16 replies to this topic

[Aussie Mackey]

Culturally biased tests that dont take into account dancing ability and cultural contributions! Racist filth!

Oh women are on top? IQ Testing is a fucking bulletproof measure of intelligence!

Quote

IN the battle of the sexes women have always believed they are cleverer than men.

And now it would appear they are justified in thinking they are superior after psychologists found female IQ scores have risen above men's for the first time in 100 years.

Women have been as much as five points behind men since testing began a century ago, but that gap has narrowed in recent times.

How can this be one wonders? How the hell can this be? I mean, this is a gender that has developed nothing but a headache when its meant to suck a dick right? Now they are superior? As in SUPERIOR?

Lets delve a little deeper!

Quote

This year women finally came out on top - and it may be because they are better at multitasking. The breakthrough has been uncovered by James Flynn, the world-renowned authority on IQ tests.

Who is James Flynn you ask? Oh, just the libtard erection behind "The Flynn Effect". Because you know, in racial utopia, intelligence is only genetic if you are Jewish. Genetics play no role in intelligence, its all social and environmental. You can all go back to racial harmony now folks, he saved the day yet again!

Quote

One theory is women's ability to multitask as they juggle raising a family and going to work, while another explanation is that they are finally realising they have a slightly higher potential intelligence than men.

Thats what I have been saying! Awesome news is awesome!

Quote

Flynn will publish his findings in a new book, but said more data was needed to explain the trend because tests have consistently shown differences between gender and race.

Im sure it will be as logically sound and scientifically based as the previous one. Here is the rest of the rest of the sound germalism if you could be bothered reading the filth

This twit was interviewed in a recent documentary on the BBC about Race and Intelligence, which you can watch here if you have an hour to spare.

Mini Review:

A black man sets out to discover if race and IQ are genetic and if there are differences in intelligence. Every geneticist and scientist interviewed, including the nobel prize winning GENTLEMAN who discovered DNA, said that intelligence is a genetic trait, with race being the primary indication of intelligence and IQ. Later on they compare the rising African-American IQ, which when compared to the African IQ of 70 clocks in at a less retarded 85, wondering how all this could have possibly happened. There is light at the end of the tunnel it seems. All the sciency  guys say this is because almost 20% of the average African-American genetic makeup is European now due to interbreeding, and the increase in IQ is as a result of the genetic legacy passed on, not because they are on food stamps.

Disaster

Now the nigra who does the documentary (heaven forbid the BBC get an old white dude to cover this one) is scrambling through a sea of doubt the entire time, but this could be the deathblow. He hates the idea that his kids are intellectually backward by default. Along then comes James Flynn to save the day, flying in on his unicorn at the end of a rainbow, the last man to be interviewed in this definitive documentary according to the BBC. In one short interview he dispels every scientific argument by citing African-American IQ's as evidence of nuture and environment over genetics. He just says everyone is wrong and thats that. The science is wrong, because James Flynn said so. Nigra forgets that 20 minutes earlier in his own documentary he was told that Europeans gifted them with an extra 15 points by fucking them, and he smiles so wide you would think KFC vouchers were waved at him by one of the cameramen in the background.

Unchallenged, said nigra takes this as gospel, wraps it up in cotton wool for viewers, and goes along on his merry way, safe in the knowledge that his children are not borderline retarded, and we can rest easy that James Flynn is right, all the scientists and geneticists are incorrect.

James Flynn, liberal white knight, destroyer of science hate fact



The kicker behind this all?

James Flynn, liberal champion and avenger of all that is discriminatory, IS NOTHING MORE THAN A POLITICAL SCIENCE MAJOR. He has been declared an authority on IQ tests when he has no psychological, psychiatric or even medical background. He is a political "scientist"

He is also an unashamed left wing faggot who is the chairman for the Congress of Racial Equality. No agenda there folks, its all in your head!

Yet people will buy his books and study his works in universities across the globe because they prefer his version to reality, while James Watson, the man who wins a Nobel prize for his role in unravelling DNA and genetics is openly attacked and eventually fired from his job because he dared to suggest that intelligence is genetic and linked to race

[Bumbling American]

Quote

Yet people will buy his books and study his works in universities across the globe because they prefer his version to reality, while James Watson, the man who wins a Nobel prize for his role in unravelling DNA and genetics is openly attacked and eventually fired from his job because he dared to suggest that intelligence is genetic and linked to race

On a tangent: One of the founding fathers of modern statistical analysis in baseball, a guy named Bill James, recently made some dumb comments about how Joe Paterno got a raw deal from the press. Baseball stat goons (largely ) went nuts and started coming up with other cases where otherwise smart guys seemed to lose their head on a particular topic. Right off the bat, they went to Watson.

For all the wishful thinking HBD people do, I really doubt the powers that be will ever back down on intelligence issues. They'll bend when it suits them--I'm sure the book in the OP will get tremendous attention for obvious reasons--but they won't relent on race, and they'll keep throwing our good money after bad.

[Homeless Bitcoin Investor]

Is it really possible to take anything liberal American faggots say seriously, unless you're part of the status-seeking, bourgeois liberal culture?

[Toad of Patel Hall]

Political science degree.   Might as well get the guy who cleans the shit stains out of the toilet at work to write a book on IQ scores.

[Lt. Free Market Asperger's]

Women are completely irrational and emotionally insecure; it's only natural that they need beta poli sci majors to coo into their ears about how better they are than men.  Of course, they're still not smart enough to understand why their male peers are more interested in porn and videogames than dating them.

[Figurative Caucasian]

Its probably some elaborate attempt at a lawgic trap.

Heh, so you accept women are smarter based on IQ tests... now you have to accept IQ is real!

He doesn't understand that women are immune to lawgic traps because they are immune to logic.

[Blarg]

Quote

Who is James Flynn you ask? Oh, just the libtard erection behind "The Flynn Effect".

It's called the "Flynn Effect" because Hernnstein and Murray attributed its discovery to Flynn in "The Bell Curve", but plenty of "race-realist" researchers like Richard Lynn acknowledge and have studied the trend.

Quote

Women have been as much as five points behind men since testing began a century ago, but that gap has narrowed in recent times.

Richard Lynn has as far as I know basically been the only one pushing the "average female iq is 5 points lower" idea, so its weird (but understandable) that, only now that they think the gap might going away are liberals willing to acknowledge that it exists.

I've haven't read much by Flynn, but what I have read makes him seem like a fair-minded and non-biased researcher, at least in the field of psychometrics.  Here is Flynn offering a very generous (at least compared to the mainstream view) assessment of Arthur Jensen's career:

Quote

I never suspected Arthur Jensen of racial bias. Over the years, I have found him scrupulous in terms of professional ethics. He has never denied me access to his unpublished data. His work stands as an example of what John Stuart Mill meant when he said that being challenged in a way that is "upsetting" is to be welcomed not discouraged. Before Jensen, the notion that all races were genetically equal for cognitive ability had become a dead "Sunday truth" for which we could give no good reasons. Today we are infinitely more informed about group differences. Equally important, the debates Jensen began are revolutionizing the theory of intelligence and our understanding of how genes and environment interact.

[tommy]

I mostly agree with Blarg.  Flynn is barking up the wrong tree, and Rushton, Jensen and others have said enough about the Flynn Effect to raise serious doubts there is anything real there, but I don't think Flynn is intentionally dishonest or unscrupulous.  He's just a bit deluded.  I'm sure Rushton or Lynn or somebody else will reply to Flynn's latest claim if it is without merit. I'd much rather have more honest and civil opponents like Flynn than deceptive ones like Steinberg, Lewontin, and Gould.

On a related note, I could believe that women may have at least some subfactor of verbal intelligence that is slightly higher on average than that of men.  Mathematical or logical?  Forget about it.

[le coq]

Quote

And now it would appear they are justified in thinking they are superior after psychologists found female IQ scores have risen above men's for the first time in 100 years.

[Crabtree]

This seems like an opportune time to quote from troll extraordinaire David Stove:

Quote

I have sometimes been asked "What would it take to convince you that the intellectual capacity of women is equal to that of men?" This is a kind of question which it is often instructive to ask, and certainly it is a fair one here. I can easily answer it and will.

But since intellectual performance is the only guide we have to intellectual capacity, while the intellectual performance of men has always been superior to that of women, the question is an ever fairer one if it turned around, and addressed to the equality-theorist: "What would convince you of the inferior intellectual capacity of women?" And this question is one which many equality-theorists, I think, would not find at all easy to answer. The religious quality of their attachment to their theory is, in many instances, only too obvious.

Here is something which would not convince me of the equality-theory: reports by psychologists or educationists of tests, conducted within recent years, on (for example) the comparative mathematical ability of boys and girls. Such reports would not only not convince me: I do not believe that any attention at all should be paid to them. My main reason for this is not the public record of psychologists for fraud or susceptibility to fraud or of educationists for unswerving obedience to the winds of fashion; although this record is sufficient in itself to justify a hearty scepticism towards their reports. My main reason is a quite general principle: that a person's testimony should carry no weight or little weight with you, if you are sure or nearly sure that his testimony would have been the same whatever had actually happened. If you are pretty sure that the boy would be crying "Wolf!" whether he had seen a wolf or not, you give him little credence, if you are rational, when he does cry "Wolf!". Well, everyone can be pretty sure that, if educationists or psychologists report nowadays on a test of mathematical ability between boys and girls, say, they will report the girls as doing at least as well as the boys, whether they really did or not. If the tests seem to show markedly superior mathematical ability in the boys, the experimenters will not only withhold publication of the results, but will almost certainly themselves believe that their experiment must have been defective in some way. It is as simple as that. So, when such persons do report equal mathematical performance by girls and boys, rational people simply ignore their reports.

[PLEASUREMAN]

is OP a daily mail piece?  confirm/deny

[boogerbutt]

Well, considering the feminization of the education system over the past 20-25 years, is it any surprise that women are pulling ahead of men in that department? Let's be honest, women are terrific passive-aggressive manipulators, and when you cater to their learning style from kindergarten to college, of course you'll end up with a bunch of dullards for men. After all, stupid men who are unable to apply knowledge or complex thought to their lives are easier to control.

[The Vice Mayor of Minas Morgul]

James Flynn is probably wracked by personal guilt over an inner voice that is no doubt whispering something to his consceience constantly, that he drives himself to distraction immeditately conjuring up the same few mental topics to ruminate upon to drown that whisper out.

The selection pressures upon the races (state-supported-single-motherhood with thuggish-oft-physically-dominant-non-present fathers) vs. two working parent families getting accreditation to eek out an existence in the safest suburbs they can afford (often by working 50 hour weeks) should lead one group to slowly get more clever, and to value education and forethought much more than the other group, who have been told to wallow in percieved disadvantage and victimhood, with lives vouchsafed by the state, with neverending complaint about the same historical wrongs being seen as the pinnacle of discourse by many of them.  




Its said biblically that God told a prophet (somewhere in the Old Testament) that he had reserved for himself "7,000 who never bowed a knee to Baal". Culling the herd while putting (apparently) the right selection pressures upon it, might lead to a smaller, but more adaptable, hardier populace for the one race that three or four generations down the line that genuinely will have increased its smarts. Group guilt trips and intermarrying propaganda aside, this is an issue Im sure the cultural elites have considered.

[Frontier]

PLEASUREMAN, on 15 July 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

is OP a daily mail piece?  confirm/deny

Here's a Daily Mail piece covering it.

The prose seems different.

Here's the key point:

Quote

Mr Flynn, who will publish his findings in a book, said more data was needed to explain the trend.
‘The full effect of modernity on women is only just emerging,’ he added.

He collated IQ examination results from  countries in western Europe and from the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina and Estonia.

These showed that in westernised countries the gap in scores between men and women had become minimal.

The data for making exact comparisons was sparser and could be carried out for only a handful of countries.

It included Australia, where male and female IQs were found to be almost identical.
In New Zealand, Estonia and Argentina, women scored marginally more than men.

So, in only THREE small countries did women do better than men.  In Australia the results were equal, and everywhere else, men did better.

As Sailer pointed out, though, the idea that that was little difference in the mean between the sexes is nothing new.  It's the spread where you find differences.

[TAO: Dzhokhar Unchained]

Frontier, on 16 July 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

So, in only THREE small countries did women do better than men.  In Australia the results were equal, and everywhere else, men did better.

As Sailer pointed out, though, the idea that that was little difference in the mean between the sexes is nothing new.  It's the spread where you find differences.

(trigger warning: statistical spergout ahead).

That's telling, partly because IQ test scores are always adjusted to the local population. Thus, if the proportions, confidence and sampling methodology happen to be different among the countries in the survey, the comparison loses validity because the sampling distributions are not the same. I agree that the important parameter here is the variance, which people seldom discuss. Even if there was an increase in the mean, the probability of a woman being really gifted (or really idiotic, since these are Gaussians) wouldn't have changed drastically if the variance stayed the same.

Here's my only beef with analyzing IQ score aggregates/trends: it's true that they are normally distributed, but I'm not that convinced of the fact that they are univariate. The tests measure a range of different cognitive capabilities: lawgical, verbal, numerical. Then they are added up together, which is OK because the sum of two normals is a normal, but it implies that a strongly-verbal average IQ is "the same" as a balanced average IQ of a similar value. These sub-scores are obviously correlated, but the correlations are not very strong (if they were, it would defeat the purpose of measuring them). A multivariate analysis would take into account these correlations, the separate means and variances and then tell us exactly where that change actually happened. I wouldn't be surprised if these increases in female IQ were mostly focused on the verbal side.

But I'm not up-to-date with the literature. If any of you bigots have references to this sort of analysis, please post a link at me. I'm a gay sperg.

[Negrito Eichmann]

every fucking axe wound was on the radio bleating about the havard cuntess that said "i felt it but i didnt say so because I am of the fairer sex"


Thank fuck there was some real talk on tell mussies to fuck off if the dont like it here or I would have driven my car trough the wall of tim hortons* and killed the unintelligible drive thru cunt.


~*it was a bad morning*~

* (oats)

[MIB]

Yeah right.  Even intelligent women are stupid.