How is this guy green. Fukking lol

Some of the negs iver received from this thread are fukking hilarious. Just read this gem.

"Sexist fukwit. Im not even going to waste my breath on you. lol just LoL u seem mad son. Let me tell you something - women are equal. get it in your mysoginistic brain, oh im sorry, you probably dont even have a brain. Im sitting here with a girl RN"

Surely this is trolling but with the misc wks you never know

Social cues and etiquette. Women are also better at comforting people. Pretty much anything social or interpersonal a woman is better than a man in general.

You're wrong on some basic points, here. Yes, due to testosterone, men clearly have a physical advantage. When it comes to general intelligence, women are catching up, and in certain countries, exceeding the mean scores of men. The scholar James Flynn analyzed standardized IQ data from five different countries and found that women scored even, and sometimes slightly above, men on the logical reasoning portion of the test. Flynn, and other psychologists such as Richard Nisbett, have pointed out and shown that IQ tests are not static, scores have changed over the last hundred years, and adoption data shows that environment plays a huge role in determining how individuals score on such tests. Are men naturally more adept in certain cognitive fields? Maybe, point is we can't possibly know yet, despite what the OP says. Also, 50+ years is really a drop in the bucket compared to centuries.

Every person is abused regardless of gender
2nd place is forced not accepted
Slightly subjective, but how is that a good thing, considering you're not breaking the law
We saw where that has led, doing something more than men, does not mean you do it better
The smart guide the weak

Amleben negged on spread

Keep your emotions out of this; a disgrace to men

Empathy, compassion and nurturing. This world would be fukked if there were no mothers and only fathers.

You get enough attention from me to make me reply and say, I dont give a fukk what a misogynic FA fggot like you thinks about me.
Yea, how am I green when I defend women from being called "inferior" in every way than men, in a forum where 90% are incels like actonspur and love to hate on women to cope they are not getting any. Id rather be nice and fair IRL than making hate comments to get my ego stroked.

Inb4 incels like janglingjack, fleeceitout, lastro, magnefico, 8282 or you fukk each other to not be lonely anymore

I think women are better at accurate shooting. They'd also be better at other things that require you to be floppy and flexible. Their fat allows them to survive longer in cold water and makes them more buoyant (whales)

Gripe on IQ all you like, the index consistently correlates to successful outcomes across multiple dimensions. Is it flawed? Ye sure, any indicator is. But it does what it says on the box, generally speaking.

Can you point me to how the test is “biased” and in specifically what way? Biased towards what.

Shopping

The tests are not flawed, though sometimes there can be a cultural bias which biases the score downwards. For example, I remember reading that in South Africa during apartheid a test was given to impoverished black kids and one question asked them to draw a tennis net-these were kids who had never been exposed to such things before.

However, I agree that the scores generally are valid and correlate with outcomes, though as I noted above they're not static either. Environment plays a huge role.

Well ye, the Flynn effect has pushed scores upwards over time. So I’m not saying there isn’t a cultural influence (there’s a prerequisite level of education in abstract thought). For example, some remote tribes don’t think in abstract terms at all. Maybe that’s what she means by bias.

At the same time, identical twins separated at birth and raised in different (western) environments, tend towards the same outcome regardless of affluence. It get really complicated but the point is measuring IQ directly (rather than say what degree you got) is probably a better indicator to how successful you’ll be on the job.

No. There is zero cultural bias, as I've already explained. In an ACT, GRE, SAT, yes there is cultural bias, however, none of these tests are used in credible IQ testing research. The test most commonly used is called the Raven's Progressive Matrices. There are no words, letters, or numbers in the test. There are not even directions, as it is intuitive. It literally measure your ability to solve problems and recognize patterns. No amount of education, knowledge, studying, or taking the test is going to improve your score. Nobody with any knowledge on this subject even attempts to argue that the tests are biased, that only shows your ignorance of the subject.I'm not wrong. I've read Flynn's work, most IQ scientist disagree with his conclusions. I've watched hour long interviews with Flynn, and his bias is obvious, he is a cultural marxist. Richard Dawkins work is more credible.

Let me elaborate on why and how Flynn is biased, and knowingly conducts biased research. Flynn only tested teenagers aged 14-18 in those 5 countries you mentioned. Flynn, with his knowledge in biology, knows that females start puberty 2 years before males. Females develop faster than males. Males brains do no completely stop developing until 25. During adolescence females enjoy a temporary developmental advantage relative to males. After males fully develop post puberty, males have an average IQ 5 points higher than females. This has been demonstrated in literally hundreds of studies. That is not hyperbole....hundreds of studies. Flynn knows this, and thats why he will only test adolescent. He has a bias...he has an agenda. Flynn is more interested in proving his agenda than finding the truth; it's extremely dishonest. Richard Dawkins and others in the field do not agree with him and are more credible.

No studies testing adult humans will show females and males have an equal IQ. All studies of adults shows males having higher IQ. A common misconception is that males have more variance, but that women and men have the same average. This is false. Men literally have a higher mean, mode, median, and range on the bell curve. The only studies showing otherwise are testing children or teenagers. Devils in the details. Read the methodology of studies before you cite them. The empirical evidence shows that there is no difference in average IQ between boys or girls, or even that girls may have a slight advantage. The evidence also shows that in adults, men have a higher IQ both on the high end, and on average. Dishonest people, or ignorant people, will use studies conducted on prepubescent children and try to apply it to fully developed adults. It is intellectually dishonest.

Here is a meta-analysis detailing the findings of these studies, suggesting beyond reasonable doubt that fully grown men (not boys) have an IQ half a standard deviation above the female average IQ.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0b5...e752d8c92b.pdf

aka hamstering

fashion, makeup, hair, etc. is dominated by gay men.

In on billionth misc woman hate thread.

But on a srs note, I had read somewhere that autistic women often have equivalent or better social skills than the average male. This is kinda interesting, as autism is overwhelmingly (~80%) diagnosed in males, and there's a sense that it might be underdiagnosed in women because even a disabled woman may be socially functional enough to where it may never be noticed as anything wrong - unlike your average male who pretty much turns into a miscer.

I like Dawkins, but he is an evolutionary biologist. The notion that he has more credibility than Flynn in this topic is false. Moreover, the idea that Flynn is a 'cultural Marxist' is ludicrous. The term is completely meaningless, it's just thrown around by those of a particular political stripe who want to dismiss all experts who they disagree with.


There are other studies that find similar results for men and women in general IQ tests, and not just for teenagers. For example, a study conducted by Robert Colom et al (2000), in which the mean age of thousands of participants, men and women, was 24, found no significant difference in G between men and women. To be clear, I'm open to possibility that men have better cognitive abilities than women--simply saying it has not been established convincingly yet.

Or it just shows that they are, you know...different. ****

Leading on and turning cold last minute

It's not meaningless, cultural marxism is a kind of neo-marxism that originated from the Frankfurt School in Germany. Listening to Flynn talk, he obviously supports this kind of thinking. Simply saying something is meaningless does not make it so.I just read the study you cited. A simple read of the methodology shows that these researches included 2 inferior IQ tests to get their result of trying to disprove the majority of scientist in this field who show that men have higher IQ. The gold standard of general intelligence testing is the Ravens. They used a language heavy test in this study. We already know females have a very slight advantage with language. Language is not general intelligence. To test for g, there must be problem solving and pattern recognition. What these researchers did was take an inferior test that does not actually measure general intelligence, then also take a proper IQ test and say "look the females did better than males on this language test, so even though the males outperform females on the problem solving test that means there is no IQ difference after all". Did you actually read the methodology?
It seems to me like you are starting with a conclusion that females and males have the same IQ, and that you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that suggests this is not true and just sticking to your conclusion for ideological reasons.

You argument is essentially what climate change deniers do. The empirical evidence shows the Earth is warming, and 97% of scientist agree the Earth is warming, but climate change deniers ignore all the evidence and stick to the 3% of scientist who conduct biased research. When it comes to IQ, 97% of the research shows that adult males have a higher IQ in general intelligence. In some studies it is as high as a 12 point difference. But instead you chose to cling to studies that test adolescents, and ONE study that didn't even use a Raven's Progressive Matrices test, but used 1 proper test, and 2 inferior tests, then averaged out the 3 different kinds of tests to say there is not significant difference. It would be like testing who is a better weight lifter, and including one bench press test, then testing a 5 mile run, then saying "oh yea the men did better on the bench press, but the women did better on the 5 mile run, so theres no difference, they bench the same"

Your wording is confusing here, suggesting unsound scientific understanding. You are also making biased value judgements with every conclusion and example you gave in the longer post from which I quote.

Firstly, all socializing mammals live in communities in which there are dominant males and dominant females. These are very delicate and intricate heirarchical systems put in place to ensure each member works as part of a team for the mutual survival of the group. To say that the role of protecting the group (sometimes only carried out by a handful of males) is ´superior´to the role of protecting the young (carried out by all females) is monumentally stupid, and clearly comes from your bias as a male. The male´s role is calculated to how best he can help the female, and is controlled and limited by the females biological clock and temperments.

You picked out hyenas because the females are bbigger than the males and to you this means that they are superior to the males in this species. In this example the females are more capable of defending the group AND they are responsible for the survival of the young. Find me a species in which a male can provide both of these roles?

The fact is once a male has ****ed a female in many mammal species the male goes nomadic and spends the rest of his life trying not to get in trouble and his life is relatively inconsequential in the larger picture (disposable, if you like). So using nonhuman mammals to beef up your biased arguments is odd as for me it leads me in the exact opposite direction.

I am not a misogynist, but I find it funny how >70% of women try to act like they hot **** and got betas hitting the DMs nonstop. But if you really think about it, a lot of them don't do anything productive with their lives, have no passion, etc. Yet they think they still gnna be handed everything in life cause they got beta cucks falling over them lmao

I would never date a women who got no passion, no good job, etc. I don't gaf how good looking you are. You gotta offer me more than that
The dream for most women is to marry a rich beta cuck after sucking a 5000 dicks, while the poor dude out there doing everything for her.

Funny stuff

No, I picked out hyenas because female hyenas are objectively superior to male hyenas in measurable ways. The "roles" have nothing to do with it. They are bigger, stronger, faster, and more capable in every way that matters. For this reason even the lowest ranking female hyena outranks the highest ranking male. Hyenas are atypical of mammals, in almost every other species of mammal it is the male that is superior.This is a classic straw man argument. NEVER did I say that the role of protecting the group is superior to protecting the young. Please quote me saying that? You completely made that up because it is easier to argue against than my actual quotes. What I am actually saying is that males in most species of mammals are superior in measurable ways. Whether we are measuring strength, speed, IQ, endurance, agility, power, ect...males tend to be superior in most mammals. I am saying nothing about whose roles are superior. Both females and males have equally important roles for the survival of the species. The species would go extinct without both genders. What you are doing is intentionally arguing against things that I did not even say nor believe. Sad.

I read the study. I think it is dubious to dismiss the two tests as inferior measurements, when they are employed in other studies as well. First, let me say that I'm glad we're in agreement on the state of the climate change science, and I am not trying to employ their tactics at all. I acknowledged earlier in the thread that many of the studies show a male advantage in these tests, especially at the tail end of the distribution. The same tests show racial differences as well; however, my central point was that it is too early to determine whether environment can be fully ruled out as a significant contributing factor to these deviations given the history we're talking about.

On a side note, adherents of the Frankfurt school, such as Adorno, were interested in examining how mass culture can serve as a type of indoctrination tool, but now 'Cultural Marxism' is thrown around as a label to dismiss any critique that falls to the left of centrist democrat.

I ****ing quoted where you said it you ****ing idiot. Jesus ****ing christ this is why I hate arguing online and why I prefer to troll and also why I´m red.

But again, what do you mean by superior? Are you saying males are superior at fulfilling their role than females, as in, they are better adapted with the skills and qualities needed? Or do you mean that the male role is superior to the female´s (utterly hilarious)? Again, you have to argue either one of those positions otherwise you are making a VALUE JUDGEMENT. ****tard.

In your sub 70 IQ brain, truth = misogyny.

Its so depressing that the egalitarian left will just deny what is in front of their face to brainwash themselves that their ideology is fact.

The really sad thing is, is that a lot of these beta ******* feminist men think that by being the wk's of women, women will like them and want to get with them, when in reality women are repulsed by them.

Very sad

Thats not even broaching that no animals in the animal kingdom have the social hiearchies humans do.

"Alpha" is nonsense.

Youve got:

Musician
Athlete
Poet
Skateboarder
Cop
Fireman
Dj


And guess what? Not everything is as fluid as having one purpose to life. A janitor could be a dj at night, etc.

In one environment, hes not so hot. In the other, he is.

No other animal has that, probably because no other animal is as intelligent

How is that your central point? You have not made that clear at all. Your previous posts have suggested your central point is that it's too early to tell if there is a difference in IQ at all. Are you conceding that there is a statistically significant IQ difference that can be measured between the genders... but that we just don't know if this difference is caused more by environment or genetics?