>Are women scientifically smarter than men? More here: h

>Who's smarter than **whom**?
Fucking plebs.

>forbes
I'm getting tired of morons adding "scientifically" in front of everything and passing it off as fact.

File: IMG_2589.jpg (24KB, 311x162px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 311x162px

>>8977666
Don't get lost in the details now Chris

>>8977666
>whom'st've's smarter then who

>>8977666

Nope, plural "who" doesn't decline like that.

>>8977653
>>8977675

Here's an archive because OP is a faggot
http://archive.is/1BPt5

>>8977653
>EQ
Insta dropped.

File: (laughs).jpg (23KB, 269x418px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 269x418px

>>8977684
Yikes, I already knew it was bullshit the instant I say forbes but this is worse than I thought.

>EQ
>women have greater skill in using emotions to their benefit
That's probably the only truth in there.

>>8977681
whomst'd've'ly'yaint'nt'ed'ies's'y'es smarter then whome

>>8977653
Finding:
>women can use emotions to their advantage better than men

What is reported:
>WOMEN SMARTER THAN MEN, MEN BTFO FOREVER DUMB BRAINLETS

What can actually be concluded:
>Women are natural and adapted manipulators with less empathy than men, therefore they should not be given power of any kind because odds are they will abuse it.

Does it matter when 80% of both control groups are retarded?

>>8977684
Thank you sir for making up for this jizguzzler.

>>8977750
This, /thread, forbes reporter shilling his article btfo.

>>8977696
Whom is this manlet quoting?

File: reason trannies are rising in numbers.jpg (603KB, 3333x2500px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 3333x2500px

>>8977653
Men can scientifically be women though

>>8977952
kek, accurate image.

>>8977684
thanks nordbro

>>8977682
>plural who
who is number neutral

>>8977653
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2016/06/21/why-women-are-smarter-than-men/amp/
What a shame, it won't let me read the article because of my adblocker.

>>8977750
Only this

/Thread

>>8977653
Women cant even keep a consistent definition on "gender equality", yet you think they are smart?

There are more retarded men than women. but no one ever wants to signal as their do-gooder.

>>8977981
Equality with powerful and successful men so called real men.

>>8977750
Women are more empathetic in the sense of cognitive style (in contrast to systematizing,) not necessarily in the sense of kindness or caring.

>>8977653
I say that men are distributed far more at either extreme. Praise the superior old white man who is every famous scientist, ever.

Being dumb is also smart, in that men selflessly remove their stupid selves from the gene pool by signing up to die for the smart old white man, through the military.

>a "man" wrote this article

Seriously, why? Do people actually think this white knighting is gonna get them pussy?

File: forbes_qualification.png (4KB, 183x275px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 183x275px

>>8977696
This fucking article is more full of shit than our fucking president himself. Did you read the thing about limit your caffeine intake?

caffeine triggers the release of adrenaline, adrenaline triggers fight or flight, ok, not too great but disbelief can be suspended. But then this fookin gem comes along,

>Caffeine’s long half-life ensures you stay (in fight or flight) it takes its sweet time working
>its way out of your body. High-EQ individuals know that caffeine is trouble, and they
>don’t let it get the better of them.

pic related, forbes writer qualification.

>>8978116
Caffeine makes me feel rather relaxed. Awake, focused, and relaxed. Maybe it has something to do with alleviating some depression. I don't feel fight-or-flight at all on appropriate doses.

What the fuck does a "high-EQ" have to do with "knowing caffeine is trouble"? You don't see us "low-EQ" individuals paying $5 for fancy coffees with sprinkles and shit.

I also don't imagine this article would call homosexual males "low-EQ". So in fact this has nothing to do with gender in the first place.

>>8977952
>We need legislation that allows beta males to reproduce.
Sorry, the natural strategy is clearly better in the long run.

>>8977653
So why do men get paid more?

>>8978138
Due to their higher EQ, they are the only ones who care about their families and therefore must take time off to raise kids instead of getting that bonus at work.

>>8978116
>high EQ
literally psuedo science and misinformation

>>8978116

Some of the best and most accomplished scientists, writers, etc. were coked/methed/drunk/caffeinated out of their minds most of the day

>>8978138
Same reason why no one takes women's football seriously.

>>8978138
rightfully men

>EQ
EQ didn't put men on the moon

>emotional intelligence

>>8978325
Strong, independent, women of colour did, hollywood told me so.

>>8978127
>gay males
>2% of the population

File: kektastrophe.jpg (51KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x599px

>>8977653
"social awareness" looks like all that caring about others' judgement/attention and drama spotting pays off, kek

>>8978138
because they work harder jobs

>>8978773
gay males will skyrocket to 40% of the population if we don't create legislation that stops sexual freedom

>>8977958

Are you using UBlock origin?

>>8977677
You've called me Chris twice now. I'm going to get up if you call me Chris one more time!

Why is it that the vast majority of women don't find intelligence attractive?

>>8977684
>http://archive.is/1BPt5
>same general IQ (true, but the curve for men is flatter)
>higher EQ (doesn't exist)

sad

>>8978138
because more men than women are willing to take high paying/high risk/high stress jobs whilst leaving social life/family behind. Those are the types of people who will lead entire companies (=more male bosses)
As for the same job: Men work more hours, don't have to go on a baby leave, are more willing to engage in talks about raises.
Overall STEM is more a man territory, simply because of different interests between men and women (you can see this in "more equal/richer societies"; where there are less women in STEM, compared to poorer societies where women go into STEM because of financial necessity); which are still a pretty high paying white collar field

>>8979945
they do. But they measure intelligence in a potential mate not the way an IQ test measures it (otherwise the whole world would be just filled with high functioning autists)

success is a good indicator for intelligence and willpower
social standing is a good indicator for intelligence
wit is a good indicator for intelligence

if you can solve equations fast, but don't check out on the other things, than your intelligence is useless/unattractive and rightfully so

File: 1495120894686.jpg (19KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x400px

>>8977653
No significant difference in cognition, there is a difference in emotional respons that makes women perform less.

>>8979884
Nah ABP

>>8980371
>our intelligence is useless/unattractive and rightfully so
not really.
Solving equations is better than being a social genius