yes, but it's true.
Of course it's not a coincidence. IQ scores is indeed correlated with income and all these other things. That doesn't make it an effective measure of intelligence. It might instead just be measuring education, test-taking ability, and some other things.
Considering that IQs of males range from low to high, and IQs of females sit in the middle, is it due to the patriarchy or genetics, why men make up the outstanding achievers in society (making more money as the table shows), as well as the scrap heap of society (in prison as the table shows)?
Genetics COULD be a factor. It could also be so many other things. Men and women are treated differently in society from the time that they are babies.
Also IQ is genetic and innate, it cannot be changed no matter how many degrees you have.
Really?
Ever heard of those poor children who are locked up in a closet for years and utterly deprived of all human contact? You think they would score just as well on an IQ test as a normal human being? You're arguing after all that IQ is genetic and innate.
What about a person who has suffered brain damage? Surely they might score much worse -- despite the fact that their genetic intelligence is the same.
You are wrong when you say IQ is not a measure of genetic ingrained intelligence, because IQ cannot be changed, it is genetic and innate. and will stay the same throughout your life no matter how many degrees you have.
Really? Take a kid who is easily distracted. He might measure poorly on an IQ test because he literally doesn't focus. If he then learns to focus (or starts taking drugs to help him focus), he might find a substantially increased test score.
If IQ can be changed, you should be able to join Mensa? If IQ can be changed, why don't British people have higher IQ,s considering you cannot go bankrupt or in debt due to a student loan in Britain?
What? I have no idea what you're talking about here.
IQ scores have not gone up. They've gone down.
False. There has been an 18 point increase between 1947 and 2002.
5 Experts Answer: Can Your IQ Change?
tynamite
Yes your IQ can "change" if you change your lifestyle (eat healthily and get lots of sleep), and it can "change" if you become more educated, but IQ has a limit. Those experts are not telling you the full picture, because there is a limit, to how high someone's IQ can be.There is no amount of education someone with a 120 IQ can do to raise it to 160.
tynamite
Gayle
Are you distinguishing between someone's score on an IQ test and some sort of "true IQ"?
tynamite
Me
Provided someone completes a good and reputable IQ test that was created by an expert in the field, they will have their "true IQ". In the image of the statistics I gave you, the people completed an IQ test of exactly that. Are you trying to imply that most IQ tests aren't good?
tynamite
Gayle
I think you have a number of flaws in your reasoning.1. Someone's intelligence is in fact impacted by their environment. There is a genetic component, yes, but there's also a strong environmental one. You seem to believe that, other than in extreme cases of neglect or brain impairment, your intelligence is totally hard-wired by your genes. This is false.
2. Intelligence is a very complex topic and there are many aspects of intelligence. There's verbal intelligence, emotional intelligence, spatial reasoning, etc. Trying to define a person's intelligence, when there are multiple factors in it, is like trying to create a single number of someone's health. How do you compare someone with cancer but full use of their limbs to a totally paralyzed person? Any single number for intelligence must choose some way to weight these different aspects (and it might even have left some parts out). This weighting is not necessarily correct -- nor is any weighting necessarily correct. What does this number even mean?
3. IQ tests are taking this flawed equation for intelligence and trying to test it, and those scores are inherently unreliable. Some people will be able to focus more than others, and this will impact their IQ score. Some people will have more confidence than others, and this will impact their IQ score. Some people will just be feeling sick or just in a bad mood that way, and that will impact their score.
So your reasoning is deeply flawed.
- Intelligence has a big environmental impact, so the discrepancy between men and women cannot be assumed to be genetic.
- The things that an IQ test attempts to measure aren't necessarily correct.
- And even if those things were correct, the scores aren't necessarily accurate.
tynamite
1. Someone's intelligence is in fact impacted by their environment. There is a genetic component, yes, but there's also a strong environmental one. You seem to believe that, other than in extreme cases of neglect or brain impairment, your intelligence is totally hard-wired by your genes. This is false.It's not false, it's the truth. That's why the IQ test got invented, because exams in school generally quiz you on how much you remember of what you were taught (revision), so they decided to make a test that does the complete opposite, and just focuses on how you brain deals with information around you without having to revise anything prior to the test.
Everyone in the Western world spends at least 12 years in education because the government makes it's illegal to not go to school. This means that by the time a child finishes school, their IQ would have already been optimised to its highest potential.
People in Scotland get free university and people in Singapore have to pay for it in advance. Does this mean that Scottish people have a higher IQ than Sporeans because they have a better environment (due to better access to education)? Of course not!
2. Intelligence is a very complex topic and there are many aspects of intelligence. There's verbal intelligence, emotional intelligence, spatial reasoning, etc. Trying to define a person's intelligence, when there are multiple factors in it, is like trying to create a single number of someone's health.I have done the 11 test, and I can assure you that verbal intelligence and spatial reasoning is included in the test. The test takes at least 2 hours to complete, and it covers everything. Unless you get an 11 exam paper yourself (I think you have to pay for them), you will not know for yourself.
Intelligence is a very complex topic, but that doesn't mean that we can't quantify it.
How do you compare someone with cancer but full use of their limbs to a totally paralyzed person?
How do you compare someone with cancer but full use of their limbs to a totally paralyzed person?Can you stop using disabled people to compare to, to say that IQ tests are invalid? I cannot believe you're resorting to disabled people to refute my argument that has been proven by science.
Any single number for intelligence must choose some way to weight these different aspects (and it might even have left some parts out). This weighting is not necessarily correct -- nor is any weighting necessarily correct. What does this number even mean?If IQ tests are so bad and ineffective, why do employers in technology think that IQ is a better metric than your qualifications? Also an 11 test takes HOURS to complete, and yes it does cover everything.
IQ tests are very good at quantifying someone's intelligence. This is a basic fact.
3. IQ tests are taking this flawed equation for intelligence and trying to test it, and those scores are inherently unreliable.IQ tests are not unreliable (unless you've been taking the wrong ones). Stop denying something that is science and very intelligently put together by a team of experts in the field. You are sounding like a creationist who is denying evolution.
Some people will be able to focus more than others, and this will impact their IQ score.Oh please! Normal everyday people are perfectly capable of sitting still for 90 minutes and completing an exam. There is no epidemic of people who cannot do this.
Some people will have more confidence than others, and this will impact their IQ score.The amount that confidence can increase an IQ score, is negligible. Someone with a 160 IQ won't fall to 100 because of it.
Some people will just be feeling sick or just in a bad mood that way, and that will impact their score.
Oh no! Do this mean that IQ tests should be scrapped for being flawed? Does this mean that English, Maths and Science exams should also be scrapped because some people won't feel good or might be sick? Don't be silly. The grades people get in exams or IQ tests are good indicators of how clever (IQ tests) or smart (exams) that person is.
So your reasoning is deeply flawed.
- Intelligence has a big environmental impact, so the discrepancy between men and women cannot be assumed to be genetic.The IQ of males ranges from very low to very high, in EVERY country, whereas for women it stays in the middle for EVERY country. This proves that the disparity of the genders IQ wise has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with genetics.
- The things that an IQ test attempts to measure aren't necessarily correct.An IQ test is a great indicator of someone's intelligence and life chances. The statistics in the image I've shown you, proves this.
- And even if those things were correct, the scores aren't necessarily accurate.
I cannot believe that you are calling the studies that have actual evidence, reasoning and causation behind them, wrong, when it has been backed up by science. Is this what feminists do, deny basic facts and blame everything on the patriarchy? (They also do this with the pay gap and unrealistic standard of beauty.)
tynamite
Everyone in the Western world spends at least 12 years in education because the government makes it's illegal to not go to school. This means that by the time a child finishes school, their IQ would have already been optimised to its highest potential.But the quality of education varies dramatically. Stop looking at the world in such binary terms.
Does this mean that Scottish people have a higher IQ than Sporeans because they have a better environment (due to better access to education)? Of course not!IQ varies across countries.
Intelligence is a very complex topic, but that doesn't mean that we can't quantify it.It does mean that a single number can't really represent intelligence. It's subject to how much one weights one thing vs another.
If IQ tests are so bad and ineffective, why do employers in technology think that IQ is a better metric than your qualifications?But they don't use IQ tests. They use a problem-solving test that, for programmers, is focused on designing algorithms for problems you haven't seen before. Asking programmers to design algorithms for problems they haven't seen before is pretty closely related to their job. Intelligence matters. But IQ and intelligence are not synonymous.
IQ tests are not unreliable (unless you've been taking the wrong ones). Stop denying something that is science and very intelligently put together by a team of experts in the field. You are sounding like a creationist who is denying evolution.IQ is not a good measure of intelligence. This is actually quite well established.
Oh please! Normal everyday people are perfectly capable of sitting still for 90 minutes and completing an exam. There is no epidemic of people who cannot do this.Sure, people are capable of sitting still for 90 minutes. But some people can focus better than others. There are degrees of focusing.
Stop looking at the world in binary.
The amount that confidence can increase an IQ score, is negligible. Someone with a 160 IQ won't fall to 100 because of it.Probably not. But they might fall to 150 or 140.
Do this mean that IQ tests should be scrapped for being flawed? Does this mean that English, Maths and Science exams should also be scrapped because some people won't feel good or might be sick? Don't be silly. The grades people get in exams or IQ tests are good indicators of how clever (IQ tests) or smart (exams) that person is.Sure, it's an indicator. Someone who scores higher on an IQ is probably smarter, all else being equal.
The IQ of males ranges from very low to very high, in EVERY country, whereas for women it stays in the middle for EVERY country. This proves that the disparity of the genders IQ wise has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with genetics.Western societies have a lot in common with each other.
An IQ test is a great indicator of someone's intelligence and life chances. The statistics in the image I've shown you, proves this.Sure, it's an indicator. People who score well on IQ tests tend to do better in life. But also, people who are educated tend to score better on IQ tests. People who are wealthy tend to score better on IQ tests. All of these things are correlated with the things you mentioned.
What? I didn't say anything about falsifying their results. I'm sure that people with higher IQs are less likely to go to prison. But the question is why.So the people doing the studies deliberately falsified their results, because there's no way in hell that people with higher IQs have more money and people with lower IQs are more likely to be in prison, so the results must be forged.
I cannot believe that you are calling the studies that have actual evidence, reasoning and causation behind them, wrong, when it has been backed up by science.I would recommend you look into this more. IQ tests are widely known to be a flawed measure of intelligence, and especially of ingrained intelligence.
No. You proved correlation, but I'm not disagreeing with that. You have not shown causation.There's no way that men's IQs can range higher and lower than a woman's, there's no way I'm going to listen to science and proven facts that have causation, and direct correlation in succession. I have an alternative theory. It's the patriarchy's fault. The patriarchy is causing it. The patriarchy is oppressing women in every industry in every country.
tynamite
Yes IQ does vary across countries.A single number can represent intelligence.
No, they are making you do problem solving because they want your IQ, but they do not want to give you an IQ test, because you might sue them if you don't get the job, based on IQ discrimination. I have spoken to an employer in technology, and he admitted this to me. The reason why they make you do puzzles is because they want your IQ. You are naive here.If IQ tests are so bad and ineffective, why do employers in technology think that IQ is a better metric than your qualifications?But they don't use IQ tests. They use a problem-solving test that, for programmers, is focused on designing algorithms for problems you haven't seen before. Asking programmers to design algorithms for problems they haven't seen before is pretty closely related to their job. Intelligence matters. But IQ and intelligence are not synonymous.
No, IQ is a good measure of intelligence. You are denying this simple fact.
When people fail their exams, it is typically because they didn't revise or because they didn't know how to answer the questions, not because they couldn't focus properly, be confident or sit still. You are clutching at straws.
Your IQ cannot be increased as it has a limit. It can only be optimised.
The IQ of males ranges from very low to very high, in EVERY country, whereas for women it stays in the middle for EVERY country. This proves that the disparity of the genders IQ wise has nothing to do with environment and everything to do with genetics.Western societies have a lot in common with each other.
So it's the education system's fault why the IQ of females doesn't vary from low to high like males? Typical feminist, saying "it's the patriarchy's fault!"
No. It is due to genetics. I can list several examples of such.
- Women can have sex whenever they want and men cannot due to genetics.
- Men are polygamous and women are hypergamous because of genetics.
- Men are better at maths and women are better at english due to genetics.
- Men are better at logical thinking and women are better at intuitive thinking due to genetics.
- Men's IQs range from low to high and women's stay in the middle due to genetics.
- Women are objectified and not men due to genetics, and men are told to "be a man" and not show emotion due to genetics.
Feminism rejects all these ideas that men and women have different brains and says that all gender roles and stereotypes are a social construct, and blames it on men, blames it on the patriarchy.
Sure, it's an indicator. People who score well on IQ tests tend to do better in life. But also, people who are educated tend to score better on IQ tests. People who are wealthy tend to score better on IQ tests. All of these things are correlated with the things you mentioned.People who score well on IQ tests do better at life not because they're more educated, but because of genetics. People who are better educated do better in life because they have more intelligent brains that has an Intelligence Quotient that is more receptive to taking in information and applying it in real life. It's to do with genetics primarily, not the environment primarily.
Men's IQs range from low to high and women's stay in the middle due to genetics, because this happens in every country in the world.
What? I didn't say anything about falsifying their results. I'm sure that people with higher IQs are less likely to go to prison. But the question is why.The more we learn about the human brain, the more we learn that free will doesn't exist. The feeling that we are authors in control of our own actions comes from a certain part of the brain that is not metaphysical. The fact that schizophrenics feel they do not control their actions has nothing to do with their free will eroding, but instead because a part of their brain isn't having electrical impulses going towards it.
The more we learn about the brain, the more we learn that free will doesn't exist. We like to think that people have what is called a "rational agent" that can interpret situations around them, and do the best possible action they can do in that situation, but often we find that people who choose wrong actions, do so because of their genetics or environment.
"We believe in free will because we understand behaviour but not its causes" ~B.F. Skinner
Hundreds of years ago if a psychotic person was to kill someone, they would go to prison, but now they go to a psychiatric ward instead. Because we understand the causes of someone's behaviour (mental illness), we deem them as not responsible for their actions. The same applies to mass murderers in prison, as many of them have what is called a Warrior Gene that genetically predisposes them to kill others - because of this we deem them not responsible for their actions. The same would apply to people with a low IQ. They would be genetically predisposed to go to prison, murder someone, be unemployed, sell drugs, because they have a lesser intelligence and therefore lack a rational agent.
People with less intelligence have less of a rational agent than people with a higher intelligence. It is simple as that.
I would recommend you look into this more. IQ tests are widely known to be a flawed measure of intelligence, and especially of ingrained intelligence.IQ tests are not flawed because it is impossible for over 50% of the population to get their IQ as high as 160 like Stephen Hawking or even 130, but it is possible for over 50% of the population to get a degree. Explain that.
No. You proved correlation, but I'm not disagreeing with that. You have not shown causation.So because we don't know how the brain works 100%, that I'm wrong?
Do you want to know how I've proved causation? Because the numbers in the graph move directly in succession? If 50% of the population have a 90-110 IQ, how come LESS of them are in prison compared to 5% of the population with <75% IQ?
This is not a coincidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone having a higher IQ is much more likely to be better educated and thus earn more money. Someone with a lower IQ will not be as educated as much and is thus likely to be selling drugs. These are basic facts!
The causation is staring you in the face. You just refuse to believe it.
tynamite
1. Ability to focus affects someone's score. I didn't say that it would cause a person to "fail." Please stop looking at the world in binary.2. I suspect I have far more knowledge about the tech company hiring process and why they ask you to design algorithms than you. I probably have more than whoever it is that you spoke to. They ask you as a measure of intelligence and problem solving skills, not IQ score. You might think these are synonymous, but I don't.
By the way, the reason that IQ tests were deemed to be discriminatory is that they couldn't be shown to have value.
3. There is a ridiculous amount of evidence that a better education causes people to do better on IQ tests.
IQ tests are not flawed because it is impossible for over 50% of the population to get their IQ as high as 160, but it is possible for over 50% of the population to get a degree. Explain that.
I don't even know what I'm trying to prove. Of course it's impossible for over 50% of the population to score above 160. The tests are curved to have the same average.
Because the numbers in the graph move directly in succession? If 50% of the population have a 90-110 IQ, how come LESS of them are in prison compared to 5% of the population with <75% IQ?
This is not a coincidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since they're all moving, how do you know which one is the cause? You assume that IQ is causing an improvement in education. What if the improvement in education is causing the increase in IQ?
There are so many links showing the impact of education on IQ I'm not even sure why you're debating this. Can you provide some research showing that education does not affect IQ?
IQ isn't fixed at birth, can increase with education
IQ Test Experts - Can IQ Be Improved? - IQ Articles
Environment and intelligence
Why are we getting smarter? Further reading on the “Flynn effect”
tynamite
So the reason why women's IQs stay in the middle and men's range from low to high, is because women or men are less prone to being able to focus? Stop clutching at straws.Technology employers wanting your intelligence and problem solving skills. is because they really want your IQ. I've spoken to a technology employer, and he confirmed that they give you puzzles because they really want your IQ. If "intelligence and problem solving skills" was so important in the hiring process, they would have gone by your qualifications and work experience, as those people can do the job too.
Education can give someone a better IQ score, but it cannot bring someone with a 100 IQ to 140 or someone with 140 IQ to 160. IQ cannot be improved, only optimised as it has a personal limit.
It's possible for over 50% of the population to get a degree, but it's not possible for over 50% of the population to get 120 or 140 on an IQ test, because the test measures someone's innate and genetic intelligence. Intelligence can only be optimised, not increased. Each person has a limit of how high their IQ can go, no matter how educated they are. You cannot educate yourself into having a high IQ (one that goes past the average).
The Flynn effect is wrong. We are actually getting dumber, not cleverer. The government is encouraging people with crappy genes to reproduce as the death rate among native citizens with high IQ is higher than the birth rate and intelligent people have less kids. This is partly why we have immigration.
I've given you evidence that IQ has fallen, and you've given evidence that IQ has risen. Who are we supposed to believe here?
Because the numbers in the graph move directly in succession? If 50% of the population have a 90-110 IQ, how come LESS of them are in prison compared to 5% of the population with <75% IQ?
This is not a coincidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since they're all moving, how do you know which one is the cause? You assume that IQ is causing an improvement in education. What if the improvement in education is causing the increase in IQ?
Stop denying factual things you don't want to believe. People with a higher IQ are more educated and more richer. People with a lower IQ are more likely to rely on welfare and end up in prison. These are basic facts which are directly caused by IQ. The fact that the numbers move up in succession and that less 90-110 IQ people are in prison despite being 50% of the population compared to 5% of the population, proves this.
You moan at me for not accepting that discouragement is primarily why women are under-represented in technology and other industries, whilst you refuse to admit that they IQs of women sit in the middle and for men it's low to high, and that the more IQ you have, the richer and more educated you are, the the lower IQ you have, the more likely you are to be on welfare and be in prison. These are basic facts that you are denying.
These are basic facts that have causation that you are denying because you are being ignorant and closed minded, but you accuse me of it for not accepting that women are under-represented 100% due to discouragement.
You are denying basic facts, that someone's IQ causes them to be having money, better educated if high, or on welfare or in prison if low - and then saying my answer is bigoted when I can back up my argument with science.
tynamite
So the reason why women's IQs stay in the middle and men's range from low to high, is because women or men are less prone to being able to focus? Stop clutching at straws.No. I didn't say that.
Technology employers wanting your intelligence and problem solving skills. is because they really want your IQ. I've spoken to a technology employer, and he confirmed that they give you puzzles because they really want your IQ.
Yeah, again, he's wrong. (Or, more likely, you misinterpreted what he said. Just like you do to me all the time.) It's not about IQ, it's about intelligence.
Education can give someone a better IQ score, but it cannot bring someone with a 100 IQ to 140 or someone with 140 IQ to 160. IQ cannot be improved, only optimised as it has a personal limit.
Great. We agree. Education impacts someone's IQ score.
It's possible for over 50% of the population, but it's not possible for over 50% of the population to get 120 or 140 on an IQ test, because the test measures someone's innate and genetic intelligence.
The Flynn effect is wrong. We are actually getting dumber, not cleverer.]
What do you mean, it's wrong? Are you saying that someone falsified data?
I've given you evidence that IQ has fallen, and you've given evidence that IQ has risen. Who are we supposed to believe here?
You found evidence that IQ score has fallen within a particular segment of the population. I have evidence that it's risen overall. These don't conflict.
These are basic facts which are directly caused by IQ. The fact that the numbers move up in succession and that less 90-110 IQ people are in prison despite being 50% of the population compared to 5% of the population, proves this.
No, it doesn't. Correlation != causation. How do you know it's not education causing this?
You moan at me for not accepting that discouragement is primarily why women are under-represented in technology and other industries, whilst you refuse to admit that they IQs of women sit in the middle and for men it's low to high, and that the more IQ you have, the richer and more educated you are, the the lower IQ you have, the more likely you are to be on welfare and be in prison. These are basic facts that you are denying.
Actually, I'm not denying any of that. Male IQ scores might be more extreme. I certainly agree that IQ is correlated with wealth and education and lower likelihood of prison. I have never denied that.
What I'm disagreeing with is the cause of that. You appear to see IQ as the sole reason for this, which is obviously wrong.
To be clear, I agree with you that:
- Higher IQ people tend to be wealthier and more education.
- IQ scores are correlated with intelligence.
- Intelligence causes you to attain more wealth and education.
Where I disagree is on the significance of that. The correlation between IQ and education is education causing an increase in IQ, much more so than the other way around.
I'm really not sure why I'm debating this. It's really very well established that education makes a strong impact on IQ.
These are basic facts that have causation that you are denying because you are being ignorant and closed minded, but you accuse me of it for not accepting that women are under-represented 100% due to discouragement.
I never said it was 100% due to discouragement. Please don't treat the world as binary.
tynamite
So the reason why women's IQs stay in the middle and men's range from low to high, is because women or men are less prone to being able to focus? Stop clutching at straws.You did say
No. I didn't say that.
1. Ability to focus affects someone's score. I didn't say that it would cause a person to "fail." Please stop looking at the world in binary.I'll have a think about that, but I'm sure the technology employer I asked really meant what he said about wanting to get his employee's IQ.
[About puzzles in technology interviews being about getting someone's IQ]
Yeah, again, he's wrong. (Or, more likely, you misinterpreted what he said. Just like you do to me all the time.) It's not about IQ, it's about intelligence.
The Flynn effect is wrong. We are actually getting dumber, not cleverer.When scientists get statistics of IQ that cover the whole world over time, or when they test the hypothesis that more technologically advanced countries are increasingly having lower IQs, the Flynn effect is not what they see.
What do you mean, it's wrong? Are you saying that someone falsified data?
It has been widely observed that the birthrate of countries tends to fall as they become more wealthy. Most countries in Western Europe now have birthrates below the replacement (death) rate; in the absence of immigration, their populations can be expected to fall in the future.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/
Tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period.
Among those in the upper half of the intelligence scale, a group that is typically dominated by children from middle class families, performance was even worse, with an average IQ score six points below what it was 28 years ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4548943/British-teenagers-have-lower-IQs-than-their-counterparts-did-30-years-ago.html
People who are more intelligent and educated than average tend to have fewer children. This premise has been born out in numerous surveys conducted in many Western countries. Yet while this elite group is producing offspring at a rate close to their own natural die off rate (or less), the overall population continues to grow at an ever increasing rate. If intelligent people have fewer babies, then logic tells us that it must be the less intelligent, less educated people who are having more babies.
[source]
Source: http://ozziesaffa.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/apocalypse-of-stupidity-one-possible.html
People who are more intelligent have less children, so when poor people with lower IQs breed, they are making the gene pool have crappy genes and reducing the amount of good genes in comparison.
The second assumption is more interesting; we assumed measured IQ was/will be stable in each country. The Flynn Effect predicts this is false, and that measured IQ will increase over time. (Historical data provide significant evidence for this.) Many explanations have been offered for this effect, including steady improvement in testing procedures, and there is some evidence that in recent years the Flynn Effect has diminished. If the overall world IQ changes due to differential birth rates among populations with different IQs (that is, separate countries), then it seems plausible that a country's IQ could change due to differential birth rates within its sub-populations as well. In most countries and under most circumstances the birth rate of poorer and less educated people is significantly higher than the birth rate among wealthier and more educated people. (China is the primary exception; due to their "one child" policies the birth rate within all sub-populations is essentially the same.) Given the positive correlation between measured IQ and wealth, and between measured IQ and education, these differential birth rates would suggest that individual countries' IQs would decrease as populations expand. If true, this would obviously accelerate the overall decrease in world IQ over time.http://w-uh.com/articles/030831-IQ_and_populations.html
The bigger a population gets, the more the average IQ in that population lowers. As stated in the quoted paragraph above, there is evidence that the Flynn Effect has diminished. Although the population is growing, the rate of which the population is growing is slowing down, which causes the average IQ to continually lessen, more than education.
Also there is a direct correlation between IQ and wealth (yes causation). It's not just me saying it, other people are saying it (like in the source above that I just quoted that has bold text), and other statistics separate to the one I gave you in the image of the table are saying it (check the source above I quoted that has underlined text). It is no coincidence that multiple sources of information (I have given you two of them) says that money and education is directly correlated to IQ. I know you don't want to admit this, because feminists to blame men for all the problems and ills in the world. (Women are victims, men are villains. It's the patriarchy's fault!) If you want, you can go to the website and look at the statistics yourself.
Yes countries with better education have higher IQs, but the average of people's IQ is reducing over time, because the more technologically advanced a society gets, the less we need intelligence from an evolutionary standpoint. I have explained why this is, before.
You found evidence that IQ score has fallen within a particular segment of the population. I have evidence that it's risen overall. These don't conflict.
The website I went on used statistics to say that the average IQ in the world, is falling. Look at the blue line.
If you look at the increasing or decreasing IQs in the graph above, you will find that countries with an increasing population growth rate (China) have an IQ that gradually keeps going down. On the flip side, countries with a decreasing population growth rate (like India) have an IQ that keeps going up. So much for education being a primary factor (as you said). (Yes more educated countries do have higher IQs [source]). It is more of a secondary factor.
The current Birth rate in India is 21 births per 1000 population; in 2001 it was 24.3. It depends upon both the level of fertility and age structure of the population. The Death rate per 1000 is 7.48 compared with the figure of 8.74 in 2001. Both rates are gradually decreasing.Yes countries with a better education end up with people with a higher IQ. But why can't the reverse also be true? After all, IQ is a very good measure of intelligence, (as it shows how receptive someone is to processing new information and finding patters and making decisions). Why can't people with a higher IQ be better at education? Are you reluctant of letting go of the idea of blaming the patriarchy for gender disparities of how much money males or females make in the West?
http://goodpal.hubpages.com/hub/Population-Growth-of-India-Myths-vs-Realities
To be clear, I agree with you that:
- Higher IQ people tend to be wealthier and more education.
- IQ scores are correlated with intelligence.
- Intelligence causes you to attain more wealth and education.
Where I disagree is on the significance of that. The correlation between IQ and education is education causing an increase in IQ, much more so than the other way around.
These are basic facts that have causation that you are denying because you are being ignorant and closed minded, but you accuse me of it for not accepting that women are under-represented 100% due to discouragement.How has me treating the world as binary, ever hindered my viewpoint on the world and life? I think that it is intelligent of myself to look for other explanations of why women are under-represented in male dominated roles like technology and politics, other than to blame it 100% on discouragement. Discouragement only shows half the story, and for you to come and tell me several times that it is primarily due to discouragement, I find strange, as it cannot be primarily for that reason in every industry and country, considering that discouragement isn't conditioning or discrimination. Something else has to be at play here.
I never said it was 100% due to discouragement. Please don't treat the world as binary.
Feminists reject all rational theories that IQ could be a major factor, and blame it all on men, the patriarchy, that the patriarchy is stopping women from entering these roles. Just like the pay gap, just like the "unrealistic standard of beauty" from the media, just like rape jokes allegedly trivialising/normalising/causing rape, just like how feminists say we live a society that tells women not to get raped but not telling men to not rape, feminists reject all rational explanations for why all those things don't exist (because they have a victim complex and participate in the oppression olympics), and blame it on men, the patriarchy, and say that only a matriarchy or 50/50 representation in everything will solve those things. Such a belief is misguided and is hard to reason with. This is partly why 71% of Americans aren't feminists, because they cannot be reasoned with reason or logic and because they blame everything on the patriarchy (which does not exist).
tynamite
When scientists get statistics of IQ that cover the whole world over time, or when they test the hypothesis that more technologically advanced countries are increasingly having lower IQs, the Flynn effect is not what they see.Your sources do reference the Flynn effect as a fact. More advanced countries also have rising IQ. Check your data again.
People who are more intelligent have less children, so when poor people with lower IQs breed, they are making the gene pool have crappy genes and reducing the amount of good genes in comparison.I agree that this is theoretically possible. However, it's not what's actually happening thus far. IQ is increasing despite the lower income people having more children.
Also there is a direct correlation between IQ and wealth (yes causation). It's not just me saying it, other people are saying it (like in the source above that I just quoted that has bold text)Direct correlation != causation. It just means correlation.
They are absolutely correlated. No dispute there.
If you look at the increasing or decreasing IQs in the graph above, you will find that countries with an increasing population growth rate (China) have an IQ that gradually keeps going down. On the flip side, countries with a decreasing population growth rate (like India) have an IQ that keeps going up.Your stats on birthrate wrong. China's growth rate is lower than that of India.
China: 0.5%
India: 1.3%
United States: 0.7%
UK: 0.8%
Also, look at the years. China's IQ is actually increasing. The projection is that it will eventually decrease, but we don't know that.
Yes countries with better education have higher IQs, but the average of people's IQ is reducing over time, because the more technologically advanced a society gets, the less we need intelligence from an evolutionary standpoint. I have explained why this is, before.Look at your graph again. The IQ of many countries are increasing. The IQ of the world is decreasing -- probably due to population growth in poorly educated countries.
Why can't people with a higher IQ be better at education?They are. However, education also causes a higher IQ.
Are you reluctant of letting go of the idea of blaming the patriarchy for gender disparities of how much money males or females make in the West?You're the one who keeps bringing up the patriarchy, not me.
How has me treating the world as binary, ever hindered my viewpoint on the world and life?All the time. It also severely hinders your ability to understand other people's arguments. You treat the world in binary, and not everyone does. But you continue to treat their argument as binary. For example, if I say that discouragement is a factor, you assume that I'm saying that discouragement is the sole cause. You also believe that discouragement is irrelevant as long as people are physically capable of doing something.
tynamite
I found statistics that the average IQ of people in the world is decreasing, and you found statistics that it is increasing. So who are we supposed to believe? I don't think we can ever have a resolution on that.Remember the “Flynn Effect”? It turns out that even James Flynn now agrees with the new mainstream consensus that genotypic intelligence is declining over time. The Flynn Effect was merely capturing enviromental improvements that temporarily boosted average IQ for a few decades.
Author Richard Lynn is most responsible for noticing this more fundamental decline. So I propose we name this the “Lynn Effect” – the fact that world IQ is now declining over time — and the genetic contribution to intelligence appears to have been declining for over 100 years now.
So there you have it, the person who the Flynn effect was named after (of which you linked the Wikipedia page for me to read), now believes in the Lynn effect. How can someone believe in two contradicting theories, that the average IQ of the population is going up and down at the same time? The answer is that they can't. This means that he has implicitly implied that he was wrong about the Flynn effect, or maybe that the Lynn effect of decreasing IQs is more prominent than increasing IQs.
http://rockstarresearch.com/the-lynn-effect-how-the-worlds-iq-is-in-decline/
He says that the average IQ of people has been declining over the past 100 years.
You're right that I was wrong about China's birth rate. I assumed it was higher than India due to the line of IQ going down instead of up.
If you think that discouragement is primarily causing women to be under-represented in technology and leadership roles, then by definition, you are blaming the patriarchy for it. Also if you believe in the patriarchy, you'll also believe that it oppresses (or hinders) females, and benefits males. You'll then also believe in male privilege.
I am mentioning the patriarchy, because it is relevant in how Third Wave feminists think.
You cannot pick and choose when to believe in the patriarchy or not. You either believe in it or you don't. I don't believe we live in a patriarchy, and you do (because you're a feminist). So in my head, I would think that those teachers, managers and employers who you've seen do discouragement to women, are a part of the patriarchy (a male dominated management structure in society). So if you are blaming discouragement for why women are under-represented (which you did), you are by definition, blaming the patriarchy for it. You told me before that males dominating leadership roles was a male privilege, so by your viewpoint and world-view, the patriarchy oppresses or hinders women and benefits males.
Most people I know believe that men and women have already reached equality in society, so the fact that you would blame the patriarchy for why women are under-represented in technology and leadership roles (because men discourage women etc), shows that to people who are not feminists (me) and that you do not think that men and women have reached equality.
I think that men and women have reached equality in society, and you do not. That's why I'm not a feminist.
"For example, if I say that discouragement is a factor, you assume that I'm saying that discouragement is the sole cause."
In two different comment threads, it was the only factor you gave me for why women are under-represented, so it leaves me no choice but to believe that to you it was a primary factor.
"You also believe that discouragement is irrelevant as long as people are physically capable of doing something."
I am not the only person who has this view. I know several people who are not feminists, or are even anti-feminists, and they all share the same view, that discouragement is not a primary factor. No, I do not believe that the patriarchy is oppressing women in every country in every industry to ensure that women do not enter leadership roles. There is more evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I am not disputing that discouragement does exist and that it does affect people, but if a person is not stopped from pursuing their dream due to discouragement, it does not make much sense. Feminism is giving me the idea that women are not responsible for their own choices or for making decisions, because women willingly quit pursuing technology due to discouragement.
I looked at the Why don't more women attend hackathons question on Quora, and one answer said they stopped attending because they were asked questions like "How does it feel to be the only woman here", citing that as a reason why they quit. If you had reversed the genders and asked the only man in a room full of women "How does it feel to be the only man here", the man would not of quit going to hackathons because of that. So how come women do, and men don't?
I think it is bizarre to think that every industry in every country in the world has women being under-represented in leadership roles to primarily due to discouragement. There has to be something else at play. Blaming it primarily due to discouragement promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their own decisions. (Is this internalised misogyny?)
This is something that feminism does. Feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their choices, no matter how reprehensible, such as saying that women's prisons should close (as female murderers have mental illnesses but men ones don't), that fat acceptance should be embraced (for women only and not men), that statistics of women committing domestic violence in equal measure to men are flawed.
Feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their decisions, no matter how reprehensible. If you say it's primarily due to discouragement, you are implying that women aren't responsible for their decisions. The answer cannot be this simple and straightforward to just say it's discouragement primarily (as you have two times in two different comment threads with me). There has to be something else at play. I do not think it's very intelligent to brush it off as just due to discouragement, as male brains and female brains differ significantly.
tynamite
I found statistics that the average IQ of people in the world is decreasing, and you found statistics that it is increasing.These aren't in conflict with each other. The IQ of the world is decreasing. The IQ of many countries is increasing.
How can someone believe in two contradicting theories, that the average IQ of the population is going up and down at the same time? The answer is that they can't. This means that he has implicitly implied that he was wrong about the Flynn effect, or maybe that the Lynn effect of decreasing IQs is more prominent than increasing IQs.
No. You misinterpreted this.
What he says is that genotypic IQ -- the portion of IQ that is due to genetics -- has decreased in many countries.
The Flynn effect is measuring IQ in general, taking into account both genetic and environmental factors.
It is in fact entirely possible -- even likely -- that IQ within the US has increased why genetically this same group of people has gotten "dumber." This is what those links were describing.
The reason that you're getting so confused is that you are absolutely convinced IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence and that it's entirely genetic.
If you think that discouragement is primarily causing women to be under-represented in technology and leadership roles, then by definition, you are blaming the patriarchy for it.
It depends how you define "discouragement." When I say discouragement, I am also referring to subtle, implicit social pressures. I think environment, as opposed to genetics, is the primary cause for the underrepresentation of women in tech and leadership.
I am not disputing that discouragement does exist and that it does affect people, but if a person is not stopped from pursuing their dream due to discouragement, it does not make much sense.
Because you see the world in binary.
Feminism is giving me the idea that women are not responsible for their own choices or for making decisions, because women willingly quit pursuing technology due to discouragement.
That's not a logical conclusion. Recognizing that social pressures affect people does not mean that individual women aren't responsible for their choices.
I looked at the Why don't more women attend hackathons question on Quora, and one answer said they stopped attending because they were asked questions like "How does it feel to be the only woman here", citing that as a reason why they quit. If you had reversed the genders and asked the only man in a room full of women "How does it feel to be the only man here", the man would not of quit going to hackathons because of that. So how come women do, and men don't?
I'll bet men would do the same thing. In fact, I've had men tell me that they felt uncomfortable somewhere because it was largely women.
Feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their choices, no matter how reprehensible, such as saying that women's prisons should close (as female murderers have mental illnesses but men ones don't), that fat acceptance should be embraced (for women only and not men), that statistics of women committing domestic violence in equal measure to men are flawed.
These are not typical feminist beliefs, other than maybe the last one.
Feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their decisions, no matter how reprehensible. If you say it's primarily due to discouragement, you are implying that women aren't responsible for their decisions.
Nope. Doesn't follow.
Look, do you think black people are genetically more violent and more prone to abandon their children? Of course not (hopefully). So why are they more likely to? Because of a variety of social pressures. Recognizing that society plays affects behavior doesn't mean that the person has no responsibility.
The answer cannot be this simple and straightforward to just say it's discouragement primarily (as you have two times in two different comment threads with me). There has to be something else at play. I do not think it's very intelligent to brush it off as just due to discouragement, as male brains and female brains differ significantly.
Maybe there is something ingrained. I can't rule that out. However, since representation varies across cultures and times, it is pretty easy to conclude that society plays a very important role.
tynamite
These aren't in conflict with each other. The IQ of the world is decreasing. The IQ of many countries is increasing.So how come this article exists in the 7th richest country in the world where education is free? British teenagers have lower IQs than their counterparts did 30 years ago - Telegraph
The Flynn effect is measuring IQ in general, taking into account both genetic and environmental factors.How is it possible for an IQ test to take in genetic and environmental factors? When someone takes an IQ test, there is only one result. A number. There is no genetic number and environmental number, it just gives one number.
It is in fact entirely possible -- even likely -- that IQ within the US has increased why genetically this same group of people has gotten "dumber." This is what those links were describing.Again, how is this possible, if an IQ test only gives out one number as a result?
The reason that you're getting so confused is that you are absolutely convinced IQ is a perfect measure of intelligence and that it's entirely genetic.This is what the television, the internet, the staff older than me, Mensa, and everyone around me has taught me my entire life. My view is not an uncommon view.
It depends how you define "discouragement." When I say discouragement, I am also referring to subtle, implicit social pressures. I think environment, as opposed to genetics, is the primary cause for the underrepresentation of women in tech and leadership.People who are not feminists, and anti-feminists will disagree with you there. I'm sure there's loads of women who do not see being female as a disadvantage who think that male privilege does not exist. Unlike feminists, I think that male privilege does not exist (although feminists say it does).
Because you see the world in binary.I don't get it. :/
I'll bet men would do the same thing. In fact, I've had men tell me that they felt uncomfortable somewhere because it was largely women.Is this a thing now? This is the part of a show where our different life experiences make us think different things about the world. From my personal experience, males especially enjoyed being in a female environment, and never felt uncomfortable about it.
These are not typical feminist beliefs, other than maybe the last one.Women commit 70% of domestic violence and domestic violence shelters discriminate against men. The fact that domestic violence is considered a women's issue, when males suffer it the most, shows The Disposable Male in action.
This is just like how Boro Haram could burn hundreds of boys alive with impunity, but the minute he kidnaps girls and later lets them go, it's an international outrage and Ellen DeGeneres and Michelle Obama make placards saying #BringBackOurGirls. A woman's life is treasured and a man's life is worthless. The Disposable Male.
There are lots of different types of cancers, but the one that gets the most prominence in the media, is breast cancer. Testicular cancer or even lung cancer or leg cancer is not important (that affects everyone), only women's cancers are important. That is discriminating against men. Why can't the pink breast cancer badge be a badge for all cancers, why only for women? This is another example of The Disposable Male in action. The Disposable Male is present everywhere in society.
If you actually think that men commit more domestic violence than women, you are wrong, because statistics will prove you wrong. Your response supporting the opposite, shows that you support The Disposable Male without realising.
Feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their decisions, no matter how reprehensible. If you say it's primarily due to discouragement, you are implying that women aren't responsible for their decisions.My family all agree that feminism is either irrelevant or that it's a hate movement. It is no coincidence that the most popular and famous feminists in every country are the most hateful ones. People do not want to be associated with a movement that has been tainted in that way. I would quote you an article to prove how feminism is about promoting how women aren't responsible for their decisions, and how men are, but that would be changing the subject. Feminism is not about equality any more. It is about special treatment and gender dominance. It is about villainising all men for being a part of the patriarchy.
Nope. Doesn't follow.
The difference between black people abandoning their kids more than white people, and women being under-represented in technology and leadership roles compared to men; is that black children do not blame their fathers being absent on the patriarchy where most of the people in power are white (black role models anyone?), whereas women blame being under-represented in technology and leadership roles, due to the patriarchy. This proves that feminism promotes the idea that women are not responsible for their decisions.
Black people understand that if we lived under a 50/50 split of the genders in every industry or even lived in a matriarchy, it wouldn't affect whether their fathers are present in their lives, but feminists say that it's the patriarchy's fault why women are not in technology or leadership roles, which is ridiculous as the pay gap and glass ceiling does not exist.
Rather than listen to rational arguments and evidence, they instead blame it on the patriarchy. I know some feminists on this site who believe in the pay gap. This shows they are either naive, deluded or lying.
Tearing down the patriarchy is possibly feminists' number one goal, and they view the pay gap, airbrushed women, Barbie dolls and men dominating politics as patriarchal. Feminists blame all the problems and ills of the world on the patriarchy, and says that only a matriarchy can fix it. This is why it is wrong, because that is dumb. It also paints women as victims and men as villains, including the unemployed man because he has "male privilege". Feminism is about villianising men because feminsts compete in the oppression olympics and relish telling stories about how oppressed they are in the 21st century, talking about how evil the patriarchy is when in fact it's anything but that. This is partly why is a hate movement.
tynamite
1. IQ scores have increased across most western countries. This is a fact. Do you dispute it?2. You are correct that you can't clearly distinguish between genetic intelligence and environmental -- which undercuts your argument the people have gotten dumber. We can only take guesses that genetic intelligence has lowered. We can't know for sure.
3. It's widely known that intelligence has a major environment component. Look up studies on this.
4. Many men do not enjoy being in a female dominated environment. They might joke that they would, but they actually don't. They feel out of place.
5. The pay gap is not disproven. It's very complicated.
Almost all of these issues are too complicated for you to understand though since you continue to view the world in binary.
tynamite
Me
1. I do not dispute the fact that IQ scores have increased across most Western countries (because you showed me statistics), but I am sceptical of that fact, considering that the Flynn effect (of it increasing) is now found to be only temporarily increasing it, whereas the Lynn effect of it decreasing, is more permanent.2. Yes.
3. I do know that IQ and intelligence has a major environmental component. Yesterday I saw a graph that showed that better educated countries had higher IQs, and Africa was the continent with the worst IQs.
4. I cannot be sure whether men feel insecure or intimidated in a female environment, as my life experience has showed me the opposite. However I can believe that it happens like you say it does, yes.
5. The pay gap is disproven. It is not caused by the patriarchy (men) but instead because of lifestyle choices (that women make). Feminists reject all rational explanations for why the pay gap does not exist, and blames it on the patriarchy. This is why people do not think they can have rational arguments with feminists.
Feminists prefer to and would rather blame things (like the pay gap) on the patriarchy, than to listen to rational explanations for it being anything but that, because they secretly enjoy villianising men and victimising women. This is partly why feminism is a hate movement.
This is why people do not think they can have rational arguments with feminists.
tynamite
Gayle
But we just saw cases where that's not the case (a kid who's easily distracted, for example).
tynamite
Me
Why are you comparing someone who is non-functional and slightly retarded to a normal person, to refute my argument?I'm sure the people in the statistic image I showed you, were able to complete an IQ test without being distracted.
As I said before, the person would have an low IQ because of their inability to complete the test *due to a lack of focus), not because they're dumb.
tynamite
Gayle
I'm using the extreme examples to demonstrate that there will in fact be people scoring well below their genetic intelligence. From there, it's easy to see that there's also a lot of people in the middle, and their scores will also be impacted by other variables (ability to focus, self-confidence, etc.).The easily distracted person is in fact able to complete the test. He just doesn't focus on the problems and so he makes too many mistakes.
I absolutely agree that his low score isn't because he's dumb, and that's my exact point. IQ scores are not a great measure of intelligence since they're impacted by too many other things, like education.
tynamite
Me
IQ scores are a great measure of intelligence, and the graphic of statistics I showed you, proved it.I'll link the graphic again.
The population distribution for >125 IQ and <75 IQ is both at number 5%, so how come more <75's are in prison compared to >125's?
If there's much more people with 90-110 IQ (50% compared to 5%), then how come LESS of them are in prison than the <75's? Shouldn't there be more of them in prison, considering there's much more of them? .......... Hmmmmmm.
Think about this stuff carefully. There's actual evidence staring in the face that actually puts reasoning behind statistics with a direct correlation with incremental changes in succession, rather than to quote statistics alone and have you put your own spin on it.
You cite: Ability to focus? Self confidence? So more people with a lower IQ are in prison, with a direct correlation in succession, because of lack of focus and self confidence? Really???????????
So much for calling me closed minded refusing to listen and consider opposing beliefs, who is doing that now?
I think it is very intelligent to consider other factors besides discouragement, as I do not think that discouragement provides the whole story.
tynamite
Gayle
I addressed this earlier.IQ is correlated with lots of things (prison rates, teen pregnancy, etc). I totally agree with that. This doesn't mean that it's actually measuring intelligence.
If I created an "intelligence" test which measured someone's knowledge of vocabulary words (which I assume you'll agree is largely determined by education), I'd find a correlation between it and prison rates. Does this mean that I've measured intelligence? Of course not.
tynamite
Me
1. IQ measures intelligence.2. These things are not just correlated (IQ and prison rates), they are also causation as well.
IQ tests are made in such a way, that someone with less education can outsmart people with more education. Remember, IQ tests measure how clever someone is, not how smart they are. An IQ test would never test you on how many words you know, as that would be a "smart test" instead of a "clever test".
I did the 11 test when I was 11. They give you a verbal reasoning and non verbal reasoning paper to complete. Absolutely nothing I had learned about in school was in those exam papers, and I passed the exam and scored more than most adults. That test definitely does measure intelligence, how your brain works.
I think you should complete a 11 test paper and see.
tynamite
Gayle
I just looked up some sample questions for an 11 test. It tests vocabulary/spelling, arithmetic, and other things. This is obviously enormously affected by education.Could you pass the 11-plus? Exam papers first used in the 1950s puts your family to the test
tynamite
Me
No it is not. I have taken the test, and vocabulary and spelling is only a minority of the entire paper.
tynamite
Gayle
But it's there, so it is impacted by education.
tynamite
Me
The questions in the test about vocabulary and spelling are elementary. Anyone should be able to answer them, and if you cannot, you are stupid.Intelligence is about piecing information together from your memory and environment and then finding patterns and making correlations with it so you can then understand the world around you better. Dumb people cannot do this as well as clever people.
The words that have to be filled in the blanks in order to answer the question, the person doing the test has probably seen hundreds of times (in school), so if they cannot complete those questions, it's not because their education is bad, but instead because their brain is not good at remembering words they've seen hundreds of times. This is a sign of having a bad brain, not a sign of a bad education.
I'm sure the people who make the test considered this.
tynamite
Gayle
You're not necessarily stupid genetically; you might have just had a very poor education.Please show me what you think a good IQ test is. I would like to see some sample questions.
tynamite
Me
Anyone who has completed public school who cannot answer those 11 exam paper questions correctly which are in the Daily Mail article, is stupid. End of.It's as simple as that.
tynamite
Gayle
Do you understand that if two variables are correlated, it does not mean that one caused the other?If X and Y are correlated, then:
- X caused Y
- Y caused X
- X and Y have a common cause, Z.
tynamite
Me
A higher IQ is what causes people to1. Make more money.
2. Become more educated.
3. Be less likely to rely on welfare.
4. Be less likely to go to prison.
It's not just a correlation, it's a causation as well.
The more we learn about the human brain, the less evidence there is for free will. Maybe you should also accept that people in prison are only there due to their genetics.
tynamite
Gayle
You don't know that it's causal. All the IQ tests I see appear to be enormously impacted by education.The problem is that you are assuming that IQ tests are a great measure of intelligence and thus asserting that it's causal.
Do you think that poor people have genetics that hard wires them to have substantially lower scores?
tynamite
Me
If the IQ tests you see are enormously impacted by education, then you are looking at the wrong IQ tests, because an authentic reputable IQ test would not quiz you on any knowledge that you would learn in school or education. An IQ does not quiz you on what you know, but instead it quizzes you on the way you thinkPeople who are born poor are not born poor due to their IQ, but people with lower IQs are more likely to enter poverty or not be able to escape it, as the image statistic table I showed you, illustrates.
tynamite
Gayle
But children of poor people are more likely to have low IQs.Can you point me to what you think of as a good IQ test?
tynamite
Me
IQ scores are not impacted by education. If that was the case, Scottish people would have higher IQs than Sporeans, as people from Scotland get university for free whereas people in Singapore have to pay upfront.You are wrong.
Society does not impact people's IQ scores. Everyone goes through at least 12 years of mandatory education, so it's the same.
tynamite
Gayle
Sorry, you're wrong here. IQ is impacted by education. IQ also varies across countries.Everyone might go through 12 years of education, but the quality of education varies dramatically.
Are rich people smarter? - Curiosity
hildren who are adopted by wealthy parents score an average of 12 points higher on standard IQ tests than children adopted by low-income families. This difference in scores persists regardless of the biological mother's socioeconomic status, suggesting that the influence of child's environment is more important than the influence of the child's genes.
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/opinion/16kristof.html
More time at school 'boosts IQ'
The research, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggested that an extra year in the classroom could boost IQ by nearly four points.
European IQ map proves Brits are brainy
He concludes that in Europe, adults in Germany and the Netherlands have the
highest average IQ at 107, compared with 100 across Britain. The UK is also beaten by Poland (106), Sweden (104), Italy (102), Austria (101) and Switzerland (101).
But Britons are brighter than people in Belgium (99), Spain (98), Hungary (98), Russia (96), Greece (95), France (94), Romania (94), Turkey (90) and Serbia, which finishes bottom with 89.
tynamite
No. IQ has not risen over time. You are wrong. IQ is falling over time.IQ has fallen because nowadays we live off modern conveniences like the internet, television, supermarkets, iPhones, and have easier lessons compared to 100 years ago, so the need for intelligence among a wide spectrum of people has lessened. In the West, a poor person with a low IQ can keep popping out kids who will as well have a low IQ while receiving more money for each kid they pop out. This makes the population more stupid, whilst a rich person cannot have loads of high IQ kids because of child support being proportionate to their income so they would risk bankruptcy. The government is making the population dumber and dumber on purpose.
Socialist countries make the population dumber by allowing those with crappy genes to reproduce (with welfare) and punishing rich people with good genes to not reproduce (with child support).
Also what are the chances that a child is going to be raised in an "upper middle class" background where they go to private school? .................. Negligible and very slim. You are using upper middle class backgrounds, 1% of the population, to say that the 99% of the population can be just like them. That makes no sense.
I know people earning £40,000 who still live with their parents, and they're in the global 1%, and they cannot afford to send children to private school or get a mortgage. You're comparing the majority of people, (the working class and middle class) to millionaires who make up 0.0000004% of the population.
IQ has fallen, not risen. This is a basic fact.
People with higher IQs are smarter due to genetics, not education.
Germany and Netherlands having the highest average IQ of 107 is an average IQ, not a high IQ. The evidence you are giving me to refute my argument and backup your claims, is futile and silly, because there is no country in the world where the average IQ is as high as Stephen Hawking's (160). The changes that countries do to IQ compared to each other, are mostly irrelevant due to their negligible differences..
The evidence you gave me said that the average IQs of countries range from 90 to 110. Well these are ALL average IQs.
This proves that the extent of which an IQ rises, is negligible, because you're still having an average IQ that is average, regardless.
Also I've watched a tv show where they got experts to improve people's lives in order to optimise people's IQ, and they couldn't improve their IQ more than 7 points.
tynamite
Gayle
Please cite evidence that IQs have fallen and not risen.
tynamite
Me
It has been widely observed that the birthrate of countries tends to fall as they become more wealthy. Most countries in Western Europe now have birthrates below the replacement (death) rate; in the absence of immigration, their populations can be expected to fall in the future.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/IQ/1950-2050/
Tests carried out in 1980 and again in 2008 show that the IQ score of an average 14-year-old dropped by more than two points over the period.
Among those in the upper half of the intelligence scale, a group that is typically dominated by children from middle class families, performance was even worse, with an average IQ score six points below what it was.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4548943/British-teenagers-have-lower-IQs-than-their-counterparts-did-30-years-ago.html
tynamite
Gayle
Very interesting. One population has risen. And yet, overall, IQ has increased quite a bit. That points even more to IQ scores not being a great measure.How do you explain the 15 point increase in IQ over a generation? Do you think people have been breeding more smart genes somehow? (with british teenagers somehow being left out of this)
tynamite
Me
There is no 15 point increase in IQ of a generation (in British people or any other people), in any of the sources I have given you.Now you are hearing what you want to hear and are taking things out of context because you do not like the sources I have given you. This proves that you have lost the argument if you have to do that.
tynamite
Gayle
Both of the sources you provided reference the rise in IQ scores. One mentions the 15 point increase.Global IQ: 1950-2050
The Flynn effect is an undisputed yet enigmatic aspect of IQ testing. Shortly after the first IQ tests were standardised, it was observed that the scores of those taking them tended to rise from year to year, as much as 15 points (one standard deviation) per generation.
British teenagers have lower IQs than their counterparts did 30 years ago - Telegraph
The trend marks an abrupt reversal of the so-called "Flynn effect" which has seen IQ scores rise year on year, among all age groups, in most industrialised countries throughout the past century.
...
He found that while children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by up to half a point a year over the three decades, teenagers performed less well.
tynamite
Me
When you go the the first link, and change the dropdown box from animation to trend chart, you receive this image. This shows that the average IQ is decreasing around the world.This is due to evolutionary biology (as we can live off the successes of others with welfare etc) and because the government encourages poor people with crap genes to reproduce, while punishing rich people with child support proportional to their income.
When you change the dropdown box on the site to Animation, you see the bars in the bar charts getting smaller and the mean IQ getting lower, year by year.
Now for link number 2.
The trend marks an abrupt reversal of the so-called "Flynn effect" which has seen IQ scores rise year on year, among all age groups, in most industrialised countries throughout the past century.
Did you see what the sentence you quoted says, it marks an abrupt reversal of the Flynn effect, that's right, the Flynn effect is becoming obsolete. The information I am finding on the internet is saying that the IQ of humans is gradually decreasing over time (ie. the gif animation above with year by year metrics).
He found that while children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by up to half a point a year over the three decades, teenagers performed less well.
So if you compare a 5-10 year old to themselves as an adult, their IQ increases, but if you compare a teenager to an adult, their IQ decreases? I don't know about you, but a 5-10 year old's brain is not fully developed, so I would consider the teenager as a more reliable starting point, compared to the adult, to be any more reputable than comparing adults to 5-10 year olds. Of course an adult's IQ is going to be higher than someone who is very young. That's obvious. When a child goes through puberty and they physically and mentally become an adult (due to brain changes etc), that's when the real adult changes happen. Also, have you considered that a 5-10 year old's IQ is higher than a teenagers, because young children's brains are far more receptive to learning language, than an adult's?
The IQ of people in our society and the world is decreasing as our society becomes technologically more advanced and more populated. This is a fact that you do not think is true. The average IQ of people is decreasing, not increasing, as the gif animation above shows.
Feminists are the most vocal advocates of censorship in the West. Look at the way they respond to Facebook posts, tweets, tumblr posts, blog posts, etc. You say I'm not a Top Writer due to this answer I wrote being bigoted, when my answer is anything but that.
tynamite
This shows that the average IQ is decreasing around the world.Around the world, yes. Not in many countries.
This is due to evolutionary biology (as we can live off the successes of others with welfare etc) and because the government encourages poor people with crap genes to reproduce, while punishing rich people with child support proportional to their income.
But this hasn't been the case in the exact countries that have these welfare systems.
Now for link number 2.
> The trend marks an abrupt reversal of the so-called "Flynn effect" which has seen IQ scores rise year on year, among all age groups, in most industrialised countries throughout the past century.
Did you see what the sentence you quoted says, it marks an abrupt reversal of the Flynn effect, that's right, the Flynn effect is becoming obsolete.
No no. It says that the Flynn effect was otherwise true, but just not in a specific subgroup.
> He found that while children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by up to half a point a year over the three decades, teenagers performed less well.
So if you compare a 5-10 year old to themselves as an adult, their IQ increases, but if you compare a teenager to an adult, their IQ decreases? I don't know about you, but a 5-10 year old's brain is not fully developed, so I would consider the teenager as a more reliable starting point, compared to the adult, to be any more reputable than comparing adults to 5-10 year olds. Of course an adult's IQ is going to be higher than someone who is very young. That's obvious. When a child goes through puberty and they physically and mentally become an adult (due to brain changes etc), that's when the real adult changes happen. Also, have you considered that a 5-10 year old's IQ is higher than a teenagers, because young children's brains are far more receptive to learning language, than an adult's?
You misread this. First of all, IQ is measured using age, so the IQs of children and adults are the same. Second, this study was saying that children now outperform children from 3 decades ago.
The IQ of people in our society and the world is decreasing as our society becomes technologically more advanced and more populated. This is a fact that you do not think is true.
It's not true. It's false. The world's IQ is decreasing but NOT western societies.
You say I'm not a Top Writer due to this answer I wrote being bigoted, when my answer is anything but that.
Please stop making everything binary. That is not what I said.
This is what I said: you hold bigoted beliefs and won't consider that they might be wrong, or have a rational coherent discussion on them.
There are three things I mentioned there, not one.
tynamite
The Flynn effect that you cite for why IQ in Western society was increasing, is only temporarily. The Lynn effect is not. My other comment explains this with an added source people can look at.The link you speak of, did not say that the IQ of children improved compared to 3 decades ago. You are hearing what you want to hear."
British teenagers have lower IQs than their counterparts did 30 years ago - Telegraph
The world's IQ is decreasing in Western societies, I gave you a link showing you how it is in Britain, and that's the 7th richest country in the world.
If I hold bigoted beliefs, like you say I do, does that make me a bigoted person? In my opinion, I would come to the conclusion that the answer would be yes. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am capable of having a rational coherent discussion. It's just that you refused to admit certain things that are true.
You refused to admit that IQ was a great measure of intelligence, rather than terrible.
You refused to admit that IQ is innate and due to genetics, and it can only be optimised, not increased exponentially as there is a limit to how high a person's IQ can go, no matter how many degrees they have.
You refused to admit that someone with an IQ of 100 cannot improve it to get to 120.
You refused to admit that 50% of the population can get a degree but not 50% of the population can have an IQ higher than 120.
You refused to admit that IQ is what makes people perform better at education, rather than it be the other way around. Although the reverse is kinda true, it implies that a person's IQ is limitless, which it isn't, so it's misleading. IQ is what makes people perform better at education. Education has a limit of how much it can raise IQ.
You refused to admit that welfare, child support and alimony is making the IQ of the population decrease by encouraging people with crappy genetics to reproduce.
You refused to admit that the average IQ of people is going down because of our society getting so technologically advanced, that we can free load off other people's achievements (ie. welfare, child support, alimony, smartphones).
You refused to admit that the government is encouraging poor people with crappy genes to reproduce by giving them more money for each kid they pop out, whilst preventing the rich with good genes from reproducing due to child support proportional to their income.
You refused to admit that the Flynn effect of IQs increasing around the world (and in the West) is not the full picture, that it only works temporarily before going back to the original IQ, and that the Lynn effect talks about permanent IQ decreasing. Even when I gave you a gif animation showing you the decrease in IQ in every sequential year, you denied this.
I will let you off for thinking that puzzles in technology job interviews aren't about IQ, even though they should be going by your qualifications and work experience alone.
Although you admitted that people with a lower IQ are more likely to go to prison (because you don't care about the men in the scrap heap of society as much as you do about the men outnumbering women when it comes to elite positions), you refused to admit that the higher your IQ, the more education you have and the more money you have, and that these life chances are more rooted down to IQ (genetics) and not education (environment).
You do not want to admit that your IQ causes you to make more money any be better educated if it's high, and be on welfare or in prison if it's low, because you'd rather blame the patriarchy for the disparity between the genders. "It's the patriarchy's fault!"
It’s no coincidence that the most insidious ideologies of the world, those responsible for incomprehensible death and destruction, always portray their target market as victims. This is the first prong of the strategy. The second prong is to sell these emotionally vulnerable folks a beautiful dream in which they are elevated out of their quagmire with little to no effort on their part and are simultaneously revenged against their evil oppressors.
Communism, for instance, depends on poor people hating and feeling victimized by the rich, because it’s the rich’s fault they’re poor. “If only communism were instituted, our poverty would disappear!”
Communism, for instance, depends on poor people hating and feeling victimized by the rich, because it’s the rich’s fault they’re poor. “If only communism were instituted, our poverty would disappear!”
WWII Nazism depended on convincing the German people that the Jews were to blame for all their problems. “If only we got rid of all the Jews, our businesses and communities would be restored to their former glory.”
Feminism depends on convincing the women that the men are to blame for all their problems. "If only we got rid of the patriarchy, and we had 50% men and women in every industry and institution or 100% women, our lives and life chances would be better than men as male privilege would cease to exist."
When Martin Luther King aimed to end slavery, he never aimed to paint black people as victims and white people as enemies. He spoke of black boys being friends with white girls. When Rosa parks refused to get out her seat on the bus, she didn't see herself as a victim. However feminism paints men as villains.
Feminism is the only ideology that says you're empowered and a victim at the same time. That's why it's cancerous.
I can make a list of things that you believe in that I fail to admit. There are only eight of them.
1. My answer has bigoted views and I am a bigot.
2. I cannot have a rational discussion with you.
3. I don't want to consider I am wrong.
4. I do not believe that women are under-represented in technology and leadership roles primarily due to discouragement, as I believe there are other factors at play such as IQ
5. Someone's environment (education) plays a greater part in determining someone's IQ and potential IQ than their genetics.
6. Men and women are not equal in society (I believe that they are).
7. I do not think that the patriarchy exists (you do).
8. I should stop making everything binary.
Discouragement isn't a big evil scary thing as you would have me believe. Thinking that less women are in technology, politics or anything else due to a lack of role models, gendered toys and verbal discouragement, is silly, as it doesn't account for the huge disparity we see between the genders in society when it comes to leadership roles.
Feminism says that when women go into nursing or psychology fields it's due to internalised misogyny, but when men work dangerous jobs like fighting the war or being a firefighter, they're doing it out of their own free will. You think that society makes women not want to pursue technology (due to a lack of role models and other factors of discouragement). This double standard of women entering pink collar jobs due to internalised misogyny and men entering death professions due to their own free will, is a double standard and viewpoint that feminists have is ridiculous and flawed. Feminism is telling me (and other anti-feminists) that women are not capable of being responsible for their own choices if they are so easily swayed by discouragement (eg. lack of role models, gendered toys).
I bet if all discouragement ceased to exist everywhere in the world, and males still dominate technology and leadership roles (which they still will if discouragement was abolished everywhere worldwide, let's be real here, stopping discouragement isn't really going to open the floodgates), you still would have trouble considering that IQ differences between men and women has anything to do with human achievement, and you would have no patriarchal excuses to fall back on for why the gender disparity in certain jobs still exists.
That is why your argument is flawed.
tynamite
You're talking all over the place and making up that I said things that I didn't. This is why I find it so difficult to have conversations with you.There are well established facts by experts:
1. People score better on IQ tests now within most western countries as compared to several decades ago.
2. There is a large genetic component to intelligence and a large environmental component to intelligence.
3. The environment that impacts your intelligence is not only your official schooling. It also includes your early childhood exposure (for example, having parents who talk to you a lot).
4. IQ does not wholly define intelligence. It is probably correlated with intelligence, but it is not a perfect measure of intelligence.
It is LIKELY true that:
1. Genetic intelligence has dropped over the last 50 years.
Now, please tell me, clearly, whether or not you agree with those facts.
As for the rest of what you said I refused to admit: much of that you made up. In fact, a bunch of those I actually agreed with earlier.
tynamite
Okay then. If you think I am making up things you said which you didn't, that is understandable and I apologise. The fact that I repeated myself some times, I had assumed that you had not understood certain things.That was a severe fault on my part.I agree with everything you've said in your previous comment. Yes they are all facts.
There are certain courses and subjects at university which are dominated by males (technology), and certain ones which are dominated by females (psychology). It has hardly anything to do with discouragement (like you say) such as gendered toys, a lack of role models, and verbal discouragement, but more to do with genetics and male and female brains being different.
Every time science proves that men are better at maths and women are better at english via brain scans, or that men are better at logical thinking and women at intuitive thinking, or that men are better at being hairdressers and women are better at receptionists, or that the IQ of men ranges from low to high instead of in the middle like women which is why men make up outstanding achievers as well as the scrap heap, or that IQ is directly correlated and causes you to make more money and be more educated if it's high, or be on welfare or go to prison if it's low, guess what happens?
Feminists reject all rational explanations of those things which are backed up by science, and blames it on men, the patriarchy.
(And then you call my answer and myself bigoted for me enjoying proving that men are better than women)
Feminists blame the pay gap on the patriarchy when it has been debunked, they blame the "unrealistic standard of beauty" on patriarchy, they blame there being a culture of "teaching women not to get raped but not telling men to not rape" on the patriarchy, they blame women being oppressed on the patriarchy.
Feminists reject all rational explanations for why all these things don't exist, and blame it on the patriarchy.
It's as if they enjoy being in the oppression olympics in order to villianise men
Feminists reject all rational explanations for why all these things don't exist, and blame it on the patriarchy.
This is why people do not think they can have rational arguments with feminists.
You're not any different. The fact that you believe in the pay gap and that it's caused by the patriarchy, proves this. I read your answer on Why is feminism needed in first world countries and you list three examples why you think it is. Abortion being illegal (if feminism was just about that, more people would be feminists), rape jokes, and job listings that mention women fetching beer as a perk.
I can picture how a feminist would think reading your answer now. "It's the patriarchy's fault that abortion is illegal, men are oppressing women because of the patriarchy. It's the patriarchy's fault that rape jokes exist, as we live in a rape culture that the patriarchy causes and Axe and Old Spice adverts add to this by portraying the image that women exist solely for their bodies to please men. It's the patriarchy's fault that job listings list women fetching beer as a perk, as the patriarchial media teaches young boys that women are to be homemakers who cook in kitchens and play with dolls in toy adverts as well as patriachial institutions like Hooters which I do not recommend 8-12 year old boys, going to, to teach them how to be around attractive women, as it will warp their viewpoint on attractive women. It's the patriarchy's fault! Men (all of them) are the villains, all problems men face (which are much less than women's) are caused by the patriarchy, and male privilege exists!"
The words I've underlined, show typical feminist code words for man hating and sweeping men's issues under the carpet. It's no wonder that feminists are the most vocal advocates of censorship in the West (look at the way they react to quora answers, tweets, facebook posts, articles etc). Do you see Nokia asking the government for help to defend against Apple? So why do feminists censor opposing views?
Feminists reject all rational explanations for why all these things don't exist, and blame it on the patriarchy. Men are not routinely oppressing women on many different levels by outlawing abortion as prostitution being illegal oppresses against men so it's equal on both sides, there is no rape culture, Hooters isn't sexist, and gendered toy adverts aren't responsible for why more women are homemakers than men.
The patriarchy does not exist. I'll repeat that. The patriarchy does not exist.
Read this. It is written by an anti-feminist (like myself), and he gives the same reasoning I give, for why women are not CEOs not as much as men (lifestyle choices and genetics). It's not a minority antithetical view, except on feminist heavy sites like Quora,
However, you'll read it, disagree, and say "It's the patriarchy's fault!"
http://allthingswittyandneko.tumblr.com/feminists
PS. He said that feminism is a hate movement aiming for gender supremacy and free rides. Have a think about why many people - outside Quora - nowadays think that.
FYI, patriarchal oppression is a code word for man hating. Open your eyes. Feminists love talking about how much they are oppressed by the patriarchy in the 21st century, because it gives them a good excuse to man hate and villianise all men.
FFYI. Male privilege is a code word for trivialising men's suffering and throwing it under a bus. This is why feminists accuse men of male privilege when they disagree with them. A feminist on this site said that unemployed men benefit from male privilege and that an unemployed man would have it harder if they were a woman. Such irrational views, prove that feminists are misandrists, because feminists do not listen to reason or logic. They rely on censorship for this reason.
FFFYI. Feminists construct mythical and trivial issues such as hurricanes being named after women or the Blurred Lines lyrics being about rape (the fact that Robin complains about blurred lines says he wants a clear yes or no answer), because they find any excuse to villianise men.
Feminism is a hate movement about gender supremacy and free rides.
tynamite
Vibhanshu
There is actually quite a bit of evidence that clearly suggests that men are, indeed, better than women in some fields like mathematics. Page on collegeboard.comThis is an official report that clearly screams that women taking the SAT are weaker in maths when compared to men. There is 32 point difference in the mean scores of 2 genders. That definitely says something.
tynamite
Me
Yes men are better than women when it comes to maths, but if you point that out to a feminist, like I have, they will call you wrong or a misogynist (like I have been for saying so).Either feminists are full of doublespeak or they are ignorant. It's as if feminists enjoy having a victim complex. It's as if feminists, enjoy being oppressed, because whenever you prove them wrong in any aspect, they refuse to listen.
You cannot have a rational argument with a feminist if they believe in the pay gap and still do even after you've debunked it. Next time you have an argument or debate with a feminist, convince her that the pay gap is not real. It shall provide a good "litmus test" as to whether she is a rational thinker or not.
tynamite
Gayle
Black people also score lower on the SATs on both math and language. Does that mean that black people are inherently/genetically weaker?
tynamite
Me
We have gone through this before.I did research on this, and I found a good theory as to why black people are inherently less intelligent. Various traits are passed down through our genetics, and as Europeans lived in a harsher climate, they had to utilise more intelligence than black people in order to survive. They could have died in the cold for example, so they needed better shelters and they needed to use fire more often.
Searching "african tools hunting" and "european tools hunting" "white people tools hunting" "african hunting tools" "european hunting tools", shows that Europeans had better hunting tools than black people did.
500,000 years ago, Africans used hunting tools such as these.
540,00 years ago, Europeans used hunting tools such as these.
Why are Africans born 40,000 years after Europeans, having worse hunting tools? This proves their intellectual inferiority.
This proves that black people in the hunter gatherer days had worse tools than white people in those days, which further proves the theory why black people are less intelligent than white people today.
Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2233557/The-birth-weapons-Man-began-hunting-stone-tipped-spears-200-000-year-earlier-previously-thought.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2443667/Melting-snow-reveals-remarkably-preserved-5-400-year-old-bow-arrows-used-hunt-reindeer-Norway.html
====================================================================
A feminist told me that a lack of role models in the media (such as a lack of role models or seeing men dominating them on tv) causes women to not enter male dominated fields. I thought for a moment, and asked her how that can be the case. I said, "If you as a woman kept applying for programming jobs and kept getting rejected, you could attribute it to being a woman and then give up because of it, but if you applied for a computing course and got rejected, it would have nothing to do with you being a woman, so wouldn't the logical conclusion to make, is that discouragement isn't a major factor, as if it was, there would be a 50/50 split in all courses, as discouragement should only affect people in environments of inequality?" What do you think about that argument?
tynamite
Gayle
Adisa, I'll be honest: I'm really not interested in engaging you in a debate. You're unable to see the world is anything other than black and white, and thus you can't see the subtleties in issues. It's just... not interesting to discuss things with you. You go around in circles. Sorry.
tynamite
Me
You already said I'm a bigot.
tynamite
Gayle
You think black people are dumber than white people. So, yes, by definition, you are.
tynamite
Isn't a bigot someone who is intolerant of other people's views or creed? Are you confusing bigotry with prejudice? Yes I do have prejudices, but doesn't everyone else? Having prejudices doesn't make someone intolerant.
Having prejudices doesn't mean I'm intolerant of their views of other people. It's human nature to put people into categories and define them by their labels. Everyone does this. I think it would be naive to believe that most people don't have prejudices. The fact is that most people are too scared to reveal their prejudices on an open forum.
tynamite
Vibhanshu
No. To me, it means that in high school, black are weaker than whites. I do not propose any theory for that. It simply means what it means: whites are better than blacks at maths, genetically or not.What do you think is the reason for the disparity between the scores of men and women?
PS. I'm neither white nor black. I'm Asian. I'm sorry for any hurt sentiments. It is
tynamite
Me
You do not propose any theory for that? Well everything in this world has a logical explanation for it, whether that be the existence of the universe, whites being better than blacks at math, and things rotting. In the entire history of the world, everything that we said was due to God, such as the gender of a child, turned out to have a logical rational explanation. Everything and every disparity between genders and races has an explanation, even if we don't know it.Well if a racial or gender disparity exists in every country in the world, then I cast that off to a genetic difference rather than an environmental one.
For example, women live longer than men in every country in the world and have more mental illnesses than men in every country in the world, so it's obviously to do with genetics and not the environment.
The IQ differences between men and women are like that in every country in the world, so it's obviously to do with genetics and not the environment.
Feminists have a double standard. If you say that females are superior to males in one aspect, they don't bat an eyelid, but the minute it's the other way round, they scream sexism and "gender is a social construct".
tynamite
Vibhanshu
As I said, *I* do not propose any theory for that. This doesn't mean that a theory doesn't exist. This statement doesn't challenge the statement that everything has a logical explanation. I was merely expressing my obliviousness to any theory which corroborates my statement. I presented it as a fact; for which I don't propose a theory, but one may very well exist.Also, I agree with everything you have said. This double standard feminism irks me to no end. Hell, even the country I live in-which is India- has extremely sexist laws. No one- NO ONE- has a problem with that, but as soon as a single person proposes a thing which is remotely biased towards men, everyone starts screaming at the top of their lungs on social websites and is seen with MASSIVE respect. That's why I never associate myself with feminism; I'm all for equality in opportunities, but if they can't utilize those opportunities, I will say that women are indeed unable/unwilling- or do not have the abilities- to excel in X. X maybe politics, academia or anything for that matter.
tynamite
Gayle
And no, it's not a coincidence that there are no matriarchies. There's a common cause: childbirth.Until the last 50 or so years, women were essentially slaves to their reproductive systems. Deaths in childhood were extremely common, to the point where women would have 10 or so children only to have a couple make it to adulthood. Many women died in childbirth along the way.
When women spent much of their lives pregnant, breastfeeding, and then raising young children, it would be very difficult for women to simultaneously run a country.
On top of this, much of human life has been controlled by violence. Men are genetically stronger than women. When it was common place for a ruler to be killed by the successor, of course women aren't going to stay in power. Power struggles were often physical and women will lose that battle.
So you see, there are excellent reasons -- that have nothing to do with the mental differences -- why there are few matriarchies.
You'll brush this off though and hold true to your belief that women are mentally inferior. You want to believe that and so you won't let any evidence that conflicts with it enter your mind.
Adisa: you hold bigoted beliefs and won't consider that they might be wrong, or have a rational coherent discussion on them. This is why many of your answers are downvoted. If you've been blocked by a bunch of people (and I suspect you have been, as I'm near blocking you as well), this is why. It's also probably why you weren't made a top writer, despite being quite active and well known. It's not because feminists refuse to consider your points; it's because you refuse to consider the other side.
tynamite
Me
It has nothing to do with childbirth nowadays because we now have birth control."You'll brush this off though and hold true to your belief that women are mentally inferior. You want to believe that and so you won't let any evidence that conflicts with it enter your mind."
I do not want to believe that women are mentally inferior. I am not a bigot. I don't get off on thinking women are inferior.
I hold bigoted beliefs? That was not my intention. I don't enjoy finding arguments and evidence to support bigoted beliefs.
I'll break it down for you.
There are over 200 countries in this world, and every single one of them, or most of them are ruled by males, and most of the people in the leadership positions are males, and most of the people who are the richest are males.
Now which of the following explanations are more likely for this.
1. The patriarchy is oppressing, discriminating and discouraging women from becoming on equal stature or par with them. It's the patriarchy's fault.
2. Genetics or women's intelligence being different to a man's.
I am open to considering the idea that women are discriminated, oppressed or discouraged against. I do not dispute that this happens on a daily basis. I actually found a study on the internet of women having a low acceptance rate in orchestras, but when they switched to blind auditions, the acceptance rate of women was then of equal measure to males, instead of a pitiful acceptance rate. I bookmarked the link, as I find it reputable and true. Sadly the people who made the study did not question the judges to ask them why they didn't accept the women when they showed their faces.
Maybe attitudes to women need to change, so that them being under-represented and them being neglected of the chance to aspire, can be eradicated. Although I'm not a feminist, I agree with the link below. Maybe the attitudes in the link below is the cause why they are under-represented, but is it the patriarchy's fault?
http://newwavefeminism.tumblr.com/post/72913468081/infernumequinomin-nicolas-christ-pantene
So because women are discriminated against (intentionally or unintentionally) in orchestras, does that mean that every other industry discriminates against women too? I've seen many women in leadership roles in my life, so I wouldn't think the study would apply to every industry in every country. Sweden is a feminist heavy country with a feminist political party that actually passes laws.
Would the study have the same results in Sweden? I think not, because I would think people there would like women in power and leadership, more than in America.
Do the police, hospitals, technology, politicians, the media, theatres, finance, shops, schools, colleges, shops and every other industry discriminate against women?
Do you really think that the patriarchy is discriminating against women in every single industry in every single country? If this is true, why don't I see much evidence that it happens, other than statistics of them being under-represented?
If it is true, why hasn't the media spoken up about it providing evidence that it happens and why hasn't the government addressed it or been more proactive in solving it? I've seen articles about women being oppressed in technology, but does that mean they are oppressed in every male dominated industry?
Why are tv shows increasingly putting homosexuality in it, but not empowering women to aspire to leadership instead of playing with dolls? Why is the government more accepting of homosexuality and giving them rights to marry, than it is of women or their rights of abortion or changing damaging stereotypes (gendered toys)? Is this due to oppression or not?
If this is true, why do feminists care more about fighting objectification, than they do about providing evidence that women are discriminated against in every industry in every country?
Why hasn't anyone made a documentary about women being under-represented in every industry in every country?
Do you understand why the word patriarchy sounds like a conspiracy theory to suggest that men everywhere in every industry think of ingenious ways to keep women down? Am I really expected to believe that male executives sit in offices in private meetings, thinking of more ingenious ways to keep men down and stop them from getting to their level? Most women I know think that men and women are already equal.
I hope you can understand why I find it hard to believe that every industry in every country is discriminating against women, considering that I have not find much evidence that this happens, other than statistics.
The word patriarchy paints the image that there is a conspiracy theory of powerful men everywhere who are deliberately trying to keep women down and that the patriarchy oppresses women. Do you expect me to think this true?
I'm not disputing that women like yourself and many others get discriminated in technology, but does that nessacarily mean that they are discriminated against in technology in every single country in the
world?
The question below might surprise you, or sound like I'm insulting your intelligence (which I'm not), but the majority of men in the world do not think the answer is yes, hence why 71% of Americans are not feminists. The majority of people think that men and women are already equal.
Question. Does the patriarchy oppress women in every industry in every single country in the world?
Say yes or no to the question above, then we can have a rational discussion, because I don't get off on saying women are inferior to men.
tynamite
I hold bigoted beliefs? That was not my intention. I don't enjoy finding arguments and evidence to support bigoted beliefs.Of course you hold bigoted views. Look at your answer. It's bigotry, by definition. You just don't think it's bigotry because you think it's true.
Now which of the following explanations are more likely for this.
1. The patriarchy is oppressing, discriminating and discouraging women from becoming on equal stature or par with them. It's the patriarchy's fault.
2. Genetics or women's intelligence being different to a man's.
These aren't either/or things. My explanation does involved genetics. It can be simultaneously true that women are discouraged from entering leadership roles.
Look at the differences across time and, even now, across different cultures. Very different representation of women. Which is more likely:
1. Cultures used to discourage women from leadership, but now all that pressure has vanished. There are culture-specific reasons (like the size of the country) that just so happen to result in fewer women entering leadership as compared to women in another country. But, is there pressure against women in some western countries? No. All the pressure has, now, been instantly removed.
2. Cultures have less pressure against than they used to, and some have progressed faster than others.
So because women are discriminated against (intentionally or unintentionally) in orchestras, does that mean that every other industry discriminates against women too? I've seen many women in leadership roles in my life, so I wouldn't think the study would apply to every industry in every country.
These orchestras also had women. Just because some women get hired doesn't mean that it isn't harder.
Do you really think that the patriarchy is discriminating against women in every single industry in every single country? If this is true, why don't I see much evidence that it happens, other than statistics of them being under-represented?
You do see evidence, you just explain it away in convoluted ways. You refuse to accept the simplest, most obvious explanation: sexism and discouragement exist and have a real impact.
Part of the problem is that you continue to stubbornly talk about it as discrimination. You refuse to consider that if people are discouraged, but not wholly prevented, from doing something that it could make a real impact.
If it is true, why hasn't the media spoken up about it and why hasn't the government addressed it?
Both do.
If this is true, why do feminists care more about fighting objectification, than they do about providing evidence that women are discriminated against in every industry in every country?
They do both. The issues are linked as well.
Why hasn't anyone made a documentary about women being under-represented in every industry in every country?
I'm sure people have produced similar documI'm sure people have produced similar documentaries.entaries.
Am I really expected to believe that male executives sit in offices in private meetings, thinking of more ingenious ways to keep men down and stop them from getting to their level? Most women I know think that men and women are already equal.
No. Few people think that male execs do this. In fact, I've never heard anyone argue this.
I hope you can understand why I find it hard to believe that every industry in every country is discriminating against women, considering that I have not find much evidence that this happens, other than statistics.
Please stop talking about discrimination. It's not about discrimination. It's about discouragement.
The word patriarchy paints the image that there is a conspiracy theory of powerful men everywhere who are deliberately trying to keep women down and that the patriarchy oppresses women. Do you expect me to think this true?
No. I don't think that's true either.
I'm not disputing that women like yourself and many others get discriminated in technology, but does that nessacarily mean that they are discriminated against in technology in every single country in the world?
Not talking about discrimination.
Question. Does the patriarchy oppress women in every industry in every single country in the world?
In most, yes. In every? I don't know. That's very absolutist.
PS. I have a lot of politically incorrect controversial antithetical beliefs. My family say I have a warped view on the world.
Perhaps you should consider that your views are, in fact, warped.
Adisa: you are a bigot. The fact that you think your views are correct does not mean that you're not bigoted.
tynamite
"You refuse to consider that if people are discouraged, but not wholly prevented, from doing something that it could make a real impact."Maybe I am emotionally inept at certain aspects of life. Maybe I'm projecting my beliefs and values onto other people. A 15 year old girl called Hannah Smith killed herself because she got abusive anonymous messages on Ask.fm, while other people get that and cope completely fine. Some people aren't affected by bullying in school and some people leave with their education ruined and self esteem damaged because of it.
When a woman stops pursuing something due to discouragement, does she come to regret her decision later on in life, or does she accept it as a sad fact of life that she can never be as powerful as a male and that there's nothing she could have done about it to help herself?
The idea that women are affected by discouragement, I find bizarre, as it gives the image in my head (well not in yours), that women are not fully responsible for their choices who are not capable of making decisions (you might find this warped). Imagine how anti-climatic it was for me to be told that discouragement was responsible for the lack of women in male dominated industries. If you have an ambition, it is very hard to achieve. Getting a degree is not easy. Most people aren't in the job industry they wanted to be in when they were younger. The idea that someone would quit due to discouragement, I found bizarre, because life is hard to achieve your dreams in whether you are discouraged or not, so the idea that you would be faltered by discouragement, doesn't mean that you would have life any much easier if it didn't exist.
Although having programs and shortlists to put women into STEM careers is a good thing, but it can also be perceived as a bad thing as it shows that women are not capable of making their own decisions
> "If it is true, why hasn't the media spoken up about it and why hasn't the government addressed it?
Both do."
Are there any links on this?
"You do see evidence, you just explain it away in convoluted ways. You refuse to accept the simplest, most obvious explanation: sexism and discouragement exist and have a real impact." "Part of the problem is that you continue to stubbornly talk about it as discrimination. You refuse to consider that if people are discouraged, but not wholly prevented, from doing something that it could make a real impact."
Yes sexism and discouragement can have an impact, but is it in every country? Feminists like to talk about how men dominate leadership roles in every country, so I think I have a right to ask whether sexism and discouragement, affects women in every country.
> The word patriarchy paints the image that there is a conspiracy theory of powerful men everywhere who are deliberately trying to keep women down and that the patriarchy oppresses women. Do you expect me to think this true?
No. I don't think that's true either.
Feminists blame the patriarchy for everything, it paints men as villains and women as victims, and says that all problems and ills of society can only be solved under a matriarchy.
> Question. Does the patriarchy oppress women in every industry in every single country in the world?
In most, yes. In every? I don't know. That's very absolutist.
I'm sure that most people will agree that men and women are already equal which means that feminism is redundant. This is why 71% of Americans don't identify with feminism. That's not me discrediting what you're saying, it's just me saying that most people today think that feminism is irrelevant.
If I believed that women were under-represented in leadership roles in every country primarily due to discouragement, I would agree that it is fully due to discouragement, but as I think discouragement doesn't happen in every country in the world in every industry with enough severity, I then look for other factors that are causing it. I think it is naive to 100% put it down to discouragement. I think it's rational to try to look for other factors. When I mention IQ as a factor, you think that is bigotry of me trying to say women are inferior, when I do not think it is very intelligent to class it 100% due to discouragement in all industries and countries, considering discouragement has a relatively low severity. However, that's what feminists put it down to 100%. Feminists blame males, the patriarchy for this.
I don't think I am a bigot, which I can address in my next comment about how IQ is a good indicator of intelligence.
So why is this? The pay gap doesn't exist and there is no glass ceiling. I spoke to two feminists on this site, and they put it down to discouragement. One said that women are objectified each time they enter male dominated careers, and another said that women are given verbal discouragement, sexual harassment and are denied promotions. In my mind, that's not enough factors to make up for why women are under-represented in leadership roles, considering that discouragement isn't conditioning or discrimination. I didn't think there was enough evidence there, because it wasn't commonplace and widespread enough to make up for the gender disparity that we can see. Maybe science can help.
Take IQ, for example. Despite the noise trotted out by those with lower-to-average intellects about the validity of IQ tests and scores, IQ remains the strongest single indicator of financial abundance, vocational prestige, academic success, and a host of life’s other achievements. On average, men and women have roughly the same IQ, give or take a negligible point or two. The glaring differences, however, arise in how this average is distributed. Compared to women, who tend to flock towards neither extreme, men deviate from the average far more, and thus fill out most numbers at both the top and bottom ends of life in general.
It is for this reason, perhaps more than any other, that the majority of outstanding achievers are men, and have been throughout history. The vast majority of scientists, philosophers, musicians, academics, inventors, writers, political leaders, and so forth, are men. But men also comprise the bulk of society’s scrap heap. The homeless, long-term unemployed, criminals, drug addicts, mental health patients, suicides, mass murderers, alcoholics, and degenerate gamblers are also, overwhelmingly, men.
The IQ variation between the genders is considerable. Mensa International High IQ Society, for example, is composed of a membership in which men outrank women 2 to 1 — roughly the same representation of men to women in Australia’s homeless populations. This sort of imbalance goes a long way to explaining why an even fifty-fifty split between the genders in every area of life is both impossible and misguided.
Science has proven that there are 2x more men with a 120 IQ than women, and there are 30x more men with an 170 IQ than women. Dr Paul Irwing: 'There are twice as many men as women with an IQ of 120-plus' The reverse is also true.
Science has proven that men are more intelligent than women (even though females do better in schools), that men are genetically made to be the resource creators rather than the resource extractors, and why men make up the outstanding achievers as well as the scrap heap of society, whereas women sit in the middle. This is all down to genetics.
It was predetermined in genetics from the moment The Big Bang happened that every country in the world would be patriarchal. It is genetically impossible for there to be a matriarchy or a 50/50 split between the genders. If you want it to be that way, you're only going to be able to achieve it via force, such as affirmative action, women's only colleges and shortlists. The idea that the patriarchy is oppressing women by not allowing them into these fields on an institutionalised and widespread scale within every industry in every country in the world, is a bigger conspiracy theory than 9/11 being an inside job, as there is less evidence for it. Women have equal opportunities in Western society. Any feminist who thinks otherwise is deluded.
Update
Can you explain from the information in the table image above, of the rows I've highlighted, why there is DIRECT correlation? Of all the rows of the table I've highlighted (that are to do with money, education and prison), they move up or down in succession in each table column. The numbers do not alternate from higher and lower, instead they move in succession. This is not a coincidence!
The higher your IQ is, the more money you make, and the lower your IQ, the more likely you are to be in prison. These are basic facts, controversial yes, but it's true.
Considering that IQs of males range from low to high, and IQs of females sit in the middle, is it due to the patriarchy or genetics, why men make up the outstanding achievers in society (making more money as the table shows), as well as the scrap heap of society (in prison as the table shows)?
Update 2
Men proliferate politics, CEOs and leadership roles not because of the patriarchy causing a glass ceiling, as the glass ceiling does not exist. It's instead due to genetics. Men are generally more intelligent than women.Look at the table above. It shows that the higher your IQ, the more likely you are to be married and have money, and the lower your IQ, the more likely you are to be in prison and be on welfare.
The real wage gap is explained by common choices by gender.
Like which college major you choose.
10 more remunerative college majors:
10 least remunerative college majors:[
Only two majors break the trend:
Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration: 52% femaleTheology and Religious Vocations: 65% male
Males overwhelmingly choose higher paying majors, females lower paying majors.
Avg. Salary:
Early childhood educators or social workers: $36,000-$39,000Metallurgy and petroleum engineering: $80,000-$120,000
Or:
$.38 — females
$1.00 — males
Based not on gender discrimination, but choice of college major.
Men gravitate towards white collar fields that pay more and women gravitate towards pink collar fields that pay less.
Sources
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.htmlhttp://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/
So men choose to study white collar fields and women choose to study pink collar fields.
If you're not convinced, that IQ or intelligence is the reason why men proliferate CEOs, politicians and leadership roles, read this.
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/
The jobs that feminists want, are the jobs that have a high IQ. The jobs that women are choosing, are the jobs that require a lower IQ.
This proves 4 things.
1. Men's jobs have a higher IQ than women's jobs.
2. Men are more intelligent than women.
3. People tend to choose the job that allows them to use their IQ to its fullest potential.
4. Women tend to choose pink collar jobs instead of white collar jobs, because their low IQ isn't stimulated by high IQ work.
Men deviate from the low end of the spectrum to the high end of the spectrum, whereas women sit in the middle. This is why men proliferate the scrapheap and the elites of society, whereas women sit on the middle.
Look at this.
Notice how the menial labour jobs at the top of the image are usually done by men (low IQ job that matches their IQ), how the technical STEM fields are done by men (high IQ job that matches their IQ), whereas women, whose IQ is in the middle, accept mid-range IQ jobs, such as social workers and teaching.
Women being underrepresented in posititions of power has nothing to do with the patriarchy causing a glass ceiling, and it has everything to do with women's differing motivations and intelligence.