Is there a greater IQ variance among males, /sci/?

IQ is pseudoscience. stop perpetuating it.

Can we please stop making IQ threads? I have a shitload of anxiety about the concept, having scored slightly below average for my major. I refuse to believe it's a meaningful concept. There's just no fucking way other people are that many levels smarter than me. The brain just doesn't work that way. It doesn't have that much variation.

File: 1481226628969.jpg (44KB, 630x579px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 630x579px

>>8846168
>Is there a greater IQ variance among males, /sci/?
There's a greater variance among males for almost every statistic (including IQ).
Which makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint: women are almost guaranteed to reproduce, while men must compete for the privilege.

>>8846168
If there is, it is proof that there is pretty much always a smarter man for a leadership role in large enough populations.

i.e. politicians, doctors, engineers, scientists

>>8846168
It literally means smart men outnumber smart women, if its true.

and dumb men outnumber dumb women.

if its 50% men 50% women.

Smart people should always lead.

If you want to keep your job as president of Harvard then there is no difference in iq by sex.

>>8846220
>If you want to keep your job then there is a difference in iq by sex, men are retarded shitlords.
fixed.

>>8846209
>>8846217
This smells like samefag.

>>8846168
>just a few percents
>implying IQs above 140 signal intelligence rather than autism in pattern matching.

Wow, it's literally nothing.

File: sO1iaGh.jpg (80KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1080x1080px

>>8846230
Are you getting his reference?
Once upon a time, the president of Harvard was sacked for pointing out that IQ stats goigng back to the 1930's support the notion that women collectively have a lower standard deviation on IQ (among other stats).

>>8846168
>arguing about a 2% difference at 1 Std. Dev.
lol
>arguing about men representing more geniuses and more retards
lol
>arguing about statistics which equal out to a similar average
lol

>>8846252
I know, he is Summers.

>>8846263


>arguing about a 2% difference at 1 Std. Dev.
It's a really old, shitty study of 11 year olds. Not definitive evidence, just a representation.
>arguing about men representing more geniuses and more retards
>arguing about statistics which equal out to a similar average
You do understand the gravity of what this would imply, don't you?

>>8846245
>implying IQs above 140 signal intelligence rather than autism in pattern matching.
??

>>8846233
>This smells like samefag.
All of these threads do.

>>8846220
>>8846230
This is such a fucking meme. It's so easy to put in your little plug for feminism when the subject is broached while harboring contradictory feelings. Many men I respect feel this way.

This being said I honestly know many intelligent women.

>>8846186
i agree we should stop making them because they are boring, but it is a meaningful concept.

>>8846176
>Testing someone based on standardized examinations that everyone agrees on as the groundwork for demonstrating intellect.
>implying you were never given a standardized test
>pseudo

IQ is literally the only part of Psychology that conforms to the scientific method, it is replicable and everything.

>>8846186
What's the standard deviation? If you're within the first standard deviation below the average you should be good m8.
The normal distribution should tell you that there are some people with iq quite below the average.
Also iq is not real

>>8846196
That is not always the case though. Smarts are not the omly thing a woman looks for in a mate. There are mamy factors and intelligence is a small factor only.

>>8846186
There's a correlation between people who overestimate their abilities and low intelligence

:think:

>>8847080
>Smarts are not the thing a woman looks for in a mate

fify

Women look for men that are successful consumers that are good looking.

>>8847208

this. I'd actually even go so far as to say most. women find intelligence a massive turnoff. if forced to choose between a trug or an einstein who are exactly the same in every way but intelligence, they will choose the trug

>>8846186
I've honestly always been anxious about scoring just below gifted; its pointless afaik.

>>8846252
To be fair, the data on IQ differences between gender is mixed, with some very large studies showing no difference in mean (and one of the biggest studies shows no difference in mean or variance). If there is a difference (and I wouldn't rule the possibility out wholesale) the I really doubt it's as big as a whole standard deviation.

The study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616301003

>>8846186
The reason is IQ is only weakly related to intellignece

My iq as measured by wais-IV is 146. interestingly enough, that number correlates precisely with both my SAT and GRE scores according to the current literature on the relationship, between IQ and standardized testing scores, so i'm pretty sure the number is accurate.

On balance i think it's a fairly meaningless number. It takes me a long time to really understand new papers and learn new concepts especially when stochastic / probabilistic methods get involved.

>>8848712
Even if there is some measurable difference, it doesn't mean much in the end. Intelligence is only weakly related to IQ. It's not even clear if the tests are working properly. Northwestern recently published results of a neural network that outscores 75% of Americans on Raven's matrices test. The fact we can reboot a PC, run a Lisp script on it for a few hours, then give it a Raven's test and it scores 1SD above average, essentially proves that test doesn't actually measure innate intelligence.

In other words if you took two people and determined that one had a higher IQ than the other, it's still quite possible that the one with the lower IQ is actually the more intelligent / creative / adaptive of the two.

>>8846176
Found the brainlet who is ashamed of their IQ!

>>8846186
IQ is about learning speed, you just have to work more than them.

>>8846168
>1932

>>8846186
Jesus fuck, harden up faggot. This post reads like a 20 something girl on tumblr.

Is there a good IQ test online that gives you a somewhat meaningful result, or do you have to pay to get it done properly?

>>8848820
>essentially proves that test doesn't actually measure innate intelligence.

Innate intelligence is a bunch of dumb processes working in concert.

Life is an IQ test (coordination of dumb processes to navigate environmental challenges).