>Writing in the journalScience, researchers from three US universities describe how they carried out a range of tests with 400 children, half of whom were girls, to probe the influence of gender stereotypes on children’s notions of intelligence and ability.
Let us have a rational and evidence-based discussion about this scientific finding.
What's to discuss?
Anybody have a link to the paper? I'd like to look at the statistics of this study.
They're right, it is.
>Girls believe brilliance is a male trait
Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day
I'm not saying it necessarily is, but it would be ignorant to say it definitely isn't just out of political correctness. Biology doesn't give a toss about that.
Probably they pick that idea at school from their idiotic female teachers, since they seem to develop it from from when 6 to 7 year old
Women are more likely to have an IQ near 100. That means fewer geniuses and fewer absolute retards.
gender studies do NOT belong to Veeky Forums
>theguardian posts retarded clickbait
males have more variance in their IQ
>Social science studies social constructs (socially perceived truths or abreactions that may not actually be correct or exist), news at 9.
Why is OP always a retard lately?
...
Yeah. The genius character archetype (on TV, films etc) is male, but so is the idiot character.
>sample of 400 people
>result is generalized to all humanity
Why is this allowed?
Where does that come from? I know it's false but it keeps being posted here and on /pol/.
Here is one of the reference studies on the topic, by Hedges et al., 1995:
atavisionary.com
tl;pl: There are actually, measurably more male geniuses
>why is statistics allowed?
Depending on how the samples were taken, the result is statistically representative of the population it was taken from. In the case, probably representative of the USA population of children x years old, or at least a specific socio-economic class of children on the east coast.
because of the central limit theorem you fucker
You did not understand the CLT
sry not sry
>There are actually, measurably more male geniuses
That's what the plot says, too.
But the average IQ (same for g factor) is virtually the same for men and women. The plot did not get that right.
another retarded social "sciences" "study"
> socio-economic class
And probably a dozen or more other factors that get ignored.
Statistical data like can and often is a load of bullshit, that's constantly used by social "sciences" to peg whatever retarded generalizing "theory", often just for political reasons (like in this case).
Take the poster child of sociology, the Asch experiments, and how the reproductions of said "experiments" has given completely different results many other times.
Those "experiments" have zero scientific value. They are at the same level of Astrology.
Yeah fuck these girls they never date us so they must be so dumb right guys hahaha i hate em so much
It's possible to admit that men are smarter than women without hating women, just as it's possible to admit that women are better at giving birth than men without hating men.
>Women are more likely to have an IQ near 100. That means fewer geniuses and fewer absolute retards.
No, it means IQ is a bad metric that has as one of its most fundamental constraints the requirement that male and female average scores turn out the same. Anyway, there aren't as many more men than women at the low end of the scale as at the high end.
IQ test design has, of course, been dominated by smart men. So they didn't want to degrade their own scores to equal those of women, however, they had no problem with degrading the scores of average men to the level of women.
At the high scores, IQ fairly reflects the differences between the sexes. The mid range is calculated bullshit.
How is this accomplished? Well, women are more compliant and eager to please, while men are more independent-thinking and disinclined to do things just because they're told to, so fill the test with tedious, trivial-seeming tasks and include lots of questions with no objectively-verifiable right answer ("Which best fits the pattern?" "What comes next in this sequence?").
On average, girls will win at knitting over boys every day. Many boys will lose patience with the tedious, low-value task and make mistakes because they don't care, while many girls will enjoy the simple work. Make a combined elementary knitting and advanced differential equations test and you can have the total score come out to the same average for both sexes, while most of the high scores go to boys.
>while men are more independent-thinking and disinclined to do things just because they're told to
Pick one?
There's probably less than 1% women of history's geniuses. Even then, the 1% don't match up to Da Vinci, Einstein, Shakespeare, Descartes, Euclid, etc.
Is it that women are genetically less intelligent, or that women are genetically less inclined to give a shit about learning things?
Or both?
So does that mean that women traditionally being put into certain gender roles has inhibited them from obtaining the same level of achievements that men traditionally have?
Gender roles arise from genetic predisposition, not society.
Proof?
What about that matriarchal society in china? That certainly defies what you suggest
We're talking about humans, not pandas.
The IQ bell curve is more stretched horizontally for men. This means there are more outliers, both in terms of highly intelligent individuals and highly retarded individuals.
This might have evolutionary advantages.
In short: The stereotype is correct. This doesn't mean there can't be female geniuses in scientific subjects, they are just less likely to appear.
Gg
They are genetically more average in terms of intelligence (lower variance), and less likely to take risks which has its ups and downs I suppose. As to preferences I can only tell from experience. For sure most girls I found that are in STEM prefer teaching rather than doing research, but I haven't seen any study about this phenomenon.
The matriarchal roles still has in them many gender roles we sare. They are not suddenly males because they are in power.
>>while men are more independent-thinking and disinclined to do things just because they're told to
>Pick one?
Is there something wrong with your brain?
These children ought to be congratulated for accurately perceiving reality, not criticised.
Very sad.
>Is there something wrong with your brain?
There must be because I thought you said "disciplined", not "disinclined".
There's more male retards and more male geniuses. Women are on average, terribly average in intelligence.
>terribly
Is it necessarily good to be smart? For society, potentially (if used for good) but most geniuses seem miserable. Maybe the average-brained have the happiest lives.
The "smart people are miserable and autistic" meme is popular because it makes normies feel better about themselves and also because miserable and autistic people like to think that they're smart and that that's the reason they're miserable and autistic.
Trying to search for studies about this yields as many results as there are papers but the first few I looked at reported either no correlation between IQ and happiness or a positive correlation (more intelligent people are likely to be happier).
Happiness most often stems from endorphins being released when something new surprises you, but doesn't hurt you. Retards laugh at dirt and poo all the time because they can't retain any information beyond potato.
They're probably measurably happier than normal people because they're stupid, but their lives are also completely pointless so the truth of the matter is that humans are happiest when they're least prone to be happy.
Women tend to score higher on different tests, you just seem to be a betacuck.
Too bad because I don't have it.