TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

"Males achieved significantly and substantially higher scores than females in general knowledge"

Atavisionary

September 22, 2014
40 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Archived from /r/TheRedPill

r/TheRedPill is a subreddit for discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/TheRedPill archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title "Males achieved significantly and substantially higher scores than females in general knowledge"
Author

Atavisionary

Upvotes 40
Comments 69
Date September 22, 2014 7:05 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2h5iqz/males_achieved_significantly_and_substantially/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/males-achieved-significantly-and-substantially.227987
https://theredarchive.com/post/227987
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by Atavisionary

Women are taking on substantial more debt than men to get objectively useless degrees. Patriarchy is blamed.

894 upvotes
May 26, 2017
/r/TheRedPill

Forbes fires columnist who points out that girls who get too drunk are irresponsible and that false rape accusations are real

730 upvotes
September 24, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Veteran goes to jail rather than give his ex-wife half of his veteren's disability check he gets from injuries sustained in the Gulf War.

559 upvotes
September 22, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Physical differences between the sexes, since the obvious needs to be argued about nowadays.

331 upvotes
March 27, 2018
/r/TheRedPill

Yes, men do leave the market

330 upvotes
September 17, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Girl smears fake blood on herself to get boyfriend arrested, cops see through it. [Pussy Pass denied]

253 upvotes
September 23, 2014
/r/PussyPass

Muslim girl gang attacks white women in racially motivated attack. No hate crime, suspended sentence. Boyfriend stands by and watches. One of the few situations White knighting was appropriate and the beta does nothing.

240 upvotes
March 3, 2015
/r/PussyPass

Harvard Law Professors Condemn Campus Sexual Assault Policy

237 upvotes
October 15, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points39 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

The Patriarchy (tm) is to blame.

[–]kanaduhisfruityeh 57 points58 points59 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Speaking of the patriarchy, are you coming to the meeting on Thursday? I think this time we're going to be discussing ways to increase domestic violence and rape culture while reinforcing the glass ceiling.

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points44 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, I'll be busy promoting unrealistic body image expectations. Thanks for the invite though. Cigars, bourbon, and maniacal laughter on Friday?

[–]CryptoMonger 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/exxon-ceo.jpg

[–]PedroIsWatching 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This was made to have "huehuehuehueheh" meme'd on top of it.

[–]CryptoMonger 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think there is one out there somewhere but I couldn't find it.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Atavisionary[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Good explanation. Too bad that info cant be used to make money.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Iupvoteforknowledge 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

All knowledge starts as general knowledge.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Iupvoteforknowledge 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was referring to how when people first begin learning something may be general knowledge but over time may grow to be something more.

[–]harkrank 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

In Sweden people attend universities based on their grades from secondary school. Not surprisingly women have a higher university and generally much higher grades than men. There is just one thing peculiar. Sweden also has an anonymous national test for all universities that is done twice per year for those who desire. Universities have to take a certain percentage of their students from the pool of the national test takers. Now in these national tests, men have significantly higher scores than women every year.

The conclusion in feminist Sweden is of course that something is wrong with the test and the University Authority is working hard to correct this, although they admit that they have no idea why men perform better even though they have been trying to "balance" the test every year so men and women can score equally.

60%-70% of those admitted to universities are women.

[–]Atavisionary[S] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, they have been fiddling with tests for years with the explicit goal of minimizing differences between men and women. Even doing that, there is a persistent 3-5 point average advantage for men. Who knows what the real average difference would be if the tests weren't changed to conform to political correctness. Unfortunately for the cultural marxists, the more important difference between males and females is the larger male variability and that isn't easily hidden without making the tests completely useless. As you go from average to the highest achievers in the bell curve the ratio of men to women increases exponentially. In some specific areas the ratio becomes infinite because there were no female high scorers. (from a study by hedges and nowell 1995)

[–]sir_wankalot_here 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is the content of the tests. Questions on the test should include what are the latest fashions. What was Becky wearing last week. Why is Becky's ass so big. Do you think Becky is fucking the pool boy. What are the difference shades of eyeshadow and nail polish available. What happens if you mix eyeshadow of color A with color B.

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They're quite literally trying to manufacture equality of outcome at the expense of talent or ingenuity.

[–]sir_wankalot_here -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You try putting on lipstick or eyeshadow on a bouncing bus with only a small hand mirror. You have to go "backwards" when you draw the lines, and you have to apply the right pressure. It is always amazing how a woman can come on the bus all plain, then 20 minutes later is all fancied up. The trick to makeup is making it appear she isn't wearing any.

For chemisty/biology. You figure out how you can mix various types of powders, lotions and creams without them reacting with each other. Then figure out which of this crap you can apply to your face without getting a skin reaction. Repeat the same thing for nailpolish etc.

[–]anonlymouse -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Got some literature on that?

[–]harkrank 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In Swedish yes, just google "högskoleprovet män kvinnor" and you'll see the same article written by four different "independent" Swedish newspapers and Swedish government television. It's all in Swedish of course.

[–]Atavisionary[S] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

The evidence that all the old stereotypes of the feeble-minded female are more or less true (statistically) are actually fairly available in scientific literature. Of course, most academics are leftist and often try to spin it as being the fault of a vast male conspiracy. Not Richard Lynn though.

[–]Flytape -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I honestly think that females are far superior to males when it comes to detail oriented tasks where males are better at sorting the big shit out into smaller little piles that still need someone detail oriented to finish up.

Without the males to get the big piles broken down into smaller more manageable problems the females are easily overwhelmed.

Like yin and yang.

[–]Atavisionary[S] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

I think you need to improve your explanation with specific examples.

[–]bppg 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think he has something going on with that statement but it needs to be fleshed out and referenced with supporting facts. I wouldn't be surprised if he is right.

[–]Flytape 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

For example females thrive in customer service queues like call centers and data entry. Where men thrive building the call centers.

Ever moved with the help of a female? They are great at packing shit in very organized room specific boxes but men are better at moving all the big shit and tetrising it all into limited truck space.

Ever remodeled a house with the help of a female? Men get the big daunting tasks done. Women polish it all up with the little details that make it seem whole.

Planning and executing a camping trip?

A vacation?

A party?

Yard work?

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

All of your examples seem to be presentation and socializing. We already know they're better at dressing things up and picking colours.

Can you think of a 'smaller pile' activity that is mostly functional rather than aesthetic or relationship-building?

[–]Flytape 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Butchering a hog versus trimming a tinderloin into smaller steaks.

Harvesting tobacco versus tying it up in the barn.

Planting a field versus tending to the weeds

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Isn't that more a matter allocation of resources? The tasks that require strength and stamina are given to men, then the tasks that don't are given to what's left.

[–]Flytape -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

I suppose that could be true but then you'd have to ignore the existence of countless generations of remarkable women who earned or maintained significant alpha positions within society.

Queen Elizabeth, Catherine, Isabella, Joan of ark, Cleopatra, Muhammad's wife... etc etc. They certainly didn't do what they did with brute strength so they must have had some other redeeming qualities.

I don't think there is anything in the nature of the differences between men and women that would guarantee superiority. I think gorillas are stronger than man but they certainly aren't superior to man. And likewise I don't think men's obvious superiority of strength gives them superiority over women, its only one trait of many. But I do think it makes men superior to women when dealing with heavy stuff being acted upon by gravity.

Once that is considered realistically, then one must also consider that there are other differences between the sexes that aren't so easily measured. And perhaps one of those differences has to do with our cognition. Like the gorilla's cognition, an advantage there can negate 1600lbs of muscle. And according to the minority view of TRP, the female's cognition seems to have placed them with quite an advantage within our own society. Just like man kind's cognition has clearly elevated us above the gorilla.

And as an afterward, underestimating your enemy's cunning has historical implications we can all read about in history books.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

And as an afterward, underestimating your enemy's cunning has historical implications we can all read about in history books.

I assure you, I know what women are capable of. It was simply the division between small pile tasks and larger tasks that lost me. It does seem like an arbitrary division designed to throw women a bone. Women most certainly are good at some things, but I wouldn't consider them inherently good at smaller or more specific tasks.

[–]Flytape -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Probably because automation has taken care of most of the really big jobs.

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just as a personal aside: I've never worked with a woman who was actually good at her job. No matter what it was, who she was or where it was, the women employees were always a liability.

[–]Flytape1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've worked with many. Several working for me now.

[–]Flytape -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A good example of automation downsizing the big jobs, think about the invention of the gun. Killing used to be a real big job. Now a fucking 78lbs freak like Adam Lanza can do it.

[–]anonlymouse -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Queen Elizabeth, Catherine, Isabella, Joan of ark, Cleopatra, Muhammad's wife... etc etc. They certainly didn't do what they did with brute strength so they must have had some other redeeming qualities.

The upper classes shamed strength so that they could devalue the merits of slaves/serfs. That meant upper class men didn't have an advantage due to strength.

[–]Flytape 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

That's absurd.

The upper class shamed strength? Maybe today that is true with the invention of firearms and drones, but honestly no, even today we celebrate the strongest of our men. The difference is today is that we only celebrate the top 1% instead of the top 40-50%. Automation and industrialization have made it possible for the toughest of jobs to be done by the weakest of men.

But historically they absolutely didn't shame strength. Strength was the only way to win wars and build ships. To shape metal and move stone.

Slaves were an entirely different class of people. They didn't have rights. A serf could settle a disagreement with another serf by combat, but he didn't have that same right against a Noble.

Tell Alexander that his society shamed strength.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html

[–]anonlymouse0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The upper class shamed strength?

It most definitely did. Being strong, working with your body, is considered lower class. The upper class sit on their asses while the lower class works for them.

But historically they absolutely didn't shame strength. Strength was the only way to win wars and build ships. To shape metal and move stone.

All done by the lower class.

[–]Flytape0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20090104090802AAFAM3G

General Washington became the president because of all the respect and renown he earned during the revolution.

Ulysses Grant. Etc etc.

Even one of the royal princes of england is a combat helicopter pilot currently.

The old world was very different than the world is today.

[–]anonlymouse0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It was a revolution of the lower classes. The lower class became upper class and replaced their previous position with slaves imported from Africa.

[–]Flytape0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Honestly this conversation resembles one had between two martial artists who have never fought each other.

No no, you'll never land that punch because I would simply block it like this.

Oh well if you block that punch then your ribs will be open on the right side and I will score a crippling blow with a swift side kick.

Blah blah blah.

The difference is that one of the martial artists has actually studied and participated in martial arts where the other one has watched a few DVDs on the subject.

History doesn't lie. Feminism is less than 100 years old, there was no political or social movement to devalue strength before that time. The world was dominated by men, period... and those exceptional women who maintained very alpha positions within that society did it because of their own merits, period.

Don't fucking believe me? 80 years ago if your wife was too bitchy you could have her committed to an asylum where she could get a transorbital lobotomy.

Women didn't have rights or respect unless they were very exceptional.

As far as your theory about society devaluing strength because it kept the slaves in check... fucking stupid. Slaves sold for more money the healthier and stronger they were. Pre gunpowder era strength was super valuable, and yes kings rode into battle very often. Jousting was an elite sport for the upper class that was all about strength. Common law was often settle by combat.

There is no way you will ever convince me that strength was discouraged in the old world because it fits your ideology somehow. Women aren't lesser or greater than men. They are women, we are men... we're different.

[–]anonlymouse1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The difference is that one of the martial artists has actually studied and participated in martial arts where the other one has watched a few DVDs on the subject.

In this case, I have a lot of fights under my belt. I have wins, I have losses, I have plenty of physical damage. I've got experience. When I talk about fighting, I'm not talking out of my ass, and I apply that same logic to everything I debate.

History doesn't lie. Feminism is less than 100 years old,

More than, but I'd accept less than 150 years old.

and those exceptional women who maintained very alpha positions within that society did it because of their own merits, period.

No, they maintained it largely because they were born into the aristocracy.

Don't fucking believe me? 80 years ago if your wife was too bitchy you could have her committed to an asylum where she could get a transorbital lobotomy.

100 years ago a husband could go to jail because his wife didn't pay taxes.

Women didn't have rights or respect unless they were very exceptional.

Neither did men.

As far as your theory about society devaluing strength because it kept the slaves in check... fucking stupid. Slaves sold for more money the healthier and stronger they were.

You're an idiot. They were still slaves. Strength was only valued in the lowest classes, as a resource, but wasn't a source of respect.

[–]Flytape1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It was the main source of value in a slave, and the main source of respect among the upper class.

The son of Zeus was Hercules a source of strength.

[–]anonlymouse1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, money and owning land was the main source of respect among the upper class.

[–]MrMagwitch 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Flytape 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm with you man. I got down vote bombed for defending the admirable traits of women here.

I'm not the official voice of TRP by any stretch of the imagination but there are some dudes here with serious woman hating complex. Maybe even inferiority complex.

I see it as a cultural difference between men and women. If you want to be more successful trading with Arabs, you're going to need to understand their cultural traditions. Hating Arabs is going to shine through in your behavior and you're never going to get that hand shake to close the deal.

Women are superior to men in many ways, and men are superior to women in many ways. Its fucking evolution baby!

[–]Broseidon241 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Social psychologist, here - I've done some research in communication/psycholinguistics, most of it gendered.

"The results are interpreted as showing that sex diferences in general knowledge cannot be explained as a function of diferences in either Gf or experience. It is proposed further that general knowledge should be regarded as a new second-order factor and designated as semantic memory."

TL;DR Men aren't more intelligent, nor are they more experienced in life. So what is happening?

We do know that communicate with each other with a huge amount of facts (e.g., quantities, quantifiers) and "judgmental adjectives" (e.g., sucks, great, awesome, etc.). They talk about stuff. Women do not do this anywhere near as much. I can't recall if male-female dyads result in a lot of male facts/JAs but it wouldn't surprise me. Simply put, facts and knowledge are very much a part of how men interact with the world and with each other, with specific social information taking a back seat.

Additional fun fact: men talking to men use more metaphor and abstract language - men care more about one-upping each other linguistically than they do about impressing women with fancy language. Though admittedly the studies about that never contrasted attractive vs unattractive female interlocutors.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Can you comment on self-reliance? I find men tend to take pride in doing it themselves. Women seem to take a collective approach and are far more willing to leverage those around them. They don't bother to learn and master those things others are already skilled in.

So over time, a guy develops versatility and gradually becomes a utilitarian tool serving the needs of a woman.

[–]Broseidon241 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

fyi those are incredibly sweeping generalizations and I have no idea if they're true on average, if at all. Further, the research has nothing to do with mastery or even specialization...which means typical gender roles of provider / parent wouldn't be a clear explanation. Remember, the questions are things like "What metal is liquid at room temperature?" and "Who wrote The Republic?" These are just straight facts and not procedural knowledge, in which I think you'd predict men would surpass women...but that hasn't been tested.

The effect if sex on general knowledge was stronger than I expected (assuming they reported standardized betas, which I think they did).

It is worth noting that women scored higher on General Knowledge: Medicine.

Edit: I read a bit more of the procedure and they controlled for 'A' level scores, which seems to be standardized test grades...? Boys scored higher overall, but this didn't really predict general knowledge scores. So that might slightly get at what you were wondering about.

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"What metal is liquid at room temperature?"

Mercury.

"Who wrote The Republic?"

Plato.

Google wasn't required. Helping you prove your point, ha.

[–]Broseidon241 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My point? Their point - it ain't my paper. Coincedentally I also knew the answers : |

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Broseidon241 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really can't say if "facts talk" has a specific evolutionary base like "men were hunting and needed the extra memory". I doubt it. I also want to note that I explicitly warn my students against doing this sort of runaway conjecture. Women were gatherers, right? They need to know a lot about which berries to eat, which are bad, where they're found, and so on - so women are better at storing knowledge, because of all the little minutia required in gathering! Right? No. You could come up with an evo explanation either way, which is the great logical danger of playing with evolutionary explanations.

I think the actual story is more simple:

  • More testosterone, more dominance behaviour.
  • The form this dominance behaviour will take is determined by culture.
  • We value knowledge. Being "in the know" is seen as better. This is the key part. If, overall, having this sort of knowledge was seen as a waste of time or evidence of being antisocial or otherwise unmasculine...
  • Men one-up via knowledge, among other ways (e.g., men also use more "directives" - they will say "Go see that movie." instead of "I think you should go see that movie.").

But I could be wrong - it could be because they're afraid of being seen as stupid by girls, or xyz...

BUT - in favour of your general ideas about women - they do make more references to emotion in their language overall. Just be careful about the runaway conjecture.

[–]CptDefB 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Just a thank you for the beautiful example.

/u/RedPillDad was right about his observations in the box above, but this explains why. It explains how power operates within their circles as well.

Nail, meet hammer.

[–]Atavisionary[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

On the far right of the bell curve there is somthing like 7 men for every 1 woman.

[–]Broseidon241 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

For Gf, in terms of this paper, that fact means zip. We're dealing with and making assumptions about most people. The "far right of the bell curve" in this case is something like 0.000001% of the population. Which is a neat fact! Useful. BUT, if you want to talk about trends and general knowledge, you're going to get laughed at if you try to relate the claimed 7:1 ratio to this sort of stuff.

Do you think they have people with IQs that high in their sample? I seriously doubt it. If they did they would have kicked them out (or should have, if they were responsible).

[–]Atavisionary[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The divergence begins well before the far right and it is more like 1percent for 7 to 1.

[–]Broseidon241 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That's great, but still - cream of the crop. The normal curves overlap a lot, and they aren't recruiting the super elite for this study.

[–]Atavisionary[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Its not from this study. I recommend Hedges and Nowell 1995 and 30 year longitudinal study of mathematically precocious youth.

[–]Broseidon241 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm saying I know. I've read that. I know what you're referring to. I'm saying that that stuff deals in extremes and not averages, and so isn't applicable here unless the researchers were irresponsible and didn't check to see if they had any geniuses in their sample.

[–]Atavisionary[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok, let me reframe the statement. Because some jobs recruit almost exclusively from the right of the curve, there are some occupations that will be overwhelmingly male and that is completely justifiable because of the breakdown in IQ.

[–]Broseidon241 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OK. I don't know why you felt the need to make that statement in the context of this post, but OK.

[–]AnotherLostCause 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tom Leykis will sometimes ask female callers for significant details about front page news stories. The results are funny as hell. What is worse they know the questions before they call cause he uses the same ones again and again.

[–]hakett 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps because they don't need to be? Any attractive girl can get into college, graduate with a 3.0 in something useless, get an internship or entry-level job based on looks, and then snag some beta bucks.

If the goal is making a lot of money, men need to be somewhat intelligent to do that. Women just need to be physically attractive. It doesn't surprise me they spend more time at a tanning salon than in the library.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hey that's not fair. Most females could tell you plenty of stuff about makeup, MTV shows, and....makeup

[–]YourKarmaMeansNothin 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How misogynist. I can't believe one would even think let alone express this notion. You should check your cis male privilege you shitlord patriarchal rape apologist. You forgot shoes.

[–]Rougepellet 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Some people will never learn that equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcome.

Another thing, because men are scoring significantly higher than women on average, something must be wrong with the test? How do you even arrive at that conclusion?

[–]sir_wankalot_here -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For 15 years watch nothing besides soap operas, romance movies and celebrity news. Never watch the news, news read a book of any substance.

Then we will measure your general knowledge. I wonder how you will do.

[–]Kingkarlo -1 points-1 points-1 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is anyone actually surprised by this? Knowlege is something that actually takes hard work and achievement, not something that a man will buy for you because you look pretty and bat your eyelids. Theres a reason the difficult STEM fields are male dominated, while females stick with the marxist bullshit.

[–]Atavisionary[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is part of the male advantage, but men also tend to be better at math etc by a mechanism independent of IQ as well.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter