Why there's not female geniuses at the level of male geniuses?

Because women have two X chromosomes and men only one.
There are tons of intelligence related SNPs on X and zero on Y (which is very small).

Therefore, men have the same intelligence mean at conception (!) but larger variation.

Irrelevant. Grace Hopper worked on FORTRAN.
Don't sneer. Plenty of work still being done in FORTRAN when you need sheer number-crunching power. It's a fast and efficient language for that purpose.
Not so good on phones and game consoles, so you may be unfamiliar with it.

I'm familiar with FORTRAN, but I hadn't heard anything about Hopper's involvement and searching now I can't find anything. What's your source?

Because women have lower average IQs and a lower variance in the distribution of their scores.

>he lists some of the exceptions, unaware that it proves the rule

>men have the same intelligence mean
This is wrong. Women have a slightly higher verbal intelligence average, and men a significantly higher spatial intelligence average. The full scores is weighted precisely so as to elide any sex differences in the average though.
Look it up. The average IQ of men is almost a third of a standard deviation higher than women's.

...

Cuz pic related.

Because genius requires a sort of necrophilia, where mystery and foo foo is flayed alive and reveals the beating heart that bleeds and the brain that still frantically sends out electric signals.

Not even counting for dimorphic differences in average male/female intelligence, females want to be wowed by mystery and glitter. As an armchair evolutionist, being party to "mystery and glitter" probably meant that you were under the care of a regime of men wealthy and powerful enough to care for you.

Or tl;dr - Ritual, Ceremony, and foo foo meant you had access to resources maintain by a certain genetic stable who dominated other stables filled with lesser/more gullible men.

that's like saying asians always seem to be smart, studious, and successful because there is an extremely large asian population in the world.. which engenders a large number of individuals at the upper intelligence extremes of the distribution curve - oh wait i agree w you

it's all about evolution. they are hardwired to find a good mate and reproduce. also they have bigger limbic system, thus they are more emotion driven.

maybe the notion of general intelligence doesn't actually exist and is used as a simplified talking point during debate - or, a general failure of mind studies, to properly take into account all types of intelligence like social, emotional, abstract, lingual, etc etc into this construct we call IQ

>acts natural for a few seconds, like she doesn't know she's being recorded
>pretends goofily to fumble with chopsticks
>LOOKS RIGHT AT THE FUCKING CAMERA looking like "oh gee I need help chopsticks are hard"
god I fucking hate women

with all types of intelligence considered equal, maybe the statistical disparities boil down into mutual assured evolutionary survival, with both agents (that be male and female) playing their evolutionary role

Evolutionary mechanisms have made men have a wider statistical distribution in some key metrics like intelligence, deviancy, alturism, etc. For example mutations on the Y chromosome are more common I believe. The major pressure however is women. In general, women choose their partners, and women are choosy in general. Woman want a man who is in a sense better than they are, in some way, whatever better means to the woman.

These phenomenon pretty much ensures that the "best man" at something is "the best". Try this thought experiment: Name one thing a woman is "the best" at (without resorting to female only bodily functions) and I bet you can find a man who is better.

How would you know if there are or aren't?

HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRR

>Ada Lovelace
That one's a myth, mostly fueled by a misinterpretation of Charles Babbage's writings. He was fond of her and said lots of nice things about her, but it's pretty clear she didn't literally contribute anything to his work or make any pioneering contributions to computer science. In modern times someone saying things like he did about a woman would be interpreted at face value as genuinely seeing that woman as a genius, but in Babbage's time the differences in how women were treated meant that saying things like that about a woman was more akin to talking about how much your young child or pet dog is a "genius."
The other part of what keeps that myth perpetuated is how modern initiatives to try to get more women into programming latched onto her as a role model and will never stop repeating the lie that she was the "first programmer."

You have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22743131
Reproducing is basically a given for women, their concern is just selecting who they want to reproduce with.
For men in contrast a smaller number of high quality males are going to win out over the rest and will reproduce with more than one female.
The mechanism for why this is the case is that pregnancy is a long, drawn out state of incapacitation for women, so they don't have the same incentive / ability to go around reproducing with multiple different partners.
Because all women share in that same constraint, women didn't have the same evolutionary pressure to compete against each other in extreme ways. Men did have that evolutionary pressure, and it led to a history of selection for more risk taking and extremes of behavior like spending all your time grinding on abstract intellectual pursuits.

Men and women are equally strong, physically, so they are definitely equally intelligent as men, everything taken into consideration.

this mankind certainly has had its ups and downs.

they are not women are more sleder and lightweight making them more agile and able to flee while men are bulkier and stronger built for hunting and survival.

>Men and women are equally strong, physically
hilarious
youtube.com/watch?v=MF-YeWnIJfU

>exceptions prove the rule
kys brainlet

Video is retarded, if the men worked out and did as much test as that chick they would easily snap her wrist.

No. He means exactly what he said, there are no female "geniuses" on the level of male geniuses. None of the people you listed are geniuses by any stretch.

its cuz they have dem titties strapped under their noses all day. Would you be as productive if you had a distracting pair of tits just staring you in the face all the time?

I didn't think so.

Male and female IQ have different standard deviations.

its because prehistoric men are subjected to natural selection more compared to women. Men needed to hunt and fight lions, meaning brainlets don't get to pass on their genes.

You'd probably maximize raw hunting ability somewhere around 115 though.

ipwatchdog.com/2016/08/01/patent-gender-gap/id=71537/

>The IWPR briefing paper reports that women make up only 7.7 percent of primary inventors who hold patents. According to IWPR, those women who are the primary inventor tend to hold patents for inventions associated with traditional female roles, such as jewelry and apparel.

So this the thing I don't get, how do feminists in Europe expect women to fill up 40 percent of top position in the biggest European companies when they contribute so little to value creation in these companies or innovation?

Seriously, guys?

Could you link man? For a friend.

Mirzakhani, McDuff, Daubechies, Chudnovsky, Fan Chung, etc...

women think quick, men think in depth.

buism.com/neurons.htm

When part of the population (women) has been sistematically pushed out of any intelectual activity (or any activity desu) until very recently, and even a stigma kind of remains, it is hard for that group to develop many geniouses in that type of activities as other groups.

I didn't expect anyone to give this answer, of course.

Curie is at the top of her field desu, so there's one.

>When part of the population (women) has been sistematically pushed out of any intelectual activity
How was half of the entire world population "pushed out" of "any intellectual activity?"

Fan Chung and Ron Graham
really aren't all that nice, good or smart:
their "meal ticket" was Erdos and he is dead now.

Jews faced even more restrictions than women until recently, yet they were still able to advance all areas of science.

Why would women be restricted from practicing in any area that they are equally or better suited to as/than men? How would they be restricted? For example, what could have stopped women from gathering like the Pythagoreans before Pythagoras and passing their knowledge on to their daughters? Why, before there was even a sliver of academia or formality, would men tell women not to think about triangles? If it had been the case that women were equally interested and equally capable, why would they not have been included by men from the very beginning? If they were more interested or more capable, why would it not have developed into a craft seen as feminine today?

The funny part is that at the very top of IQ distribution gender rate is almost 50:50. And out of 3 people who scored the best ever on Hoeflin's test 2 were female.

It's almost like women have equal access to education for just half a century or something.

Women dominate healthcare today. Yet for thousands of years a female doctor was something ridiculous. First female doctor in USA died just 100 years ago.

It was only really restricted in the period leading up to the last century, starting from the Renaissance when studies became more formal.

>Women dominate healthcare today.
What do you mean by dominate? Most specialists are men, so you can't mean in that sense.

>for thousands of years a female doctor was something ridiculous
And where'd you get this information? Specifically the "thousands of years".

Women's brains stop growing about four years before men's do. They're smaller in both absolute and body-mass-or-volume-relative mass and volume, less dense in connectivity, and made of less metabolically expensive materials, for growth, maintenance, and operation.

In short, they get the economy model among human brains, the same way they get the economy model among human musculoskeletal systems. They aren't suped up for fighting, hunting, and leading the tribe, but stripped down to minimize the burden on the tribe during hard times.

On top of this relative deficiency in raw mental power, their social instincts are geared more to succeed socially through fitting in, being pleasant and well-liked, and careful backstabbing, rather than to attempt to rise in hierarchical status and secure specialized status niches through open conflict demonstrating superior ability.

Cute bullshit. Look what happened to Hypatia. Women who tried to be scientists were ridiculed since early days of Christianity.

Look what happened to Socrates. What does that prove?

Is this why 2 out of 3 largest empires in human history were ruled by women at their apex and then started breaking down once men took over after them?

Let me guess: this is some bullshit about figurehead monarchs?

There were female scholars and scientists in ancient times. It's when monotheism took over when they started to be ridiculed. Hypatia was a sign to all women to never even try again.

>Look what happened to Hypatia.
Hypatia wasn't killed for being a woman who studied academic subjects you retard.

Nuns were educated in the middle ages, and continued to play the role of educators in Europe until the last century. Doesn't seem to have much to do with monotheism.

>Hypatia was a sign to all women to never even try again
You're going to have to show that she was killed specifically for being a woman, and that all women following that gave up because of it (despite men not giving up after men being executed for any number of reasons).

>Hypatia was a sign to all women to never even try again.
That had nothing to do with women studying academic topics and everything to do with anti-paganism. She wouldn't have been murdered if she wasn't a pagan spreading pagan ideas.

le quirky tay tay

teehee based!

there are
why arent there more?
gee its almost as if women werent fully encouraged to enter into stem fields.