3 ms·

Ironicaly if the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis is true this also means that many more men are more dumber than women since women are more centered towards

Ironicaly if the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis is true this also means that many more men are more dumber than women since women are more centered towards the gauss average. Ironicaly this is never mentioned, they just see this is a "many more men can have a higher iq distrubution wise due to the male gauss tail stretching out further than womens, so this is sexist to say that men are smarter". This shows you how biased all of these critics are, zero scientific discussion, pure emotional and egoistic outbursts. They see this paper as "men are better", while in reality it says only "men are more in the extremes, both higher AND lower extremes than women." Also if you read this: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p... This is a good example of how NOT to handle a situation like this. The authors tried to convience the people that they were just doing science in good faith, but those feminist zaelots just saw it as "men are better". You cannot argue with such people. Those people in charge are the opposite of intellectual academic scientists. Sad so to see what academia has devolved to. Sad that people in such high places have such beliefs. The correct response in this situation is to tell them to go f** themselves and expose them for the immature brats that they are. Growling like a dog before them IS ALWAYS THE WRONG COURSE OF ACTION. If you growel before them you give them authority, this is the worst thing that you can do and will perpetuate this anti-scientific cycle.

christophilus 4y ago
I think you meant “grovel”. Growling like a dog before them would be quite a fun experiment.
- oifjsidjf 4y ago
  True my bad
sascha_sl 4y ago
>Ironicaly this is never mentioned, they just see this is a "many more men can have a higher iq distrubution wise due to the male gauss tail stretching out further than womens, so this is sexist to say that men are smarter". Because many advocates of GMVH are only interested in justifying the gender imbalance in leadership positions biologically, dismissing any well known social factors (e.g. competence rating on double blind fake CVs)? "Feminists say GMVH means men are all smarter" is a gross oversimplification of the situation. If you have 2.5 hours to spend on a video essay, I'd very much recommend "The Bell Curve"[1], a breakdown of the book of the same name. Not so much for the racism part, but for the background on the construction of IQ. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  >Because many advocates of GMVH are only interested in justifying the gender imbalance in leadership positions biologically This is also a gross oversimplification. Yes, there are a bunch of men at the top willing to take advantage of anything, but there are also hoards of men at the bottom tired of being blamed for things they have no control over and potentially be "indebted" socially, who would never see any benefit from the guys at the top. Problem being the same, address the elephant in the room and stop having people at the top only interested in themselves and willing to exploit everything.
waffleiron 4y ago
> while in reality it says only "men are more in the extremes, both higher AND lower extremes than women." The paper explicitly does not say that, have a look at the conclusion of the paper in question.
Pinegulf 4y ago
Regardless weather this hypothesis is true or false, I think the story is that even investigating the idea is somehow VERBOTEN!
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Most often it isn't the authors of that make the outrageous claims themselves, it is the selective interpretation of some of the readers. You could argue that they are begging the question but I don't think this is true either in modern academic settings. Agreed that academia should have had some integrity and deny the first demands of studies getting removed. Even the bad ones that at least can serve as negative example if nothing else.
davidktr 4y ago
> Ironicaly this is never mentioned What are you talking about? That is mentioned everywhere. Have a look at the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis): "Note that the curve with the greater variability (green) yields higher values in both the lowest and highest ends of the range." The evidence points strongly towards confirmation for the hypothesis regarding intelligence. Only the reason is unclear. > This shows you how biased all of these critics are, zero scientific discussion, pure emotional and egoistic outbursts. Pure projection on your part. You are not even familiar with the current discussion.

christophilus 4y ago

I think you meant “grovel”. Growling like a dog before them would be quite a fun experiment.

oifjsidjf 4y ago
True my bad

sascha_sl 4y ago

>Ironicaly this is never mentioned, they just see this is a "many more men can have a higher iq distrubution wise due to the male gauss tail stretching out further than womens, so this is sexist to say that men are smarter". Because many advocates of GMVH are only interested in justifying the gender imbalance in leadership positions biologically, dismissing any well known social factors (e.g. competence rating on double blind fake CVs)? "Feminists say GMVH means men are all smarter" is a gross oversimplification of the situation. If you have 2.5 hours to spend on a video essay, I'd very much recommend "The Bell Curve"[1], a breakdown of the book of the same name. Not so much for the racism part, but for the background on the construction of IQ. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
>Because many advocates of GMVH are only interested in justifying the gender imbalance in leadership positions biologically This is also a gross oversimplification. Yes, there are a bunch of men at the top willing to take advantage of anything, but there are also hoards of men at the bottom tired of being blamed for things they have no control over and potentially be "indebted" socially, who would never see any benefit from the guys at the top. Problem being the same, address the elephant in the room and stop having people at the top only interested in themselves and willing to exploit everything.

waffleiron 4y ago

> while in reality it says only "men are more in the extremes, both higher AND lower extremes than women." The paper explicitly does not say that, have a look at the conclusion of the paper in question.

Pinegulf 4y ago

Regardless weather this hypothesis is true or false, I think the story is that even investigating the idea is somehow VERBOTEN!

raxxorraxor 4y ago

Most often it isn't the authors of that make the outrageous claims themselves, it is the selective interpretation of some of the readers. You could argue that they are begging the question but I don't think this is true either in modern academic settings. Agreed that academia should have had some integrity and deny the first demands of studies getting removed. Even the bad ones that at least can serve as negative example if nothing else.

davidktr 4y ago

> Ironicaly this is never mentioned What are you talking about? That is mentioned everywhere. Have a look at the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis): "Note that the curve with the greater variability (green) yields higher values in both the lowest and highest ends of the range." The evidence points strongly towards confirmation for the hypothesis regarding intelligence. Only the reason is unclear. > This shows you how biased all of these critics are, zero scientific discussion, pure emotional and egoistic outbursts. Pure projection on your part. You are not even familiar with the current discussion.