July 15, 2012

James "Flynn Effect" Flynn: Man Smart, Woman Smarter

The World's Most Interesting Newspaper*, the Daily Mail, reports:
Women overtake men in IQ tests for the first time in 100 years (but is it all down to multitasking?) 
By CRAIG MACKENZIE 
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. 
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. 
He told the Sunday Times: 'In the last 100 years the IQ scores of both men and women have risen but women's have risen faster.This is a consequence of modernity.
'The complexity of the modern world is making our brains adapt and raising our IQ. The full effect of modernity on women is only just emerging.' 
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. 
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.

A forgotten bit of history is that early 20th Century IQ experts, most notably the endlessly-demonized Sir Cyril Burt and the Grandfather of Silicon Valley and Evil Eugenicist Lewis Terman, argued, based on the results of IQ tests, that males and females were about equal in intelligence. That was quickly established as orthodoxy among IQ mavens in the first half of the 20th Century. You are always supposed to believe that the IQ & Eugenics WASP scientists of the early 20th Century, being the Worst People in History, were mere playthings of the prejudices of their age. This example suggests the opposite, so it has been shoved down the memory hole.

So, Flynn isn't breaking any ground here, he's just upholding the IQ Orthodoxy endorsed by, among others, Arthur Jensen in 1998.


The main heretic in recent years has been Richard Lynn, so this is a Flynn v. Lynn argument. It's important to note that it's not the Evil IQ Establishment v. Flynn, it's the IQ Establishment (including Flynn) v. Lynn. 


Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. The male-female gap in median IQ, if it exists, is relatively small. The issues in the discussion quickly become highly technical. Psychometrics is a field in which sizable differences (e.g., median black v. white) show up under just about every conceivable measurement approach, but measuring small differences accurately is dependent upon a lot of technical testing issues.

------
* Not necessarily the World's Most Reliable Newspaper, however ...

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is, however, meant to be a wider spread amongst male IQ's, and a narrower distribution amongst females, but the medians not markedly different.

More male genii, but also more male idiots; more average women.

Kind of feels intuitively right.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

No, not multitasking. It's because more girls stay in school, do their homework, and take tests more seriously while guys approach it with a 'what is this shit' attitude.

Billare said...

This is in weird contradiction to an interview Richard Lynn gave in the journal Personality and Individual Differences a couple of months ago, kindly reprinted in toto by the Inductvist here. In it, Lynn seems quite assured that the previous found parity between males and females was a result of measurement error that tested both sexes at the same age, around puberty, which gives a misleading result because females are more developmentally advanced as compared to males during those years. In the interview, he calls the "paradox" resolved and gives several supporting citations in support of his conclusion, including one as recent as 2010.

Thinking about it, maybe Flynn and Lynn aren't in contradiction. Maybe Lynn is correct that the measurement error at the age these IQ studies are conducted still exists and is uncorrected for, but Flynn might've found out that the gap is not as large as Lynn claims to have found — about 5 IQ points. Anyway, this shakes me up: I thought the gender gap research was basically clad in stone about 3 months ago, but apparently not…maybe Jason Malloy Will eventually clear things up for us.

Anonymous said...

So IQ tests are no longer sexist.

Women and minorities still the hardest hit.

International Jew said...

Multitasking? When you're taking an IQ-type test you're not multitasking, you're concentrating on one thing and that's a skill our young multitaskers have less and less of.

Jay said...

Now that we have the desired result we can stop calling the tests discriminatory, right?

Anonymous said...

Men are significantly more intelligent than women. Even women realize that.

Nanonymous said...

I don't have a strong opinion on the subject either but the super-consistent differences in SAT Scores, Math (big difference) vs Verbal (small difference), coupled with the real life outcomes suggest that there has to be a small difference in the mean g. The experimentally found difference in SD between sexes does not seem to be able to fully account for the disparity that so clearly exists.

Multitasking (something that women clearly are better at!) has absolutely nothing to do with the measured IQ. What the hell is Flynn talking about and why?

E. Rekshun said...

I just finished watching an MTV special on the band Pink Floyd. These guys are true musicians and likely had pretty high IQs, as do many other true musicians I suspect. Has there ever been a long-term very successful all-female music group, [articularly one that write their own lyrics and music and plays their own instruments. I can't think of one.

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4183166.stm

(Oh, and you do realize that there has been substantial and pervasive gender norming for females over the last 50 years? Thought not. On top of that, though not IQ tests proper, college entrance exams have been consitently been normed for both sexes over the last 30 years. This has been done for the sole reason of masking generational decline. The whole data set has become hopelessly corrupted by the Institutional Left. What we should really be studying is the hanky-panky is test design and psychometric that have gone on in academia these last 50 years. WE cannot do this because this would me that we would have to engage in real scine rather that statitics in the service of poltical ideology.)

Really now, if men and women were "equal"intellectually, not to mention creatively, the course of civilization throughout world history would be radically different. "Equality"? Hardly. "Diversity" as either a prgamtic or moral good? Unfounded and untenable. "Studies" like Flynn's merely underline how loony "Modernism" truly is and the depths of self delusion to which its bogus "elites" are willing to descend. Diversity indeed.

"Mutlitasking" as some serious scientific concept? This is as comicy silly as the "concept" of "social intelligence". I do not know what is worse, the concept of "multitasking" itself or the even more bizaare notion that women are some how better at it becuase the little dears are "homemakers" or somehow "more socially oriented". I suggest that Mr. Flynn spend some time talking to combat soldiers: he might broaden his notion of multi-tasking a tad. (But this might be all to much "reality" for the likes of him.)

Such decadence times. Progressives imagine that they are on the vanguard of "progress" but in reality they are the last whimpering of a rotting and decayed civilization--a civilization close to implosion. We are merely a breif anomoly. That we can even imagine that such discussions are valid shows how lost we are. Should our civilization happen to survive the "diversity" and "feminist" mobs, a big "if" I grant you, our descendant will look back at us in horror.

As it rots out and we have finally and utterly exhausted the stored up wealth and wisdom of our heritage, and people are actually forced to live in the real world, do real things and have real assessments of their limitations and strengths, truth will rudely draw nigh.

Then such motions as "diversity" and the loony modern apprehension of females will fall by the side of the road.

Anonymous said...

back at the IQ test publishing factory we always removed items that females did more poorly on (& OF COURSE) any items biased against blacks, etc. never did we remove items biased AGAINST white males. by always removing items biased against females, it jacked their mean score up a point or 2, so the real (but SMALL) mean difference (slightly larger on spatial tasks) has been hidden by our end runs! also it depends on the particular test, & how much spatial/quantitative stuff is in it. & of course, males always have larger std. deviations.panjoomby

Anonymous said...

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

Could it be because they've been tweaking the tests over the years to get such results?

Like natural selection:
With test A, men score 5 points higher.
With test B, men score 4.9 points higher.

Test B gets chosen because test A must be biased.

Repeat over test generations with tests that give a more politically correct result being chosen.

Tests become tweaked to play to the strengths of the desired group.

Aden said...

They must be smarter, they get us to do all the dirty work, and they reap the benefits.

Rewind said...

"Anyway, this shakes me up: I thought the gender gap research was basically clad in stone about 3 months ago, but apparently not…"

Scientific issues are technically not clad in stone until they are 'laws' and even then they are open to refutation if you can.

When someone tells you that an issue is settled in science and no longer open to debate, its politics, not science, informing that decision.

Anonymous said...

This article is a complete misrepresentation of truth. Males actually average between 3 to 6 IQ points higher than females on average. However, males have a standard deviation of 16 to the Gaussian distribution of their intelligence, whilst women have a standard deviation of 12. Because of this, there are more really stupid men than women, but the average male is smarter than the average female, and with an average "G" 3 points higher with a standard deviation of 16, there are some 30 times more men with IQs of 130+ and 500 times more severely gifted at IQ 160+. About 1 in 10,000 males has IQ 160 or higher, but only 1 in 5 MILLION women score such an IQ on a male scale.

The reason why women have "overtaken" men on IQ tests is very simple: IQ tests over the past 40 years have been changed so that women would do better on them. Less and less questions of deductive logic, spatial reasoning and verbal analogies, which men excel at, and more and more questions of rote learning, vocabulary and verbal facility, at which women excel.

The problem is that deductive logic, spatial reasoning and verbal analogies have a much higher "G" loading than the aforementioned abilities, and are a much better predictor of both scholastic and professional success. I can prove this by asking a simple question: Which is more likely, that a PhD in math will be able to earn a PhD in literature, or a PhD in literature will be able to earn a PhD in math? Obviously, it is far more likely that the PhD in math will be capable of earning a PhD in literature than the other way around. Why? Because mathematics has a higher "G" loading than literature. To put it bluntly, it demands more from the brain's information-processing capabilities. To put it even more bluntly, it is simply "harder". And questions of deductive logic, spatial reasoning and verbal analogies are a stronger predictor of success in mathematics AND EVEN GETTING A DEGREE IN LITERATURE than questions of vocabulary and rote learning.

As a general rule, those with post-graduate degrees in physics and math are really smart guys. Really, really smart. Doctors and engineers are not as smart, but still pretty smart. Professionals are only marginally smarter than the average person, and those with degrees in the humanities are the least smart of all.

Sid said...

It's humorous to see how widely reported this story is, compared to the scant coverage Lynn's report received.

If there is ever a study which shows that blacks score higher on IQ tests than whites, then I'll bet Crassus' fortune that the media will be all over it.

Anonymous said...

I thought the idea was supposed to be that the distinction was in the standard deviation [variance] - that the female bell curve might even have a slightly higher mean, but that it tapers off rather quickly, whereas the male bell curve is much flatter, resulting in both vastly more geniuses, but also vastly more retards.

Anonymous said...

guys approach it with a 'what is this shit' attitude

Not quite the same thing, but there's a great new essay out there, currently making the rounds in the greater blog-o-sphere, concerning the phenomenon of "F*ck it":

THE COMING MIDDLE-CLASS ANARCHY

Average Joe said...

Is it possible that females have not been getting smarter but that males have been getting dumber - or at least acting that way? For decades, popular culture has been telling males that to be smart is to be a nerd and to be a nerd is to never ever get sex. This has given young males an incentive to do poorly academically in order to appear more masculine.

Whiskey said...

I find the IQ measurements there suspect, more like the elaborate explanations required to keep first the Aristotelian system of an Earth Centric universe in shape, and then the Copernican one of perfect circular orbits around the Sun.

The reason I find it suspect is that women are singularly uninterested in abstract systems, objects, and in particular math and statistics especially when applied to systems.

Kiwiguy said...

IIRC The Daily Mail published an article from Lynn a couple of years ago explaining why there were fewer top female scientists.

commonwealth contrarian said...

Selective liberal media bias as per usual - when IQ studies fit the liberal agenda, they're splashed across the papers, when they don't fit the liberal agenda, they're ignored.

It's also interesting how New Zealand_based Flynn has almost nothing to say about the Maori-white IQ gap despite a big real- world difference in academic achievement.

Mind you, I'm not really surprised, in New Zealand even left-liberal Flynn is seen as a bit un-PC.

Bryan Pesta said...

Why do we continue to look for sex differences in intelligence by using tests made on purpose to show none (for any well-standardized IQ test, if an item shows a sex difference, it's tossed...).

Not sure whether there is a sex difference, but I produced some data on the topic:

http://www.csuohio.edu/business/academics/mlr/documents/pesta_08_paid_sex_iq.pdf

Anonymous said...

It could be that increasing amounts of estrogen like compounds released into the environment by agribusiness and big pharma are making men more chick-like, causing their brains to become more feminine in structure and function. Similarly, the rising incidence of obesity in men might have an effect similar to widespread chemical castration, causing fatsos to lose their mental edge.

Or perhaps increased exposure to porno is rewiring male brains into yottabyte size data bases filled with images of naked women, inhibiting other kinds of non-sexual mental function and information storage.

eah said...

...argued, based on the results of IQ tests, that males and females were about equal in intelligence.

Anecdotally, this is not my experience. At least in the professions, i.e. amongst the college-educated.

socks said...

I've suspected that the modern world is increasingly favoring the communication skills of women for several years. Women are also better at handling constant, low level stress. Men attack and if they don't solve a problem in the short run, they start to shut down. Women can keep going at moderate intensity which lines up better with the modern always-on world.

Also, studies have shown that men getting a little dumber around women in bikini's. As the world turns more zero sum and people feel pressured to compete in different ways, women are/will turn to sex appeal more, hurting the (slight) mental edge men have held.

socks said...

"It could be that increasing amounts of estrogen like compounds released into the environment by agribusiness and big pharma are making men more chick-like, causing their brains to become more feminine in structure and function. " -Anon

This almost certainly happened in the past with DDT. This paper suggests 3/4 of primary transsexuality in applicable age ranges are due to DDT exposure:

http://www.shb-info.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/7_dorner_et_al.pdf

E. Rekshun said...

Could the importation of a high number of male NAMs vis-a-vis female NAMs lower the overall male IQ?

Anonymous said...

"They must be smarter, they get us to do all the dirty work, and they reap the benefits. "

you forgot the "and then call you the oppressor" part.


"This has given young males an incentive to do poorly academically in order to appear more masculine. "

And that's their problem. otoh when girls try to appear dumb to attract boys, then it's society's problem.

Making an example of Sweden:

It is okay for girls to be ambitious and take their schoolwork seriously, whereas for the boys, it is important to be seen as smart, well-read and knowledgeable, but with minimal effort seemingly required.

Apparently boys used to do better on the swedish version of SAT too, even in the language sections iirc, so the chant arose that it was sexist.

So either the swedish language is quite manly,
or the swedish boys are quite womanly ( not that long of a stretch mind you)

or sexism is highly prevalent until girls start scoring higher/become the majority at which point equality has been achieved, and hard work is finally triumphant.

Anonymous said...

Women have better situtational awareness; and biologically need to Multi-task, they are good at it.

From a "G" loaded activity perspective, Multi-tasking is bad; you need utmost concentration at a task. Multi-tasking in a casual envirnoment is OK, Just dont attempt Multi-tasking when you need to focus your attention to a problem.

In reality Brain does not parallel processing it is Time Division multiplexing.

What the world needs are "Seers" who can focus and look into What the World needs just around the corner.

Anonymous said...

Really now, if men and women were "equal"intellectually, not to mention creatively, the course of civilization throughout world history would be radically different.

Not necessarily. It's widely accepted that East Asians are smarter than Europeans, but their civilizations have achieved far less cultural dominance over the course of history. This article suggests that low testosterone levels make Asians more passive, on average, than white people and less inclined to make great risky strides and discoveries -- despite higher IQs. A similar dynamic could be at work with women, particularly because they've always lived in the presence of, and been warred over and cared for by, comparatively dominant men.

Anonymous said...

"Anecdotally, this is not my experience. At least in the professions, i.e. amongst the college-educated"

Probably because of distribution. The average person is not a professional. Most professionals have IQs of 120 or higher. More men cluster on both ends of the bell curve.

Silver said...

Men are significantly more intelligent than women. Even women realize that.

If you respect the validity of IQ testing that's not a statement you can make in good conscience. I'd agree that men appear to "apply" their intelligence more than women, though. Or they're less likely to allow emotions to interfere with objectivity. You could argue forever how significant this difference is.

Anonymous said...

This article is a complete misrepresentation of truth. Males actually average between 3 to 6 IQ points higher than females on average. However, males have a standard deviation of 16 to the Gaussian distribution of their intelligence, whilst women have a standard deviation of 12. Because of this, there are more really stupid men than women, but the average male is smarter than the average female, and with an average "G" 3 points higher with a standard deviation of 16, there are some 30 times more men with IQs of 130+ and 500 times more severely gifted at IQ 160+. About 1 in 10,000 males has IQ 160 or higher, but only 1 in 5 MILLION women score such an IQ on a male scale.

The reason why women have "overtaken" men on IQ tests is very simple: IQ tests over the past 40 years have been changed so that women would do better on them. Less and less questions of deductive logic, spatial reasoning and verbal analogies, which men excel at, and more and more questions of rote learning, vocabulary and verbal facility, at which women excel.

The problem is that deductive logic, spatial reasoning and verbal analogies have a much higher "G" loading than the aforementioned abilities, and are a much better predictor of both scholastic and professional success. I can prove this by asking a simple question: Which is more likely, that a PhD in math will be able to earn a PhD in literature, or a PhD in literature will be able to earn a PhD in math? Obviously, it is far more likely that the PhD in math will be capable of earning a PhD in literature than the other way around. Why? Because mathematics has a higher "G" loading than literature. To put it bluntly, it demands more from the brain's information-processing capabilities. To put it even more bluntly, it is simply "harder". And questions of deductive logic, spatial reasoning and verbal analogies are a stronger predictor of success in mathematics AND EVEN GETTING A DEGREE IN LITERATURE than questions of vocabulary and rote learning.

As a general rule, those with post-graduate degrees in physics and math are really smart guys. Really, really smart. Doctors and engineers are not as smart, but still pretty smart. Professionals are only marginally smarter than the average person, and those with degrees in the humanities are the least smart of all.


this is incorrect. first, i find it suspicious that richard lynn and others are finding sex differences on tests designed to eliminate such differences. second, its vocabulary which has the highest g-loading out of all IQ subtest batteries, even more so than reasoning and arithmetic. therefore, it is false to assume that just because someone excels at math, they will also excel at literature.

the only difference between the hard sciences and the softer disciplines is that the former demands greater specificity within limited parameters; they are really different forms of the same intelligence.

AmericanGoy said...

That is very interesting news.


Y'all know what would be even more interesting?

Comparing the IQ of different races...

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 6:13 PM

"this is incorrect. first, i find it suspicious that richard lynn and others are finding sex differences on tests designed to eliminate such differences. second, its vocabulary which has the highest g-loading out of all IQ subtest batteries, even more so than reasoning and arithmetic. therefore, it is false to assume that just because someone excels at math, they will also excel at literature.

the only difference between the hard sciences and the softer disciplines is that the former demands greater specificity within limited parameters; they are really different forms of the same intelligence."

I am willing to bet that you are a woman...

Wrong on all counts. Vocabulary does NOT indicate a strong fluid intelligence, but rather the ability to acquire crystallized intelligence, which is more a result of a strong long-term memory rather than IQ, which is more affected by short-term memory and speed of mental computation.

As for the hard vs soft "sciences", wrong again. Subjects like physics and math arr harder and demand more BRAIN POWER than things such as literature or even law, evident by the fact that there are significant numbers of PhDs in math and physics who earned advanced degrees in the humanities, but you almost never see the other way around.

Also, the reason why physics and math demand more specialized knowledge to be understood than things like literature or women's studies is because the aforementioned subjects are more complex. This is evidence in FAVOR of these subjects requiring more intelligence rather than against it. Your average Harvard literature professor would not even be able to acquire the knowledge required to try to solve the Riemann Hypothesis no matter how hard he tried because he simply does not have the brains for it.

Saying that physics and math only "appear" harder because they require more specialized knowledge is one of those ridiculous oxymorons of logic; rather, they requires more specialized knowledge because they are harder. This is like saying that Algebra is not "really" harder than arithmatic because learning Algebra requires more specialized knowledge than learning arithmatic. Sure, you cannot learn Algebra if you cannot add and subtract, but agebra is more complex than arithmatic. Or saying that understanding the beauty of Dostoevsky's "Crime And Punishment" is not harder than learning the "A,B,C" and that it only requires more "specialized knowledge". Sure, if you haven't learned your A,B,C you cannot read Dostoevsky, but this does not mean that reading Dostoevsky is no harder than learning how to spell.

But it is pointless arguing with you PC people. You are about feel-goodism and not reason, evidence and logic. You twist any argument with semantics, and if that doesen't work, you simply switch the interpretation of reality by coming up with subjective interpretations rather than objective conclusions based on cause and effect. You people are hopeless. Anything and everything to say that everyone is the same and that all differences are either a matter of semantics or interpretation of the data.

Anonymous said...

I am willing to bet that you are a woman...

Wrong on all counts. Vocabulary does NOT indicate a strong fluid intelligence, but rather the ability to acquire crystallized intelligence, which is more a result of a strong long-term memory rather than IQ, which is more affected by short-term memory and speed of mental computation.

As for the hard vs soft "sciences", wrong again. Subjects like physics and math arr harder and demand more BRAIN POWER than things such as literature or even law, evident by the fact that there are significant numbers of PhDs in math and physics who earned advanced degrees in the humanities, but you almost never see the other way around.

Also, the reason why physics and math demand more specialized knowledge to be understood than things like literature or women's studies is because the aforementioned subjects are more complex. This is evidence in FAVOR of these subjects requiring more intelligence rather than against it. Your average Harvard literature professor would not even be able to acquire the knowledge required to try to solve the Riemann Hypothesis no matter how hard he tried because he simply does not have the brains for it.

Saying that physics and math only "appear" harder because they require more specialized knowledge is one of those ridiculous oxymorons of logic; rather, they requires more specialized knowledge because they are harder. This is like saying that Algebra is not "really" harder than arithmatic because learning Algebra requires more specialized knowledge than learning arithmatic. Sure, you cannot learn Algebra if you cannot add and subtract, but agebra is more complex than arithmatic. Or saying that understanding the beauty of Dostoevsky's "Crime And Punishment" is not harder than learning the "A,B,C" and that it only requires more "specialized knowledge". Sure, if you haven't learned your A,B,C you cannot read Dostoevsky, but this does not mean that reading Dostoevsky is no harder than learning how to spell.

But it is pointless arguing with you PC people. You are about feel-goodism and not reason, evidence and logic. You twist any argument with semantics, and if that doesen't work, you simply switch the interpretation of reality by coming up with subjective interpretations rather than objective conclusions based on cause and effect. You people are hopeless. Anything and everything to say that everyone is the same and that all differences are either a matter of semantics or interpretation of the data.


first, Gf and Gc are highly correlated and form the basis for the calculation of IQ. second, Gf and Gc are not restricted to any one discipline. for example, philosophy can be just as complex and sophisticated as any branch of math or physics, if not more so. inductive and deductive reasoning as well as the empirical methodology that underlies the hard sciences find their origins in philosophy. moreover, literature and religion can deal with high-level abstractions that can be just as complex as any found in physics or math. to claim otherwise is just plain foolish

its ironic how you accuse me of being PC and relying on subjective interpretation, when you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to present credible evidence supporting your position. you say that math and physics requires more "brain power" than the humanities, an absurd position when one considers that philosophy can be just as abstract and complex as any branch of math or physics. you also argue that men are intellectually superior to women, without any credible evidence whatsoever. that makes you a woman-hating bigot and a fanatic.

Anonymous said...

What the world needs are "Seers" who can focus and look into What the World needs just around the corner.

They do exist, and are called schizophrenics and paranoids.

diana said...

Another good case of Man Smart, Woman Smarter, and HBD prediction of men being more, shall we say, adventurous:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/07/16/156851175/five-men-agree-to-stand-directly-under-an-exploding-nuclear-bomb?ps=cprs

You can't get a woman to stand under an exploding nuclear bomb.

Clark Coleman said...

A blog entry followed by 39 comments, and no one has noticed that the headline is not even supported by the story. Quoting from the linked story:


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, the gap has become minimal [translation: small male advantage in IQ in most countries], and in most countries, no direct comparison of male and female is possible. In 3 countries, two of them very small, a tiny female advantage. No justification whatsoever for the headline.

Anonymous said...

You can't get a woman to stand under an exploding nuclear bomb.

Not even for God, King, and Country?

Anonymous said...

I have yet to see any evidence which would suggest that women are better at multi-tasking. In my experience women are simply more obsessive about studying and test-taking.

Anonymous said...

Smart women are actually stupid when it comes to continuing their smartness. Most of them don't have children and have no desire to. They have little to no descendants. Average women on the other hand have plenty of babies and let me not even get into stupid women discussion: they have lots of babies and we get to pay for their mistakes through big government single mother welfare.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Flynn has already published these results in Personality and Individual Differences in 2011 with Rossi-Case titled "Modern women match men on Raven’s Progressive Matrices." He found that girls between 15-18 had matched males on the Raven's Matrices in Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Estonia, and South Africa. They came out ahead (by a statistically insignificant margin) only in Estonia, Argentina, and New Zealand by .5 - 1 point. Basically the males were set at 100, and females ranged from 99.5 to 101. So, the press blatantly lied about this story to make it sensational and have completely misrepresented Flynn. I'd imagine Flynn is pretty unhappy with the media right now.

Anonymous said...

Didn't anybody observed that the man who made the study is saying:"In the last 100 years the IQ scores of both men and women have risen but women's have risen faster."It's not saying that women have higher IQ than men,he is saying that womens intelligence grew faster than that of men.Like if we say ipotetically that the IQ of men grew from 120 to 125 while that of women grew from 110 to 120.Well that mean women's IQ grew faster than that of men(two times faster) ,but is still behind that of men.

Anonymous said...

Wait, wait, I blamed the wrong person in my post. It was an anonymous poster. Sorry, Silver.