It Says In The Daily Mail: Men ARE More Brainy Than Women [Don't Shoot The Messenger]

[6Foot2]

Link: Men ARE more brainy than women, says scientist Professor Richard Lynn | Mail Online

 

...on average, men are more intelligent than women.

 

...at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism.

 

The debate rages on...

 

BTW: I really don't like the Daily Mail.

[srochford]

For instance, at the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one. That's statistics, not sexism.

 

"brainy" is a difficult word - it doesn't really mean anything. If what he's comparing is IQ then there are endless arguments about the value of doing that because many people don't think it measures anything of value (it's a bit like SATS - people get to be good at doing SATS but it doesn't mean they're intelligent. Similarly, people can get to be good at doing IQ tests without being intelligent)

 

Later on, the article goes into a bit more detail and suggests that he's really saying men are better at maths and science than women - that's a bit different from saying "men are more brainy"!

[theriver]

My, what an astonishingly bad article.

 

For a start, the author gives us no evidence for any of his claims. It's all very well stating that there's 8x as many men as women with IQ of 145, but I can claim that my left leg is made of cheese – you’re going to want to see some evidence of that before you believe it.

 

He tells us that fewer women have won Nobel prizes than men - while this is demonstrably true, we KNOW that sexism has been at work in academia (see Rosalind Franklin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a flavour), and so this in itself isn’t evidence of anything.

 

Oh hang on, here comes some evidence:

 

"Ever since the Frenchman Alfred Binet devised the first intelligence test in 1905, study after study has confirmed the same result."

 

Except that this ignores the fact that IQ testing has undergone significant evolution in the last hundred years, and ‘evidence’ of disparities in IQ between groups has often been shown to be bias in the tests themselves. Add in the fact that the definition of intelligence itself is problematic . . . . .

 

Towards the end, he tells us himself why his article is badly written nonsense:

 

"Thanks to high levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, men are far more competitive and motivated for success than women."

 

So he implies that he’s happy to accept that there are more male Nobel laureates because they are more motivated to produce such work.

 

"As our hunter-gatherer example has already suggested, men and women have also evolved different kinds of intelligence."

 

So in the same article he claims that men are more intelligent than women yet also that the very thing he is measuring varies between the sexes.

 

In fact I think the only thing I think we’d be able to agree on, based on his statements here, is that due to a gender-based superiority with language, a woman would have explained her science much more clearly ;-)

[GrumbleDook]

I'm another non-Mail reader for *soooooo* many reasons, but I viewed this article not so much as provocation about sexism in academia (ie trying to de-bunk it ... which is pointless because it is evident that such has not been dealt with) but more a case of "don't let the PC brigade stop us from continuing to research this, even if the answer is not one they want!"

 

I can't see anything wrong with research showing that women perform better in certain areas, men in certain others and we are equal in many others. The whole idea of what is intellect only covers a tiny bit of we can do and is so subject to generalisations it is scary. What *is* needed is for any sexism to be shot down in any form and it should be based on a meritocracy.

 

You get some sectors where having someone male is as much a misnomer as females in heavy industry roles ... male nurses still get strange looks, male primary teachers get questioned about exactly *why* they want to work with children ...

 

It should be a meritocracy ... and nothing should stand in the way of common sense when dealing with this, not misogyny, not positive discrimination, not nepotism. I could see the same article written for many of other rags and promoting this sort of attitude ... but that would not make Mail readers happy of course. (yes, the last bit was tongue in cheek irony showing that I am generalising about Mail readers!)

[tom_newton]

Is it disingenuous to suggest the possible results of research into average IQs of Daily Mail journalists vs. the population at large?

[PiqueABoo]

It should be a meritocracy

 

What should - life? Regardless it's not going to be is it? The difficulty lies with the definition of "merit" and even when the one applied to any given scenario is consensually reasonable/honourable, there is a problem with the finite number of places available for people who deserve to be "there".

 

I fret over this re. sprogette: Do you raise your child to be good/wise and trust that their merits will be recognised, or do you raise them to be successful i.e. competitive/selfish/less humane?

[GrumbleDook]

@PiqueABoo There is nothing wrong with teaching sprogette about both the good/wise aspects as well as how to be competitive, however, I would say that you can be successful without having the negative aspects to competition. You don't have to be selfish to succeed. You may have to make difficult decisions which place you above others and not everyone likes that but by also teaching the good/wise aspect then you give them the chance to understand when to be selfless for the good of all.

 

There is nothing wrong with realism, but by saying the system is not fair so we shouldn't play fair just increases the problem. Teach people about the system and how it is not fair, in the hope that they will help change it and improve it.

[SYNACK]

It should be a meritocracy ...

 

It should but the truth is far closer to Idiocracy (2006) , Idiocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , if you have not seen it yet rent it, it's sad but it is practicly a guide on the direction general society is heading at the moment.

Comin' up next on The Violence Channel

 

I agree that studies and research should continue, even in this instance where the results may turn out to be as much a source of double-blind data on the research methods as it is on its stated topic. The issue becomes how realevant any of it is in a society structured to attack and break down the 'smart' who think in a certain way. Besides when the media gets a hold of science their published 'summary' usually barely resembles what was actually done let alone what it could mean or the intent behind it.

[Rydra]

This whole thing can be summed up with "Men are from Mars, But Women are from Venus"

 

Doesn't mean we're completely different, we all have different strengths and weaknesses regardless of anything.

 

Science has suggested, though not conclusively proved that men, in general are more analytical, and tend to have better mental agility. Women however are better at organisation, pattern recognition.

What it comes down to, is man designed to assess how something is done, and women then work out the best way of carrying that out.

Men are more prone to competition, as originally there were more men than women. need more men to gather food/protect the others, women were carers and baby-machines! To get the 'best woman' meant you had to prove you were better than the other men. That unfortunately is genetics, which is also the bane of so many men with such things as baldness

 

There's a reason why the old phrase "Behind every Great Man is a Great Woman" sprang up; we were designed to work together, not against, or for.

[NikChillin]

 

"Thanks to high levels of the male sex hormone testosterone, men are far more competitive and motivated for success than women."

 

 

That explains it! More competitive and motivated means more men than women take tests. Women obiously have more important things to be getting on with!

[witch]

That explains it! More competitive and motivated means more men than women take tests. Women obiously have more important things to be getting on with!

 

Oh Yeah!

[Rydra]

That explains it! More competitive and motivated means more men than women take tests. Women obiously have more important things to be getting on with!

 

so why is it women are always the ones forwarding the pointless facebook or email chainmail polls, questionaires and other rubbish?

[sidewinder]

That explains it! More competitive and motivated means more men than women take tests. Women obiously have more important things to be getting on with!

 

ironing?

 

*hides*

[elsiegee40]

ironing?

 

*hides*

 

I can honestly say that there are more enthusiastic ironers amongst the male members of edugeek than the female ones... search the boards if you need evidence!

[elsiegee40]

so why is it women are always the ones forwarding the pointless facebook or email chainmail polls, questionaires and other rubbish?

 

*Starts thinking of mattx's posts *

[witch]

*Starts thinking of mattx's posts *

 

me too

[GrumbleDook]

I can honestly say that there are more enthusiastic ironers amongst the male members of edugeek than the female ones... search the boards if you need evidence!

 

(stock male answer) But I've always been in touch with my feminine side!

[Sarconia]

It should but the truth is far closer to Idiocracy (2006) , Idiocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , if you have not seen it yet rent it, it's sad but it is practicly a guide on the direction general society is heading at the moment.

 

Brawndo... Would you like a side order of kick arse fries with that?

 

I have to agree... society is heading that way and the Daily Mail is leading the charge in that direction...