26 Aug 2014

Sex Differences in General Intelligence (g) + Positive Discrimination For Women AKA Misandry Or Gynocentrism At The European Commission

Science Vs. Feminism: Adult males have a mean advantage in general intelligence (g) of 8.25 IQ equivalent points (Cohen’s d=0.50–0.60). The variance in IQ scores is 10–20% higher for males.
The combined effects of higher mean and greater variance result in an exponentially increasing male over-representation from average g (IQ=100) and up: from more than 2 males for each female at g=1 SD (IQ=115) to more than 10 males for each female at g=3 SD (IQ=145).[1][2][3][4]
Sex differences in g “ought” to exist
The brains of men and women are not indistinguishable from each other. Sex-related differences in the brain can be found all the way up from the molecular level.
However, there is no need for such extensive investigations into the brain here. Proper examination of basic neurophysiology reveals a clear case for male superiority in g.

Cognitive complexity
Absolute brain size is moderately correlated with g ~ r=0.45.[5][6][7][8][9]
Results from autopsy studies[10][11][12][13] and fMRI[14][15][16] find only a weak brain size–body size correlation ~ r=0.20.
Absolute brain size in men is about 9–12% larger than in women. Males average larger brains from birth[17] and across all age groups,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] even though girls tend to be taller from ages 10–14.[29] It follows that even after correcting for body size, the brains of men are still larger by 7–10%.

Thus men, with their larger brains, ought to have higher g.
Unfortunately, the simplistic presentation of this argument fails to capture its significance.

Brains can enlarge by adding more neurons, by making existing neurons larger or some combination of both.[30] However, when adding more neurons, the number of connections must increase much faster than the number of neurons in order to maintain connectivity.[31] White matter (which contains long-distance axonal connections)[32][33] is known to increase faster than gray matter,[34] but this increase is not fast enough to fully resolve connectivity.[35] In addition to this design problem, a substantial increase in the ratio of glia–neurons is required to keep up with the increasing energy costs.[36][37] Given these constraints, brains cannot enlarge without undergoing changes to its organization.
Thus, larger brains become increasingly modular,[38] resulting in more processing areas and consequently, exhibit enhanced cognitive abilities. Now unpacked, absolute brain size is better understood as a proxy for cognitive complexity. (This is why absolute brain size is the best predictor of cognitive ability among our non-human friends as well.)[39]
Compared to women, the larger brains of men have 19% more neocortical neurons,[40][41][42][43] 16% more white matter[44] and 28% more neocortical glia.[45] Consequently, men are known to preferentially engage in a Gestalt-style global/holistic processing of information — the very hallmark of complex brain function — as evidenced by their greater specialization of processing areas[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] coordinating to integrate disparate streams of information into a coherent “whole”.[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]
Thus men, with their greater cognitive complexity, ought to have higher g.

Processing efficiency

There are several elementary cognitive tasks designed to investigate an individual’s capacity to process information — the same ability measured by intelligence tests. These elementary tasks serve as uncontaminated measures of g — they have no specific intellectual content and do not reflect differences in motivation, strategy or personality traits.
Reaction Time (RT) is one such measure. Measures of RTs can correlate ~ r=0.70 with g.[77] So, individuals with higher IQs tend to have faster RTs than those with lower IQs. Men consistently have faster RTs than women.[78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]
Temporal Processing (TP), or time perception, is another measure that correlate ~ r=0.45 with g.[91][92] From milliseconds to seconds to minutes, men perceive time more accurately than women do.[93][94][95][96][97][98] That males have a superior neurological clock is particularly interesting because it likely reflects faster updation of mental representations (broadly analogous to faster rendering of demanding 3-D graphics on a computer).
Sensory Functions (SF), which are vital to our everyday life, are also good predictors of measured intelligence. Pitch Discrimination (PD) and Loudness Discrimination (LD) are two basic aspects of auditory SF moderately correlated with g ~ r=0.40.[99] Men outperform women in both PD, LD[100] and by extension, in tonal and speech processing as well.[101]
Nerve Conduction Velocity (NCV) is the speed at which electrical signals propagate down a neural pathway. NCV is moderately correlated with g ~ r=0.35.[102] Men have faster NCVs, increasing with age, despite their larger bodies and brains.[103]
It is clear from all the aforementioned measures that men process information faster and more efficiently than women do, reflecting their superiority in g.

Domain intelligence

In mental tests that are designed to measure specific abilities (such as mathematical ability, spatial ability or memory), individuals who perform well on one kind of test tend to do well on others while the opposite is true for those who perform poorly.
This ‘general factor’, underlying the different mental abilities, is ‘general intelligence’.
Men outperform women in nearly all aspects of spatial ability, mathematical ability, psychomotor ability and some aspects of verbal ability — all of which indicate a male superiority in g.
This is an extensive topic and will be a discussed in a different post.

The dumbing-down of Intelligence

Recently, several publications have put forth claims such as “there are no sex differences in IQ” or that “women and men are similar in general intelligence” and “sex differences in cognitive abilities are small”.
Fully 100% of these publications ignore many critical factors, rendering their results deeply flawed and ultimately meaningless.
In this section, I’ll capture the biggest offenders.
Standardized IQ tests are constructed such that sex differences will be minimized.
This is done by removing any item that show a large sex bias leaving behind a selection of subtests where any sex bias will cancel each other out. All popular IQ tests, including the many versions of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS), Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) and Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test (WCAT), are constructed in this manner.[104][105]
Since the late ’80s, this treatment has been extended to national and international assessments including the SAT, the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT), the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and even the armed forces’ standardized tests.[106]
Consequently, all of these tests lack sufficient diversity in their array of sub-tests.
To get around this and uncover sex differences in g, more precise analytical methods, a more diverse array of tests and a large sample are required.[107] Uncontaminated measures of g, such as those mentioned in the previous section, are also viable tools for this purpose.[108]
It’s ridiculous to claim that there are “no sex differences in intelligence” or “sex differences are small” when the tests administered are constructed to render them invisible. Suffice it to say, this has confounded the results from many large-scale expensive investigations from entire departments.
The combined effects of mean and variance are important in group comparisons.

Even if mean differences are absent, dispersion effects should not be ignored. One would think this is obvious but many studies into sex and g fail to report this.[109]
Males tend to show 10–20% greater variance in measures of intellectual capacity, regardless of whether mean differences are present or not (which is highly dependent on the construction of the test).[110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117]
Sex differences in variance are found to emerge even before pre-school and by age 10, boys have a clear mean advantage and greater variance; the combined effects of which result in their exponentially increasing over-representation at higher levels of cognitive ability.[118]
Intelligence is the ‘ultimate weapon’: it eliminates the need for claws, canines and bone-plate armour. As with all traits that directly influence survival and reproductive success, the greater male variability in IQ appears to be a consequence of greater sexual selection on males.[119]
Age and brain development trajectories greatly influence intellectual capabilities.
Boys mature several years after girls do, with a very different developmental trajectory.
The most conspicuous difference is the brain developmental lag seen in males compared to females: the ‘halfway’ point in brain development for females is age 11, whereas the equivalent point for males is age 15 and females are fully mature at around age 22, males at around age 30.[120][121]
It’s nonsensical to use samples of children of Grades 3–12 to generalize sex differences in intelligence because it is guaranteed to underestimate the male advantage ― by a substantial margin ― as such samples containing a much greater proportion of immature males.

The shell game of confounders

One would think even the dumbest social scientist would have figured out the critical factors mentioned in the previous section — indeed, incompetence is not the real problem here.
With the recent shell games involving sex differences in the SAT and national assessments, it has now become clear that such astonishing levels of scientific dishonesty and academic fraud stem from feminist-constructivist activists disguised as scholars.
Contrary to various political claims, the data strongly suggest that women are not under-represented but over-represented in many domains despite their comparatively lower abilities and dispersion around the center. This appears to be the result of highly illogical social policies that bypass filters for ability and skill and instead mandate fixed quotas — various examples of which are now very easy to find in higher educational spheres.

In conclusion, the male advantage in g largely explain why men greatly outnumber women among exceptional people in history and in present-day society.

References

  1. Nyborg H. (2005) Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social status. Personality and Individual Differences. 39(3):497–509. ↲
  2. Nyborg H. (2003) Sex differences in g. In Nyborg H (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen, (pp. 187-222). Oxford: Elsevier. ↲
  3. Nyborg H. (2002) IQ and g: The art of uncovering the sex difference in general intelligence. Presented at the third annual conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. ↲
  4. Nyborg H. (2001) Early sex differences in general and specific intelligence: Pitting biological against chronological age (Addendum). Presented at the second annual conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research, Cleveland, OH. ↲
  5. Rushton JP & Ankney CD. (2009) Whole brain size and general mental ability: A review. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119(5):692–732. ↲
  6. Rushton JP & Ankney CD. (2007) The evolution of brain size and intelligence. In Platek SM, Keenan JP & Shackelford TK (Eds.), Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience, (pp. 121–161). Cambridge: MIT Press. ↲
  7. Gignac G et al. (2003) Factors influencing the relationship between brain size and intelligence. In Nyborg H (Ed.), The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen, (pp. 93–106). Oxford: Elsevier. ↲
  8. Wickett JC et al. (2000) Relationships between factors of intelligence and brain volume. Personality and Individual Differences, 29:1095–1122. ↲
  9. Wickett JC et al. (1994) In vivo brain size, head perimeter, and intelligence in a sample of healthy adult females. Personality and Individual Differences, 16:831–838. ↲
  10. Rushton JP & Ankney CD, 2009. ↲
  11. Witelson SF et al. (2006) Intelligence and brain size in 100 postmortem brains: Sex, lateralization and age factors. Brain, 129:386–398. ↲
  12. Ho KC et al. (1980) Analysis of brain weight: I & II. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 104:635–645. ↲
  13. Dekaban AS & Sadowsky D. (1978) Changes in brain weights during the span of human life: Relation of brain weights to body heights and body weights. Annals of Neurology, 4:345–356. ↲
  14. Rushton JP & Ankney CD, 2009. ↲
  15. Wickett JC et al, 1994. ↲
  16. Pearlson GD et al. (1989) Ventricle-brain ratio, computed tomographic density, and brain area in 50 schizophrenics. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46:690–697. ↲
  17. Rushton JP. (1997) Cranial size and IQ in Asian Americans from birth to age seven. Intelligence, 25:7–20. ↲
  18. Giedd JN et al. (2012) Review: magnetic resonance imaging of male/female differences in human adolescent brain anatomy. Biology of Sex Differences, 3(1):19. ↲
  19. Groeschel S et al. (2010) Developmental changes in cerebral grey and white matter volume from infancy to adulthood. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 28(6):481–489. ↲
  20. Lenroot RK et al. (2007) Sexual dimorphism of brain developmental trajectories during childhood and adolescence. NeuroImage. 36(4):1065–1073. ↲
  21. Rushton JP & Ankney CD, 2009. ↲
  22. Giedd JN et al. (1997). Sexual dimorphism of the developing human brain. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 21(8):1185–1201. ↲
  23. Reiss AL et al. (1996) Brain development, gender and IQ in children. A volumetric imaging study. Brain, 119(5): 1763–1774. ↲
  24. Giedd JN et al. (1996) Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of human brain development: Ages 4–18. Cerebral Cortex, 6(4):551–559. ↲
  25. Rushton JP & Ankney CD (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(1):21–36. ↲
  26. Rushton JP & Ankney CD. (1995) Brain size matters: a reply to Peters. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49(4):562–569. ↲
  27. Ankney CD. (1992) Sex differences in relative brain size: The mismeasure of woman, too? Intelligence, 16(3-4):329–336. ↲
  28. Willerman L et al. (1991) In vivo brain size and intelligence. Intelligence, 15(2):223–228. ↲
  29. Kuczmarski RJ et al. (2002). CDC growth charts for the United States: methods and development. Vital and Health Statistics Series, 11:1–190. ↲
  30. Haug H. (1987) Brain sizes, surfaces, and neuronal sizes of the cortex cerebri: a stereological investigation of man and his variability and a comparison with some mammals (primates, whales, marsupials, insectivores, and one elephant). American Journal of Anatomy, 180:126–42. ↲
  31. Ringo JL. (1991) Neuronal interconnection as a function of brain size. Brain Behavior and Evolution, 38:1–6. ↲
  32. Fields RD. (2008). White matter matters. Scientific American, 298(3):54–61. ↲
  33. Hartline DK. (2008) What is myelin? Neuron Glia Biology, 4(2):153–163. ↲
  34. Hofman MA. (1985) Size and shape of the cerebral cortex in mammals. I. The cortical surface. Brain Behavior and Evolution, 27:28–40. ↲
  35. Ringo JL, 1991. ↲
  36. Caceres M. (2003) Elevated gene expression levels distinguish human from non-human primate brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(22):13030–13035. ↲
  37. Uddin M et al. (2004) Sister grouping of chimpanzees and humans as revealed by genome-wide phylogenetic analysis of brain gene expression profiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(9):2957–2962. ↲
  38. Kaas JH. (1993) Evolution of multiple areas and modules within neocortex. Perspectives on Developmental Neurobiology, 1(2):101–107. ↲
  39. Deaner RO et al. (2007) Overall brain size, and not encephalization quotient, best predicts cognitive ability across non-human primates. Brain, behavior and evolution, 70(2):115–124. ↲
  40. Alonso-Nanclares L et al. (2008) Gender differences in human cortical synaptic density. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(38):14615–14619. ↲
  41. Pelvig DP et al. (2008) Neocortical glial cell numbers in human brains. Neurobiology of aging, 29(11):1754–1762. ↲
  42. Stark AK et al. (2007) The effect of age and gender on the volume and size distribution of neocortical neurons. Neuroscience, 150(1):121–130. ↲
  43. Pakkenberg B & Gundersen HJ. (1997) Neocortical neuron number in humans: effect of sex and age. The Journal of comparative neurology, 384(2):312–320. ↲
  44. Marner L et al. (2003) Marked loss of myelinated nerve fibers in the human brain with age. The Journal of comparative neurology, 462(2):144–152. ↲
  45. Pelvig DP et al, 2008. ↲
  46. Wu K et al. (2013) Topological organization of functional brain networks in healthy children: Differences in relation to age, sex, and intelligence. PLoS ONE, 8(2):e55347. ↲
  47. Tomasi D & Volkow ND. (2012) Laterality patterns of brain functional connectivity: Gender effects. Cerebral Cortex, 22(6):1455–1462. ↲
  48. Wang L et al. (2012) Combined structural and resting-state functional MRI analysis of sexual dimorphism in the young adult human brain: an MVPA approach. NeuroImage, 61(4):931–940. ↲
  49. Bitan T et al. (2010) Bidirectional connectivity between hemispheres cccurs at multiple levels in language processing but depends on sex, Journal of Neuroscience. 30(35):11576–11585. ↲
  50. Koscik T et al. (2009) Sex differences in parietal lobe morphology: Relationship to mental rotation performance. Brain and Cognition, 69(3):451–459. ↲
  51. Schmithorst VJ & Holland SK. (2007) Sex differences in the development of neuroanatomical functional connectivity underlying intelligence found using Bayesian connectivity analysis. NeuroImage, 35(1):406–419. ↲
  52. Clements AM et al. (2006) Sex differences in cerebral laterality of language and visuospatial processing. Brain and Language, 98(2):150–158. ↲
  53. Schmithorst VJ & Holland SK. (2006) Functional MRI evidence for disparate developmental processes underlying intelligence in boys and girls. NeuroImage, 31(3):1366–1379. ↲
  54. Vogel JJ et al. (2003) Cerebral lateralization of spatial abilities: a meta-analysis. Brain and cognition, 52(2):197–204. ↲
  55. Kansaku K et al. (2000) Sex differences in lateralization revealed in the posterior language areas. Cerebral Cortex, 10(9):866–872. ↲
  56. Speck O et al. (2000) Gender differences in the functional organization of the brain for working memory. Neuroreport, 11(11):2581–2585. ↲
  57. Jaeger JJ et al. (1998) Sex differences in brain regions activated by grammatical and reading tasks. Neuroreport, 9(12):2803–2807. ↲
  58. Shaywitz BA et al. (1995) Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language. Nature, 373(6515):607–609. ↲
  59. Pletzer B et al. (2013) Sex differences in the processing of global vs. local stimulus aspects in a Two-Digit Number Comparison Task – An fMRI study. PLoS ONE, 8(1):e53824. ↲
  60. Razumnikova OM & Volf NV. (2012) Sex differences in the relationship between creativity and hemispheric information selection at the global and local levels. Human Physiology, 38(5):478–486. ↲
  61. Semrud-Clikeman M et al. (2012) Gender differences in brain activation on a mental rotation task. International Journal of Neuroscience, 122(10):590–597. ↲
  62. Razumnikova OM & Volf NV. (2011) Selection of visual hierarchical stimuli between global and local aspects in men and women. Fiziologiia cheloveka, 37(2):14–19. ↲
  63. Rammsayer T & Troche S. (2010) Sex differences in the processing of temporal information in the sub-second range. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8):923–927. ↲
  64. Simon-Dack SL et al. (2009) Sex differences in auditory processing in peripersonal space: an event-related potential study. NeuroReport, 20(2):105–110. ↲
  65. Heil M & Jansen-Osmann P. (2008) Sex differences in mental rotation with polygons of different complexity: Do men utilize holistic processes whereas women prefer piecemeal ones? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(5):683–689. ↲
  66. Coluccia E et al. (2007) The relationship between map drawing and spatial orientation abilities: A study of gender differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(2):135–144. ↲
  67. Müller-Oehring EM et al. (2007) Local–global interference is modulated by age, sex and anterior corpus callosum size. Brain Research, 1142:189–205. ↲
  68. Butler T et al. (2006) Sex differences in mental rotation: top-down versus bottom-up processing. NeuroImage, 32(1):445–456. ↲
  69. Cattaneo Z et al. (2006) Gender differences in memory for object and word locations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(05):904–919. ↲
  70. Choi J et al. (2006) Sex-specific relationships between route-learning strategies and abilities in a large-scale environment. Environment and Behavior, 38(6):791–801. ↲
  71. Frings L et al. (2006) Gender-related differences in lateralization of hippocampal activation and cognitive strategy. Neuroreport, 17(4):417–421. ↲
  72. Thomsen T et al. (2000) Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study of sex differences in a mental rotation task. Medical science monitor, 6(6):1186–1196. ↲
  73. Adam JJ et al. (1999) Gender differences in choice reaction time: evidence for differential strategies. Ergonomics, 42(2):327–335. ↲
  74. Kramer JH et al. (1996) Developmental sex differences in global-local perceptual bias. Neuropsychology, 10(3):402–407. ↲
  75. Vederhus L & Krekling S. (1996) Sex differences in visual spatial ability in 9-year-old children. Intelligence, 23(1):33–43. ↲
  76. McRoberts GW & Sanders B. (1992) Sex differences in performance and hemispheric organization for a nonverbal auditory task. Perception & Psychophysics, 51(2):118–122. ↲
  77. Jensen AR. (2006) Clocking the Mind: Mental Chronometry and Individual Differences. Oxford: Elsevier. ↲
  78. Pesta BJ et al. (2008) Sex differences on elementary cognitive tasks despite no differences on the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Personality and Individual Differences. 45(5):429–431. ↲
  79. Liu N et al. (2006) Gender related effects of heroin abuse on the simple reaction time task. Addictive Behaviors, 31(1):187–190. ↲
  80. Der G & Deary IJ. (2006) Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey. Psychology and aging, 21(1):62–73. ↲
  81. Deary IJ & Der G. (2005) Reaction time, age, and cognitive ability: Longitudinal findings from age 16 to 63 years in representative population samples. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 12(2):187–215. ↲
  82. Szinnai G et al. (2005) Effect of water deprivation on cognitive-motor performance in healthy men and women. American journal of physiology, Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology, 289(1):R275–280. ↲
  83. Reed TE et al. (2004) Confirmation of correlation between brain nerve conduction velocity and intelligence level in normal adults. Intelligence, 32(6):563–572. ↲
  84. Reed TE et al. (2004) Sex difference in brain nerve conduction velocity in normal humans. Neuropsychologia, 42(12):1709–1714. ↲
  85. Venkatesh D et al. (2002) Impact of psychological stress, gender and colour on visual response latency. Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 46(3):333–337. ↲
  86. Adam JJ et al. (1999) Gender differences in choice reaction time: evidence for differential strategies. Ergonomics. 42(2):327–335. ↲
  87. Lock LK & Berger RA (1993). Influence of sex, presentation order, and trial blocks on young adults’ simple and type-C reaction times. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 76(3 Pt 2):1199–1210. ↲
  88. Bleecker ML et al. (1987) Simple visual reaction time: Sex and age differences. Developmental Neuropsychology, 3(2):165–172. ↲
  89. Noble CE et al. (1964) Age and sex parameters in psychomotor learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19(3):935–945. ↲
  90. Bellis CJ. (1933) Reaction time and chronological age. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 30(6):801–803. ↲
  91. Helmbold N et al. (2006) Temporal information processing and pitch discrimination as predictors of general intelligence. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,  60(4):294–306. ↲
  92. Rammsayer TH & Brandler S. (2007) Performance on temporal information processing as an index of general intelligence. Intelligence, 35(2):123–139. ↲
  93. Rammsayer T & Troche S, 2010. ↲
  94. Rostad K et al. (2007) Sex-related differences in the correlations for tactile temporal thresholds, interhemispheric transfer times, and nonverbal intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. 43(7):1733–1743. ↲
  95. Wittmann M & Szelag E. (2003) Sex differences in perception of temporal order. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(1):105–112. ↲
  96. Rammsayer T & Lustnauer S. (1989) Sex differences in time perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68(1):195–198. ↲
  97. Strang HR et al. (1973) Sex differences in short-term time estimation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36(3):1109–1110. ↲
  98. Roeckelein JE. (1972) Sex differences in time estimation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 35(3):859–862. ↲
  99. Helmbold N et al, 2006. ↲
  100. Rammsayer TH & Troche SJ. (2012) On sex-related differences in auditory and visual sensory functioning. Archives of sexual behavior, 41(3):583–590. ↲
  101. Kempe V et al. (2012) Individual differences in the discrimination of novel speech sounds: Effects of sex, temporal processing, musical and cognitive abilities. PLoS ONE, 7(11):e48623. ↲
  102. Johnson AM et al. (2005) Brain nerve conduction velocity is a valid and useful construct for studying human cognitive abilities: a reply to Saint-Amour et al. Neuropsychologia, 43(12):1845–1846. ↲
  103. Reed TE et al, 2004; 2005. ↲
  104. Nyborg H, 2003. ↲
  105. Neisser U et al. (1996) Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101. ↲
  106. Jackson DN. (2002) Evaluating g in the SAT: Implications for the sex differences and interpretations of verbal and quantitative aptitude. Paper presented at the International Society for Intelligence Research, Nashville, TN. ↲
  107. Nyborg H, 2005; 2003; 2002; 2001. ↲
  108. Pesta BJ et al, 2008. ↲
  109. Feingold A. (1995) The additive effects of differences in central tendency and variability are important in comparisons between groups. American Psychologist, Vol 50(1), pp. 5-13. ↲
  110. Lakin JM. (2013) Sex differences in reasoning abilities: Surprising evidence that male–female ratios in the tails of the quantitative reasoning distribution have increased. Intelligence, 41(4):263–274. ↲
  111. Lynn R et al. (2011) Intelligence in Taiwan: Progressive Matrices means and sex differences in means and variances for 6- to 17-year-olds. Journal of biosocial science, 43(4):469–474. ↲
  112. Lehre AC et al. (2009) Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans. Developmental Psychobiology, 51(2):198–206. ↲
  113. Charlton BG. (2008) Pioneering studies of IQ by G.H. Thomson and J.F. Duff: An example of established knowledge subsequently “hidden in plain sight.” Medical hypotheses, 71(5):625–628. ↲
  114. Deary IJ et al. (2007) Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979. Intelligence, 35(5):451–456. ↲
  115. Deary I (2003). Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: the Scottish mental survey 1932. Intelligence, 31(6):533–542. ↲
  116. Hedges LV & Nowell A. (1995) Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269(5220):41–45. ↲
  117. Lynn R & Mulhern G. (1991) A comparison of sex differences on the Scottish and American standardisation samples of the WISC-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(11):1179–1182. ↲
  118. Arden R & Plomin R. (2006) Sex differences in variance of intelligence across childhood. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(1):39–48. ↲
  119. Lehre AC et al, 2009 ↲
  120. Giedd JN, 2012. ↲
  121. Lenroot RK et al, 2007. ↲

    Source



_______



Positive Discrimination For Women AKA Misandry Or Gynocentrism At The European Commission
Our thanks to Ian for this. Jean-Claude Juncker, unelected President-elect of the European Commission, is pressurising countries to submit women for top posts. From the article:

Britain will be denied a key role in the European Commission this week unless David Cameron replaces his male candidate with a woman, the body’s new president has indicated.
Jean-Claude Juncker on Monday expressed his frustration that “despite my repeated requests”, most governments, including Britain, have put forward men for the most important positions in Europe.
He warned that the European Commission would be “neither legitimate nor credible” without more women and said that female candidates would have “a very good chance” of getting one of the top jobs.
Sources close to Mr Juncker, whose appointment Mr Cameron attempted to block, said that the remarks were directed at, among others, the British Prime Minister.

Mr Juncker’s comments are likely to be seen as a blow for Mr Cameron, who earlier this year selected Lord Hill of Oareford, who is little-known in European circles, as the candidate to be Britain’s European Commissioner.
Via J4MB
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)