>>16845334
IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure how good you are at taking IQ tests. Furthermore, you are making an ASSUMPTION that your sample represents the population. Try again, loser.

File: JHLo4oh.jpg (273.6 KB)

273.6 KB JPG

>>16845344
>The thread about iq not intelligence
>The fact that 90% of studies show that men have higher iq
So low intelligent

>>16845348
>Men are better at an arbitrary test
So what? I can construct a test that women are better at. You are obviously implying that IQ measures intelligence, otherwise your data is meaningless.

>>16845351
Reread the original thread, honey

>>16845356
>Concedes that IQ doesn't measure intelligence therefore making the test meaningless
>Thinks there is a "scientific consensus" on a meaningless test
Oh dear, that is rather embarrassing

>>16845360
Your logic is broken.
If something doesn't exactly measures all of intelligence, it doesn't mean it's useless. IQ is the metric that correlates with many important things, therefore isn't useless.
Educate yourself, take some logic classes

>>16845334
>>16845348
you can't even shitpost with graphs that agree with each other.

>>16845370
>Concedes that IQ tests only measure a subset of intelligence, making them just as irrelevant as any other arbitrary test
>Assumes correlation = causation
Oh dear, that is rather ironic!

>>16845375
In this case causation is real. Not just assumption, it measures some aspect of intelligence
>>16845373
First is among college students, the second is among the general population from 50+ studies

>>16845344
Imagine having such a low IQ and inferiority complex that any mere mention of IQ even without referring to intelligence triggers you this much. Lol

>>16845376
>In this case causation is real.
That's called an assumption
>It measures some aspect of intelligence
So does any test

>>16845384
You didn't give answer to the original question. I don't care what you think of the test.
Let's start again:
Preposition 1= consensus says something is the same
Preposition 2= actual data from different sources says otherwise
What you get honey?
P2 ¬P1

>>16845370
You're overstating its importance.

>>16845387
>Preposition 1= consensus says something is the same
The "something" here is intelligence
>Preposition 2= actual data from different sources says otherwise
The "something" (implicitly) here is IQ.
Since IQ ≠ intelligence there is no contradiction.

File: 1716432625768903.jpg (106.8 KB)

106.8 KB JPG

>>16845392
>That post
No comments

>>16845395
To twist the knife even more. Your OP claims (without evidence) that the scientific consensus is that there are no IQ differences between men and women. This is not the scientific consensus. You made that up. Feel free to quote, in full, any sentence from any study you found and I'll explain to you how you misread it. I'll accept continuation of no comments as a formal concession. Your move, chief.

>>16845344
>woman is hysterically unable to stomach reality
he's something worse, whose essential spirit we all know is right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdV63cggmBw

but you're probably one of the smart ones if you are stubbornly arguing with men on /sci/

>>16845392
>>16845396
And afrter that women want same rights

>>16845392
Ok, so on what basis does """the consensus""" assert that women are as intelligent as men? How did they measure this? :^)

>>16845433
By grades in gender studies

>>16845389
I said no shit about importance

>>16845344
Shut the fuck up you dumb nigger faggot Iq tests are the epitome of science and measuring your raw ability to make a discovery

G--_---n aborted _ew

>>16849050
Was ist das

>>16845830
Yes you did. Imagine being so unintelligent you don't understand your own argument

>>16845433
By not finding conclusive evidence of statistically significant differences in intelligence between sexes. Attempts to find differences are consistently null.

>>16845888
cope

>>16845344
>IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure how good you are at taking IQ tests.
Why are some people better at taking tests?

>>16850255
because they retake it

>>16850262
Wrong

>>16845334
You would be correct in a vacuum where cows are perfectly spherical

>>16850666
citation needed

>>16849491
sybau

>>16845334
>imperial data
ESL retard

>>16851017
>t. ESL cuck who cares about this stupid language more than his own

>>16845888
trips of truth
and the way you worded it was based as fuck lol

>>16845392
The consensus also says that IQ and intelligence are the same otherwise everyone wouldn't be using IQ as a measure of intelligence.

>>16845334
The sex difference in IQ also varies between race.
I think whites have the biggest gap

>if you can't undermine the data undermine the methodology
>if you can't undermine the methodology undermine the concept
>if you can't undermine the concept undermine the definition
>in the end create a rival unfalsifiable theory, pretend its true trough consensus and demand the opposition falsifies it
the modern left 'science' in a nutshell

>>16851364
>The consensus also says that IQ and intelligence are the same
No. Unless you mean /pol/consensus, which nobody but /pol/tards take as true.

>>16851409
Example no.1
>intelligence quotient doesn't measure intelligence
No doubt this person will pretend intelligence can not be measured. This is obviously false, you can easily discern an intelligent man from a retard which means you can measure it. He will in turn follow this by undermining the definition of intelligence. "What is even intelligence?". Perhaps even an appeal to a different kind of 'intelligence' such as 'emotional' intelligence.

>>16851413
You don't even know what g-loading means, or how IQ is relevant. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>16851414
Why would I be emberrased when you have no counter argument and immidietly resort to a feeble attempt at mockery?

>>16851417
>Why would I be emberrased
Kek. This shit writes itself.

>>16851200
Lolmad

>>16851438
Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, or the horse laugh) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

File: 1749548886301306.png (460.5 KB)

460.5 KB PNG

>>16851440
You are esl cuck

>>16849459
How was the intelligence tested?

>>16851451
PCA.

>>16851460
On what data?

>>16850255
>Why are some people better at taking tests?
They follow orders. They study more. This isnt general intelligence, it measures qualities you want in employees.
Intelligence isnt being good at following orders and reading manuals

>>16851547
That anon you replied to was obviously talking about IQ tests specifically, not typical classroom regurgitation tests.

>>16851513
Test batteries.

>>16850666
Why?

>>16845334
It's more about politics than science

>>16851547
>Intelligence isnt being good at following orders and reading manuals
what is it?

>>16845344
>Furthermore, you are making an ASSUMPTION that your sample represents the population.
There is a vast field of study - inferential statistics - on how and what one may infer about a population based on a sample. A sample doesn't necessarily need to be representative. Individuals don't even need to be sampled with equal probability. There are statistical methods to circumvent this requirement; the Horvitz-Thompson estimator is a basic example.

>>16849459
Differences in mean, or differences in distribution? Those are not the same thing.

>>16853946
Both.

>>16853998
A bit of googling suggests that it is far from agreed that the variability is the same

>>16854002
You're not even using terms correctly. You don't understand what you're talking about.

>>16854017
are you being pedantic because anon said variability instead of variance?

>>16854164
No. I'm being pedantic because saying the sexes score "the same" is imprecise, and occurs nowhere in the literature. Although, yes, that is also bad.

>>16845373
Learn to read

>imagine simping this hard for women in a Mongolian chant singing forum
You know they can't see you do this, right? They're not going to have sex with you for white knighting.

>>16845334
>(((scientific consensus)))
l
l>
l3
l

>>16856141
It's not about defending women. It's about attacking your dishonest misinformation

>>16845334
I thought the average IQ was 100

>>16856350
It is. Average as in, mean across a general population.

>>16856350
Thesw are results for college students

>>16845344
You are stuck at your present mediocre IQ. Dilate forever lol.

>>16845396
damn, you really are gay as all fuck
like, can't stop thinking about dicks and cum and farts and shit and sphincters gay
yuck dude

>>16857233
Weird way to concede. I begrudgingly accept your crash out.

>>16857352
there you go again with the gay shit
why do you act as if you're always mere moments away from gargling cum ?

>>16856290
But this is not misinformation but true facts

File: essay-dscf0736_jpg_92.jpg (859.4 KB)

859.4 KB JPG

>>16845334
Why does the scientific consensus say that IQ peaks at 18 when empiric data contradicts this statement?

>>16845351
Can you, hun?

>>16851408
High iq (and thus smart) post

>>16858705
>IQ peaks at 18
Consensus say it peaks at 30, when most of cool scientists did their discoveries. 18 year old brain is still developing, kek.

Remember bros, if schills tell us that young people are smarter, we have pike iq at 18, boomers are dumb etc. This is only done to brainwash us into spending money for some useless shit or to join some law-violating activity. In both cases later we will regret.

>>16858715
IQ test scores peak at 18

>>16858681
Wrong.
>>16858705
This isn't true and is weaponized learned helplessness

File: 0218_Feature_Spring_Break_1_jpg_92.jpg (297.6 KB)

297.6 KB JPG

>>16858719
>This isn't true
IQcuck detected
it is very true, undisputed, and exposes IQ for the scam it is

>>16858715
Source?

>>16858738
>t. Low IQ
Lol.

>>16858717
Source?

what doe science say is average iq for men, and stdev? and average iq for women, and stdev? how rare is 130 iq man and 130 iq woman?

>>16860581
>how rare is 130 iq man
Rare
>130 iq woman?
Exceptionally rare

>>16845334
>5% chance of IQ >140
Callin' cap on that one m8

>>16858705
Why does seeing intellectually disabled people make me sad bros. My life sucks enough that's what I should be sad about.

>>16860695
quantifications pls?

>>16845351
>never does OP mention intelligence
>bring in intelligence to the discussion anyway
>ANYWAY DOESN'T MATTER, YOUR ARE OBVIOUSLY IMPLYING THAT IQ MEASURES INTELLIGENCE
Female (or tranny) intelligence, everybody.

>>16861657
You mean IQ, surely. But you're a dishonest faggot who couldn't explicate the difference, nor are you conscious of how you've conflated the two while writing a comment pretending you're not.

>>16861712
No, I mean intelligence. You being completely fucking stupid and unable to follow a train of thought might be more or less related to your ability to solve standarized tests (which I'm sure you're also terrible at, hence your bias against it)

>>16862170
Wrong

>>16858705
IQ peaks at 24, when your genetic capabilities reach the apex

>>16845334
Because "scientific consensus" just means biased western scientists.

>>16862334
BTW, isn't IQ normalized by age groups and even by generations? Like 10 year old would be considered smarter then 20 year old with the same exact result? Also, I heard that non-normalized IQ has grown since 60s, but recently started to creep down.

>>16862341
I'm your omega

>>16845334
>Why the scientific consensus says that women and men have the same iq

because in this case, science acted as a servant of politics, because the decision to finance science is made by politicians.

I believe that in most cases women and men have different IQ levels. Women spend too much time with young children and watch too many TV shows with low word density and silly texts. Only if the husband's mind is weakened by tobacco and/or alcohol and/or narcotics and/or has brain damage from fighting, then is there a situation that the wife is smarter than her husband.

File: sushang.png (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB PNG

>>16845334
Don't worry about it.
IQ is a biased Patriarchal measurement of intelligence anyway.
I still wouldn't trust a woman to solve a puzzle but it is what it is.

>>16845334
Anyone that's been through divorce understands woman are too intelligent.

>>16863871
Being assholes doesn't mean intelligent

>>16845334
Wonen are stupid

>>16863862
>IQ is a biased Patriarchal measurement
Citation needed

>>16845334
women are 5-10 points lower with variance in iq more dumb more smart no mean its a myth
>>16845344

stfu dumb fucking nigger
>>16849456

iq matters a lot imagine being a midwit w no intuition cause your dumbfuck ass lacks LLI and WM by 5 fsiq points lmao

>>16845334
The ratio on your graph shows why. If you run into someone with 130IQ it's twice as likely to be a man than a woman. You meet 7 men with 145IQ for every one woman.

>>16867753
>Ponderous thinkers who like to take time digesting information are not going to do well on it. Artistic IQs are not going to be measured well.
If they're intelligent in general, they will usually do well on the test. The main exception is when someone has a deep intuitive intellect but shit working memory. That's usually a result of conditions like long-term depression or some kind of damage. People like that can have profound insights using deeply integrated information yet appear slow-witted. It's not an "intelligence type", just what happens when naturally smart people are crippled by external factors but not enough to rob them of their natural prowess.

>>16845334
>Why the scientific consensus says that women and men have the same iq
it does not say that, it is just agreed that the difference is not entirely biological but also social therefore it can be equal in certain conditions.

>>16868201
>it is just agreed that the difference is not entirely biological but also social
Wrong. It's agreed upon that the difference is biological by everyone except retards and the Social "Science" cult.

>>16868202
IQ is both environmental and biological, not entirely biological.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10877903/

>>16868207
>IQ is both environmental and biological
This does not mean what you think it means. It's also relevant and does not support your false statement.

>>16868212
Do you think a person with lead poisoning would function mentally the same way as someone without it?

>>16868214
Do you think women are subjected to lead poisoning more often than men? Fucking imbecile. Learn the difference between "intelligence depends on the environment" and "differences in average intelligence stem from differences in environment".

>>16868207
Environmental means epigenetics which is biology.

>>16868207
>cross-sectional

>>16851367
No

>>16845344
According to IQ test takers, men and women are different.

According to reality, men and women are different.

>>16845334
>Posting about pseduoscience on sci
>>16845344
yes
>>16850255
Test taking is influenced by so many environmental, social, political, and economic factors that are not controlled for. If you grow up in a first world household; have access to shelter, nutrition, and education; and have the time to study and not working to support your family; etc, etc; then you will do better on tests. More or less, IQ tests are just an indirect measurement of your bank account.
Sure, there may be natural ability, but that ability is qualitative and cannot be measured quantitatively. Questions about such ability are in the form of "what can you do?"

>>16845334
>imperial data
dude most of the world has moved on to metric data

>>16870960
how are you studying for an IQ test?

>>16870973
thinkin really hard

simps and jews

>>16845334
>if imperial data contradicts this statement?
cause metric data doesn't

>>16870960
That was debunked. Rich niggers are dumber than poor whites, and more prone to violence too.

>>16845334
>imperial data
ESLs should be banned from the internet

>>16871495
DEI nigga they have to do hocus pocus just to make niggas sentient and shieet

>>16871538
>empirical bot lmao
p values are fake but iq is real

>>16870960
What pseudoscience?

>>16871495
That's some glorious cope.

>>16867753
>>16868187
My working memory and processing speed are shit (especially processing speed, in college I did a battery of cognitive testing and my processing speed was in the 4th percentile) but for some reason I always did very well on timed exams and tests in school. I'm not particularly intelligent or studious either. I guess other aspects of my cognition pick up the slack for me slow reaction time and mid working memory.

>>16845334
The official scientific perspective is that men and women have separate but equal brains :-)

>>16873920
You are so stupid

>>16845344
Nice ragebait

>>16845334
There should be twice as many men at Mensa than women

>>16875122
>implying men and women have equal preferences when it comes to joining gay secret clubs that charge an admission fee

>>16849459
>Attempts to find differences are consistently null.
This is the polar opposite of reality. You should read Diane Halpern's book about sex differences in intelligence.

>>16875122
The Mensa IQ test is designed to minimize sex differences in IQ.

>>16873661
It's just the reality

Dump

>>16876520
That you are coping, yes.

>>16879156
Im telling the truth

File: Doctor_Manhattan_Watchmen_0003.jpg (204.1 KB)

204.1 KB JPG

There will always be more male intellectuals regardless of how many resources are spent on both sides until Al transcends us all. By then history will remember men as the superior gender that carried civilization to its highest level of progress while women will be seen only as vessels for that goal.

>>16879205
>he thinks intellectual is a compliment
kekmao

File: 1762765513017024.jpg (45.2 KB)

45.2 KB JPG

Despite headlines about more female participation in higher education there still exist a clear negative correlation between a field’s female-to-male ratio and its average IQ.

>>16879205
Fag

>>16860784
Weird how half the people I talk to on the internet report having a 180 IQ.

>>16879742
R2 is 0.58
That's hardly conclusive.

>>16880104
>>16879742
Also, what's up with these axese? Avg Iq ranges from average to plus 2 stdev? And ratio of female to male maxes out at 1 to 1?

This has got to be poor quality bait

>>16845348
Retarded girls in the Middle Ages would've had more children than the average from sexual pressures.

File: iq-by-college-major-gender.png (64.1 KB)

64.1 KB PNG

>>16880107
I looked at the source for the data. The x-axis represents fraction female not a ratio and the cutoff can be explained by college filtering.
https://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/25/average-iq-of-students-by-college-major-and-gender-ratio/

>>16880104
That is highly conclusive. Pearson's r is over 0.75 indicating an extremely strong positive correlation where as the coefficient of determination, or effect size, is R^2 which is over 55% indicating more than half the variation in the data is explained by the x axis.

>>16845334
IQ is pseudoscience, since the methods of its measure do not control for it being a subject to the structures around it rather than an objective measure of intelligence, whatever that could mean. As such, a "scientific" consensus would not conclude equivalence of IQ between any group of people, as IQ is not a metric obtained through the scientific method.
You'll definitely see it dressed up in scientific-looking framing though, and of course the contents of such publications would be inherently contradictory.

And come again

>>16880107
College filters against clinical retards. This is the point of the SAT. The data is old back when standards mattered.

>>16882645
>IQ is pseudoscience
The idea that biological variance doesn’t stop once it reaches the brain is pseudoscience? You may take issue with the test, but to take issue with the biological reality is to forfeit all respect for biological, or neurological diversity.

>>16845334
> imperial data
IESLB

>>16845344
no way everyone is falling for this bait

chud thread

women have literally smaller brains with less dense connections between emispheres, did you rly need a test to base the assumption of their lesser intelligence?

>>16845334
>scientific consensus
There is no such thing. Scientific research runs on falsifiable hypotheses. Pop science runs on consensus.

>>16886811
what dick are you smoking lol

>>16845334
lol

>>16845334
kek

>>16845334
ok

>>16887334
lmaoooooooo>

>>16886516
this, cranial size correlates heavily with FSIQ most people that have large followings get a large head after gaining some sort of success but at the local zip code level you realize everyone is retarded as fuck and has a small ass head its fucking hilarious

>t. big headed genius

>>16875159
why would there be any sex differences in IQ in terms of reprodcible measuring rate? that wouldnt make any sense its not like the big 5 where its skewed even that is accurate at approximating FSIQ just be honest and subtract 5 points from intellect thats your FSIQ no need for bullshit ass $100 autistic test be normal and take an actual test dont mind the trait conscientiousness or emotional stability thats nonsense just intellect and agreeableness im 1st percentile on that which fucking sucks

>t knower

>>16858717
no they dont mine peaked at 21 i experienced the wilson effect too in highschool my FSIQ was 102 or something then it went up to 108 raw 114 practice with a test that correlates .9 with wais FSIQ in 3rd grade my GAI was 107.5 though kind of wonky

>>16891321
>anecdote

yes in this case 1 experience does superseed the general rule

>>16851460
fake ass pca bro i swear lmao

for the record i do know what pca is i studied machine looorning

2 kinds of pca

1- visual representation of data that can show if it can be clustered using k means which curve fits a circle around correlative data

2 - finding the highest correlated features aka the columns of a spread sheet oops didnt mean to share intuition to the poo loos

Women can bake good.

>>16892043
Tru dat

>>16892043
>>16892669
Misogynistic gay boys

>>16845334
Can people on this board stop obsessing over IQ. IQ is best measure of intelligence we have. It is not perfect nor the only indicator we can use, but it is the measure.

Males and Females intelligence are equal. Males have more of a score variability, but it’s minimal. Males and Females are equal in intelligence.

>>16845344
the same redditor in every iq thread for the last 2 years fighting for heckin social justice

>>16845334
Duh

>>16894549
Muh

>>16845334
Women should not exist

>>16845348
This is why high IQ makes you gay.

>t. knower

>>16897309
Gays are superior to us

>>16845344
>They measure how good you are at taking IQ tests
Being good at taking IQ tests has an extremely high correlation with being significantly above average intelligence. Or at least it used to be because no one besides chinese and jews studied for IQ tests before it was all available on the internet. But for the overwhelming vast majority of people the type of questions and tasks in an IQ are a novel experience with which they have no familiarity, and it is for these people IQ tests have the best predictive accuracy.

>>16845334
I feel young women at least think and speak faster often i have to give them this.

>>16845334
Science is not based on consensus. Its fact driven. Science does not kow tow to the billions of humans and their understanding of the world. Science rejects consensus

>>16845344
Lol.

>>16892043
Kek

>>16849459
How are you controlling for affirmative action/jewish hiring practices and a thousand other uncontrolled variables in those statistics? It’s almost like we need a standalone test that examines a broad subset of intelligence … oh wait.

>>16898469
Intelligence is about the quality of your predictions, not the speed at which you make them. Birds think faster than us but most of them can’t generalize that very well. A pocket calculator absolutely BTFOs all biological life in its speed of arithmetic, yet its actual computational abilities are so limited it couldn’t even maintain a regular heartbeat.

>>16892043
…

Women can multi task in the kitchen

>>16886105
Based thread

>>16845351
Has anyone ever constructed such a test?

>>16902174
Yes, and it is an standard physics demonstration. Stand as erect as possible with your back, feet and butt touching a wall. A chair is in front of you. Keep your legs straight. Bend over, and pick it up. Women can do this, men cannot. On average.

>>16902437
I can do that easily I am alpha max

>>16902437
This test doesn't measure flexibility, dexterity, strength or any practical feature of the human body. It measures how good you are at bending over. Furthermore, you are making an ASSUMPTION that your sample represents the population. Try again, loser.

>>16901265
This

>>16902975
>>16902970
https://www.fatherly.com/health/chair-challenge-explained-viral-fitness-trend