Damn everyone one here seems to have a high iq. My iq is 112 and it is depressing because i am going for an engineering degree and i don’t know if my so called boy abilitys are good enough. HOw far can perserverance and determination take a person with an iq score as low as mine
I have been trying to figure out the answer to this question for some time now. I will be competing with people who can do the same amount of work as me in half the time becaues their iq is higher not because they work harder. My verbal score was 103 and my performance was 126

Intelligence is indeed multidimensional. However, no matter how many different kinds of cognitive tests you come up with, including some of the things mentioned here like “multitasking” and “attention to detail”, when you do a factor analysis there is ALWAYS one factor which accounts for a big majority of the variance. This is referred to in the literature as “g”, and if you have a high “g” you will do better on ALL kinds of mental tests. That doesn’t mean “g” is determined only by genetics, and it doesn’t mean that appropriate education can’t increase “g”, but it IS stable enough that the statement “men are more likely to have very high “g” or very low “g” than women is very well-established.

That male “geniuses” appear more common is not due solely to this. A big part of that effect comes from men being much more likely to devote themselves intensely and singlemindedly to a particular mental accomplishment (at the expense of a well-balanced life). Another big part of it is that the key years for “works of genius” are also the key years for raising children, and women geniuses are less willing to sacrifice a great deal of attention to their children than men are.

But even with those two factors considered, men still are more likely to have a high “g”. That doesn’t mean you can’t have an Emmy Noether (who was as good as any male mathematician of her day) or a Judith Polgar (who is world-class in chess, regularly making the “top 10″ list, and at age 29 has not reached her peak yet), but women will never make up 50% of the very topmost rank in math or chess.

I find it particularly disturbing when people attempt to take satistical analysis of broad groups and apply them to individual occurances.
Describing overall averages of intelligence of any grouping (gender, race, nationality) is the former, trying to identify traits to an individual (whether a colleague or prize winner)is the latter.Even the people that write these studies cite that there are broader ranges of variation within the groups than there are between them. That is so say, that generalizations do not apply to individuals.Since we are stuck with generalizations, I say we keep is as general as possible and say that human intelligence is affected by a number of different things. I would also go on to say that many outward appearances, such as the award of Nobel Prizes, has less to do with intelligence, and more to do with the social structures that are prevalent in the society.I would then claim that more Nobel Prozes are awarded to men because we live in a largely patriarchical society, discoveries are made by teams, and men (most likely) head those teams…
But, for the most part, I think that these studies are just more ammo for idiots, a group I have joined by even discussing this, Cheers! And yes, Jon, you are a troll

The “one hundre percent nurture” theory reminds me of the twilight years of the Soviet Union. That it was a total failure, was clear to everybody except Soviet Union’s fans in the West who kept making up excuses such as “they were poor before Communism” or “what they had implemented wasn’t true Communism” or “the have to spend precious resources on the military to protect themselves from aggressive NATO” etc.

Likewise, excuse du jour is “nutrition, early stimulus and effective education”. Let’s see – we feed girls the same food, we send them to the same preschools. We send them to the same coed public schools and if you read elementary and middle school textbooks, you get impression that most scientists are females. Still, as Sean pointed out, hardly any female science Nobel Prize winners or chessmasters. They have won more Nobel Peace Prizes, though.

(er, yeah, that’s a response to Gary’s post, not the Steve Sailer article, don’t worry)

But what we’re really talking about here is that there are more male geniuses than female geniuses. I find it hard to believe that prosperity, nutrition, and education can really explain this effect.

Even if you guys want to deny the IQ claim, it still stands that men greatly outnumber women as winners of Nobel Prizes, chess championships and other things traditionally associated with being really, really smart. Redefining “intelligence” doesn’t get around the issue.

Sorry, I meant to write this

Aspiring Female Traffickers Lack Role Models, Notes Expert

It’s too bad really that people cannot have their attention drawn to the ‘little’ things like nutrition, early stimulus and effective education that really hold some sway over intelligence, much more so than gender.

Nutrition? That’s a wild one, unless there is some evidence of girls being fed different food than boys.

Jon, the problem with this as “science” is that anyone who understands science would know that the research will be flawed, so wont do it. I suggest reading Mismeasure of Man by Stephen J Gould. An easy argument to make is that prosperity causes higher IQ, and a lot more likely to be correct.

isn’t it pretty easy to observe that there is just alot more variance in males compared to females? variance in inteligence, stupidity, levels of violence, deviant behaviour, etc.

there are alot more super smart men than women and there are alot more super moronic men than women. there are also a lot more serial murderers who are male.

it is a worthy goal to try to make sure that talented and capable women are treated fairly in the work force and in college admissions, but to think that as a group, women are equal to men is hard for me to accept besed on what i’ve seen.