A longitudinal study of sex differences in intelligence at ages 7, 11 and 16 years

This paper presents the results of a longitudinal study of sex differences in intelligence as a test of Lynn’s (1994) hypothesis that from the age of 16 years males develop higher average intelligence than females. The results show that at the ages of 7 and 11 years girls have an IQ advantage of approximately 1 IQ point, but at the age of 16 years this changes in the same boys and girls to an IQ advantage of 1.8 IQ points for boys.

What's more important than the slight advantage in mean IQ at maturation is the now confirmed fact that women's standard deviation of IQ is smaller as well (see table 3), meaning there are twice as many men with very high IQs (130+), but also twice as many men at the bottom. At higher genius level IQs (160+) the likelihood of a woman being born with such a mind is even smaller, 6:1 ratio. Women therefore cluster more at midpoint of the distribution curve, because being very high or low in IQ is either more unnecessary (high) or maladaptive (low) to female reproductive success.

This is one reason women can never compete at a high level in STEM degrees and jobs. Even in hyper-feminist Norway women tend to fixate on degree programs that focus on people, not very intellectually demanding tasks that are highly g-loaded.

Furthermore, due to the fact there are clear personalty differences that are biological differences between men and women as well, this further creates a divide in terms of what we desire to study in college, even at equal IQs most likely. And indeed, there seems to be some correlation between various personality types and how gifted an individual is likely to be (which also tend to be dominated by men in a very gender biased way). Einstein was an INTP as one example, but the male/female ratio for INTPs is 5:2.

Women with high IQs tend to be drawn to various degrees programs like Medicine, Philosophy and Mathematics, not Engineering, Physics, and Computer Science. Women will also focus on graduate degree programs to a large extent, such a a master's degree in social work, even though social work is at the low end of the IQ requirement for completion of a successful bachelors degree.

http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/iq-by-college-major-gender.png

This basically confirms my theory about human males, they are essentially like nature's experiment (the male/female autism ratio is somewhere between 2:1 to 16:1), and women are the safe bet for picky sexual selection and reproduction. We men are simply expendable, that's why there are more idiots that are men as well at the opposite end of the distribution. For almost all of human evolution most of the men who lived never reproduced, so it's not maladaptive for men to have a wider standard deviation. Why would nature invest very heavily in female intellectual capacity? It wouldn't, raising kids isn't a complex task.

There's no valid reason for women to have equal cognitive capacities as men at the tails of the distribution. Obviously something drove women to highly select for male intelligence hundreds of thousands of years ago. So it was largely the increased expression of this capacity in men that drove human evolution.

So given the evidence it seems quite silly to by trying to socially pound a square peg in a round hole (we need more women STEM graduates). No, we really don't need more women in STEM, they are following what they wish to, which is what empowering women is suppose to be about, not guiding them to a socially desirable outcome of absolute equality in all things. Are there suppose to be just as many women picking up my garbage cans as well? No, not really. But nobody cares about those kinds of disparities.