Soon to be ignored...

BJMcGilly · Post by **BJMcGilly** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:24 pm

I found the following article here: ARE MEN REALLY CLEVERER THAN WOMEN?

14 September 2006
ARE MEN REALLY CLEVERER THAN WOMEN?
Scientists say they can prove it..but they are blokes
By Victoria Ward

MEN are more intelligent than women, new research claims.

Two leading scientists - both men - say male IQs are 3.63 points higher than females.

Psychologist John Philippe Rushton said this explains the "glass ceiling" phenomenon why men get promoted over women.

Advertisement
Falk AdSolution

He said the study proves more men reach the top of their careers because they are smarter - and not because of sex discrimination.

Prof Rushton's team analysed 100,000 aptitude tests taken by 17 and 18-year-olds of both sexes.

And he said men were more intelligent "throughout the entire distribution of scores, in every level of family income, for every level of fathers and mothers' education, and for each and every one of seven ethnic groups".

He also claimed that girls only did better than boys at school because they "mature faster".

The professor said the results backed a similar study last year by Richard Lynn at the University of Ulster.

But the study was slammed by top psychologist Prof Alan Smithers.

He said: "Intelligence is hard to measure. The fact women have not progressed so far in their careers is down to lifestyle choices. I strongly disagree with Prof Rushton's conclusions - he is reading wrongly and too far into the figures.

"Measuring intelligence is not the same as measuring length or temperature." Mr Smithers, head of education at the University of Buckingham, said tests could be constructed to have certain outcomes and men and women have different strengths.

He said that as more women choose to pursue careers rather than have a family, more females will gradually take the top jobs.

Prof Rushton, professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, admitted his research had come up with "unpopular conclusions". But he added: "People should not be made to feel afraid to study controversial issues.

"We have to find the truth about the normal distribution in society.

"It's not right to simply say: 'It must be discrimination and don't dare say anything else'. One should really look at the facts."

The research analysed answers to 145 sections of the US Scholastic Assessment Test. The test, samples of which are printed here, focus on reading, writing and maths.

It is published in this month's issue of academic journal Intelligence.

victoria.ward@mirror.co.uk

But the following is what really bothered me, having personally weathered the doldrums of the american public school system:

He also claimed that girls only did better than boys at school because they "mature faster".

This is code for, "Girls do better than boys at school because they are better suited for tedius repetition. They're also more apt to please their superiors, especially by taddling." What an odd use for the word "maturity." Perhaps, "institutionalized," or "domesticated" would be a better choice of words.

note: edited format & content

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:31 pm

.

Oh no, this should not be ignored at all. It will be interesting to see what the people here who have unequivocally dismissed mainstream IQ tests as a measure of genius will do with that 3.63 points. Or are you not-conscious of that previous dismissal? Yes, we'll reach anywhere when we're stuck; when it suits.

And it's apparently so bad for you that you must take the single whiff of a female edge in the whole piece - maturity - and make sure you grind that under your heel as well.

Does this make you feel better about the whole thing, BJ? Does this assist your own consciousness-raising -- this borrowed authority; this looking behind you?

wake up.

.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:50 pm

I think Bryan was making the point that the study itself will probably be quickly ignored by society because it appears to express a finding against women. It's hard to disagree with him, given the very pro-woman age that we currently live in. A study or an opinion has be very pro-woman in nature these days before it has any chance of getting a proper hearing.

The article even acknowledges this bias when it says:

Prof Rushton, professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, admitted his research had come up with "unpopular conclusions". But he added: "People should not be made to feel afraid to study controversial issues."

I agree, however, that there doesn't seem to be anything significant in this particular study, as far as genius is concerned. But it will be interesting to see whether Professor Rushton and his colleagues will be able to keep their research grant at the next review.

-

Blair · Post by **Blair** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:55 pm

I wonder if Pye would be so reactionary and indignant in her statements if she were not, a woman...

s_e · Post by **s_e** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:10 pm

WHAT???

That is so freakin' weird dude! I was just wondering if prince would not post in David's heels if he were not David!!!! It's like we were of almost the same mind. Is that not synchronicity or what?

Seriously, we gotta stop using the same dealer.

Laytah.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:56 pm

.

. . . and I have wondered of you, prince, if you will ever have anything non-reactionary to say . . . .

.

Pye · Post by **Pye** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:27 pm

.

David writes:

It's hard to disagree with him, given the very pro-woman age that we currently live in.

This is one of those things that when seen through an entirely different prism produces an entire different assessment. It is the worst possible age for women and men, for they have arrived nowhere, to nothing, but their pure immanence, now so effectively set-in-stone. And the 'age' fawns over this condition of pure body-focus for men and women alike.

It's not the nature of human women that has been in pure over-drive in the 20-21st centuries; it has been her historically immanent condition, reified. And human men, in their weakness for everything about her, following blindly along . . . . Something of that is happening here when a human male cannot state his personshood without her; wants engaged in repetitive detailed descriptions of her behaviour; wants to crawl inside and assume to occupy the thoughts in her mind; wants to assume the state of her biology and how it feels; arrange his very enlightenment around her . . . . Perhaps he [a generalized he] feels himself past his unconscious drive toward her only to become immersed in these other things, past nothing, and sinking deeper in.

.

Rhett · Post by **Rhett** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:39 pm

.

Pye wrote:David: It's hard to disagree with him, given the very pro-woman age that we currently live in.

Pye: This is one of those things that when seen through an entirely different prism produces an entire different assessment. It is the worst possible age for women and men, for they have arrived nowhere, to nothing, but their pure immanence, now so effectively set-in-stone. And the 'age' fawns over this condition of pure body-focus for men and women alike.

It's not the nature of human women that has been in pure over-drive in the 20-21st centuries; it has been her historically immanent condition, reified. And human men, in their weakness for everything about her, following blindly along . . . . Something of that is happening here when a human male cannot state his personshood without her; wants engaged in repetitive detailed descriptions of her behaviour; wants to crawl inside and assume to occupy the thoughts in her mind; wants to assume the state of her biology and how it feels; arrange his very enlightenment around her . . . . Perhaps he [a generalized he] feels himself past his unconscious drive toward her only to become immersed in these other things, past nothing, and sinking deeper in.

Everything occureth in man, his mind blocketh nothing, nor render it distant from his gaze. How could one defineth such, without reducing it? By studying women he learns that which he wisheth not to undertake, and how not to undertake it.

.

Blair · Post by **Blair** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:38 pm

Pye wrote:.

. . . and I have wondered of you, prince, if you will ever have anything non-reactionary to say . . . .

.

Why would I? It's all apparent if you put in the effort.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:34 pm

Rhett wrote:

Everything occureth in man, his mind blocketh nothing, nor render it distant from his gaze. How could one defineth such, without reducing it? By studying women he learns that which he wisheth not to undertake, and how not to undertake it.

Whateth century doest thou livest in, milord?

Rhett · Post by **Rhett** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:38 am

.

'doth' would be a good start to keep with the times. What century are you from!!

.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:27 pm

Originally I came from the 20th century, but I am currently from the 21st century. Perhaps that is why I see things differently from some of the 15th century values that intermittantly pop up on these forums...