If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Academics claim men are more intelligent than women
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm
Academics in the UK claim their research shows that men are more intelligent than women.
A study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests.
Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn claim the difference grows when the highest IQ levels are considered.
Their research was based on IQ tests given to 80,000 people and a further study of 20,000 students.
'Widening gap'
Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, told the Today programme on BBC Radio Four the study showed that, up to the age of 14, there was no difference between the IQs of boys and girls.
"But beyond that age and into adulthood there is a difference of five points, which is small but it can have important implications," he said.
"This is against a background of women dramatically overtaking men in educational attainment and making very rapid advances in terms of occupational achievement."
The academics used a test which is said to measure "general cognitive ability" - spatial and verbal ability.
As intelligence scores among the study group rose, the academics say they found a widening gap between the sexes.
There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.
At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.
Nobel prize-winners
Dr Irwing told The Times the differences "may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds, such as chess grandmasters, Fields medallists for mathematics, Nobel prize-winners and the like".
The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men "possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work".
His co-author Richard Lynn's previous work on the genetic and environmental influences on intelligence and race has proved controversial.
Prof Lynn, an emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, has argued that people of east Asian origin have higher IQs on average than Europeans, or that those from sub-Saharan Africa have lower IQs than African Americans.
Earlier this year, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, sparked controversy when he suggested at a seminar that one reason men outperformed women in maths and science was genetics.
Several guests walked out of the conference after hearing the comments.
Dr Summers, who has apologised repeatedly for his remarks, said later that the shortage of senior female academics was partly caused by child-minding duties, which restricted working hours.
Academics in the UK claim their research shows that men are more intelligent than women.
A study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests.
Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn claim the difference grows when the highest IQ levels are considered.
Their research was based on IQ tests given to 80,000 people and a further study of 20,000 students.
'Widening gap'
Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, told the Today programme on BBC Radio Four the study showed that, up to the age of 14, there was no difference between the IQs of boys and girls.
"But beyond that age and into adulthood there is a difference of five points, which is small but it can have important implications," he said.
"This is against a background of women dramatically overtaking men in educational attainment and making very rapid advances in terms of occupational achievement."
The academics used a test which is said to measure "general cognitive ability" - spatial and verbal ability.
As intelligence scores among the study group rose, the academics say they found a widening gap between the sexes.
There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.
At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.
Nobel prize-winners
Dr Irwing told The Times the differences "may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds, such as chess grandmasters, Fields medallists for mathematics, Nobel prize-winners and the like".
The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men "possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work".
His co-author Richard Lynn's previous work on the genetic and environmental influences on intelligence and race has proved controversial.
Prof Lynn, an emeritus professor at the University of Ulster, has argued that people of east Asian origin have higher IQs on average than Europeans, or that those from sub-Saharan Africa have lower IQs than African Americans.
Earlier this year, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers, sparked controversy when he suggested at a seminar that one reason men outperformed women in maths and science was genetics.
Several guests walked out of the conference after hearing the comments.
Dr Summers, who has apologised repeatedly for his remarks, said later that the shortage of senior female academics was partly caused by child-minding duties, which restricted working hours.
0
Comments
Other than that the research seems to be proving that women are better, harder working and more able to succeed than men, even with the supposed and highly dubious adavantage for men in something as questionable and undermined as IQ.
And as with all threads, it's always polite to provide your own viewpoint on an issue if expect others to respond.
I don't think it really merits any real discussion in terms of educational or occupational policy making, since equality of outcome (at least in educational terms) has already been achieved (in fact, women are outperforming men on average). It does however raise interesting questions about the ethics (or even desirability?) of studying vast masses of human beings from a purely academic, statistical and objective(?) position, and formulating and enacting policy based on such scientific/academic studies.
j/k
you really think there is a difference between people who have a difference of 5 in their score.... doesn't take into account musical ability, nor does it take into account socialising skills or imagination and many other things which combined, make us human
im on the 140ish part of the scale on all the oens i've done so im not trying to bullshit you either
Very good point - on a very similar point did anyone see Adam CUrtis' new doc )or part one) - The Trap?
:yes:
I don't believe IQ is a very good measure of 'intelligence' at all. I scored 152 on a test a few years back, I don't think it means anything tbh. Is an average of 5 really statisically significant?
It is interesting that people are so desperate to show the research to be wrong, despite the fact that the conclusions aren't that strong.....
If this is true then it makes me wonder why in recent years, girls have been seen to overtake boys academically in so many areas.
They do say the difference is only 5 points which isnt much, but even so. Im not saying their research is wrong, but if it is the case, are boys being shortchanged at school?
Yes, I saw it.
It firmed my conclusion that has been reached through lots of academic research,namely :
Any alleged group is non-fungible.
No, I missed it, and was absolutely gutted. Thought it was on a different night. Hopefully it'll be up on youtube soon enough though. I'd definately recommend his last series "The Power of Nightmares" to anyone who hasn't yet seen it. Here is the first part:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7318483000475351598&q=adam+curtis+power+nightmares
However the superb Century of the Self (his previous work to Power of Nightmares) is still up
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=century+of+the+self
Clearly IQ is an imperfect test for "overall" intelligence, as is any test of measurement in any field. But according to the British Journal of Psychology, the tests used in this study offer the best measure of "general cognitive ability" available.
They aren't saying females do not have equal or greater abilities in certain areas of mental ability, simply that on average they are slightly less intelligent than men. However, whilst I agree from my own personal experience that females are on average better in terms of emotional intelligence, social skills, etc, as far as I know there is no comprehensive scientific study of this. IQ is the best measure we have to go on, and the foremost academic journal in the field considers the evidence strong enough to publish a report based on these kind of tests.
No offence (and since I don't know either of you I'm not being personal) but where did you take these IQ tests that gave you these scores? Was it an accredited scientific organization/study? I rather suspect that it will have been internet IQ tests, tests conducted by private companies (who have an interested in inflating the scores) or by the type of tests you sometimes get in schools that aren't particularly thorough. Obviously these tests are poor in terms of scientific method.
However, if those are your IQs, congratulations, wheresmyplacebo you are 20 IQ points ahead of intelliegence equating to a first class degree, and go_away, you are only 3 points of the threshold usually associated with genius.
Whilst I agree that nobel prizes and other officially acknowledged achievements will have been influenced to a large degree by sexist prejudice/"patriarchy" in society, the study does suggest that at the highest levels of mental ability the gap between men and women's IQ scores ("intelligence") becomes significantly wider, and it much very rarer for women to achieve exceptionally high scores than men: "At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman." So whilst there has clearly been a large impact from societal/political/economic factors, the study would suggest that Dr Irwing is right when he says that the differences "may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds."
Again, that doesn't mean that men are "better" than women or that they deserve better or more education or occupational oppurtunity. It simply shows that at high levels, particularly in maths and the sciences, they are better "calculating machines" or have a more abstracted/detached mental ability. No coincidence for me that autism has a much greater frequence in men than women.
What I am saying here is that this study confirms for me what seems fairly intuitive: at the most extreme and exceptional level of "mental ability," (in terms of dry academic achievement and logical/mathematical thought processes) men outperform women and this is probably inherent to biology. That doesn't suggest that they should have more decision making or policy making power, or power within society, or anything like that; on the contrary the brains of many of the "boffins" who do this type of work are probably so focussed and distorted on the pure mechanics and academic side of the work that they do that they are less capable of others in determining how the discoveries/research should be used (or not used) in society in general. At the same time, women consistently outperform men in average attainment, despite having a slightly lower average intelligence, probably because they are more concientious, level-headed, and personally aware than men (on average).
Men and women have got alternate capabilities on so many different levels, but let's celebrate these differences, not criticise them.
Who is criticizing anyone?
Is it not the job of academics to try to objectively reveal the truth, even if the truth might be slightly uncomfortable for some people? If men and women have alternate capabilities, lets try and discover what they are, so that we can better understand ourselves and others.
I havent seen that at all in this debate actually.
www.beageniustakeourquizandparishiltongossip.com
It was some years ago (can't even remember when, stupid memory :rolleyes: ) don't think it was Mensa, something similar. Really couldn't give you specifics though, but it was accredited. Like I said, I don't believe much in it, I think I just scored well on a standardised test. Now that I think about it, it could have been Mensa. I dunno, essay + dissertation writing = IQ points being burned.
*snig*
Traditionally it has been men who have been obsessed with the measurement of Intelligence, so it is hardly surprising they devised a conception of IQ that is gender-biased towards them and their conception of what constitutes an 'intelligent person'. IQ tests have been improved a lot in the past years, but I'd like to know what instrument they have used here and take a good look at it. Unfortunately, until the paper is published we won't know. However, if they have stated that what the instrument measures is 'general cognitive ability', my take is that they have not taken into account the latest advancements on what is now considered as 'Intelligence', (ie Emotional Intelligence and Social intelligence, to name a few). SCC is spot on then, when she says that cognitive ability is only a part of the full concept of Intelligence, which has been challenged in the latest years. So ultimately, we can no longer talk of IQ as a synonym of Intelligence, as IQ measures only some of the aspects considered today as conforming Intelligence. If they truly want to measure Intelligence, psychometry has yet to advance to a state where these such areas are made measurable. Until then 'Intelligence tests' as such are frankly incomplete.
On the score if this IQ test, there are many considerations that can be said to affect the outcomes. Some were mentioned there as women not pursuing careers and academic life over certain age as much as men due to a turning of interests and main goals in life - whereas men are still more success-driven than women on average. This becomes relevant when experts have commented endlessly about the role motivation has in the performing of a task, and certainly when considering the lack of cognitive practice women have in comparison to men during their adult life in these specific areas. Especially thinking about the kind of jobs each gender holds - posts that require mathematical and scientific thinking are largely more occupied by men than women, so it is only to be expected that men would perform better on these types of task.
Anyway, for a more thorough anlysis one would need to know the details of the study and the instruments used. I think the real issue here is though, what will the academics and authors of this study (and the wider scientific community) offer as an explanation of the causes of this difference in acheivement? Will they suggest men have inherently better cognitive abilities, or will there be other social and methodological factors considered? And even further, I think these types of studies also are a reflection of what we as a society (or the scientific community really) are focusing on as the most important aspect of intelligence. Right now that article says 'men are cleverer than women' (and the title of this thread says 'Intelligent') because the quantifiable results for men are higher. But they have also stated that "there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work". Why is this only a side comment and not properly included as part of the achievement of the test? This aspect has not been quantified - merely reflecting that it isn't considered as important when measuring intelligence. Arguably one of the characteristics of intelligence is the ability to do many things at the same time (as it requires the automatisation of processes), however there is no scientific way of measuring this included in IQ tests. So how comprehensively representative of cognitive ability is IQ really?
155
It means that mine is higher than yours
Interesting then that I don't have a degree...
I'm not that surprised to be honest by the study. Gender equality does do a lot of good things but it cannot overcome fundamental biology. Just as men, generally, are better at parking because men, biologically, have better spacial awareness than women and women are better at multitasking than men, then it wouldn't surprise me if men had on average higher IQs. But women live longer. Oh well.
Good post I think but there are several points I'd take issue with, as well as your concluding remarks.
Well thats the only thing it proves, but little in science can be "proven," especially when the area under research ranges more broadly into the social sciences (which require a much lower threshold for "proof" or demostration of probability) as this study does.
However, it does provide an indication of the truth, at least, and given that IQ tests are considered the best test available, the balance of probablities suggests that the findings are broadly accurate. What I find confusing is the assumption expressed by many here that these people at the British Journal of Psychology (and elsewhere) have not taken into consideration the arguments against IQ testing before conducting a large and expensive study using it as the method of measurement. Why is this?
This seems like the answer to my last question which has also been expressed less eloquently by others. But I find the argument problematic in terms of its premises and assumptions, and it seems like a circular argument.
The assertion that "traditionally it has been men who have been obsessed with the measurement of Intelligence" is partially true but also misleading in what it omits. Men have "traditionally" (i.e. have) dominated science. Scientists want to measure observable phenomenon, that is their main occupation. Thus (arbitrarily male) scientists have been "obsessed" with (i.e. have attempted to, as their occupation demands) measuring "intelligence" (I'll put this in quotes from now on). The job of scientists is to measure "intelligence," it is not that men are inherently predisposed to an "obsession" with measuring "intelligence" - unless you accept the finding of this report that men are essentially predisposed to be scientists, through a superior average (science oriented) "cognitive ability." That is what I would suggest is the case. Thus men are indirectly more predisposed to measure intelligence, because they are more likely to become scientists (whose job it is to measure) due to both biological and societal factors.
It is true, as many historians and philosophers of science have pointed out, that it is a male-dominated field/industry. But I think it is disingenuous to work on the premise that men have created a "gender-biased" model of measurement. This is where semantics come into it really, and I admit that perhaps the title of the thread was slightly misleading. You are right that they are not measuring "intelligence" as such, but pure mental calculative ability and logical reasoning, and this is the test that they have developed. I agree that this is partly because scientists (and maybe men) consider the pure type of "intelligence" to be more interesting or important, but it is also because the other types (particualrly "social intelligence") are extremely difficult to measure scientifically (as you say). But that suggests it is not because of a gender bias from male scientists but the practical difficulties of scientific method in this area.
But this explicitly ackowledges that women are less "intelligent" than men, whether or not they had the potential to be more intelligent. It is saying that society and oppurtunity has failed to allow women to achieve the "intelligence" they could have gained. But it still indicates that they are less intelligent, on average, it is just providing an explanation of why. It also contradicts the fact that females/women are consistently outperforming men in both education and in occupational roles. This suggests that there is little credence to the idea that there is some kind of societal bias that does not allow women's intelligence to fully develop.
Its a side comment because achievement/conscientiousness/industriousness are not the subject of the study, "intelligence" or "cognitive ability" is.
I wouldn't say that motivation and industriousness are part of intelligence, they are different traits. There is some correlation between them but they are not inherent to or dependent upon intelligence.
I agree with this, but I think that IQ is a useful measure of what I've called "pure" intelligence. My own view is that whilst men outperform women at the very top end of "pure" (mathematical, scientific, logical) intelligence, women outperform men in terms of emotional and social intelligence, the ability to "do many things at the same time" - or I would say more importantly "take into consideration many things at the same time," which in many ways is a more useful range of cognitive ability to have. But as people have commented before, there is no point in arguing which type is "better" - the point is that (probably from evolutionary origins) they complement each other. But it is a good idea to try and identify the particular cognitive abilities the two genders are blessed with. Then we can have men working away in laboratories and fixing computers whilst women govern society making sure everyone is fulfilled socially and emotionally.
Must see TV for me too.
However,as a criticism, I saw some of the (implied and openly explicit) statements in the narration as incorrect.
:grump:
Maybe you should go to uni... medicine, perhaps?
The light that burns twice as brightly, burns half as long.