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 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+). At higher genius level IQs (160+) the likelihood of a woman being born is with such a mind is even smaller, 6:1. Women therefore cluster at the median of the distribution, because being very high or low in IQ is more unnecessary or maladaptive to female reproductive success. This is one reason women can never compete at a high level in STEM degrees. 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 studies.

This basically confirms my theory about human males, they are essentially nature's experiment, and women are the safe bet for sexual selection and reproduction. We are expendable, that's why there are more idiots that are men as well at the opposite end of the distribution. Why would nature invest heavily in female intellectual capacity? It wouldn't, there's no valid reason for women to have equal cognitive capacities as males. Obviously something drove women to highly select for male intelligence hundreds of thousands of years ago.