~ archived since 2018 ~

Study finds some significant differences in brains of men and women - "new questions about how brain differences between the sexes may influence intelligence and behavior".

Imnotmrabut

August 26, 2017

23 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

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

/r/MensRights 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

Post Information

Title	Study finds some significant differences in brains of men and women - "new questions about how brain differences between the sexes may influence intelligence and behavior".
Author	Imnotmrabut
Upvotes	23
Comments	15
Date	August 26, 2017 6:39 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6w79rt/study_finds_some_significant_differences_in/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/study-finds-some-significant-differences-in-brains.915247 https://theredarchive.com/post/915247

Comments

[–]ThirdTurnip 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

In other words, just by looking at the brain scan, or height, of someone plucked at random from the study, researchers would be hard pressed to say whether it came from a man or woman.

This is a half-truth, put in there for political correctness. If you plucked someone at random and got a very high result (postselection -- exactly what happens in STEM), the chances are overwhelming that it is a man. Normal distributions with "slightly" different means have huge differences two or three stddevs out. This is amplified even further by the fact that male distributions almost always have higher variances:

Volumes and cortical thickness between men also tended to vary much more than they did between women

Furthermore, if you cross-correlate several traits (like in personality) you can identify males vs females 70-80% of the time. Which you cannot do, btw, with race or nationality from purely personality traits.

That’s intriguing because it lines up with previous work looking at sex and IQ tests. “[That previous study] finds no average difference in intelligence, but males were more variable than females,” Ritchie says.

This is disputed. The means are only the same if you measure 14 year olds. As adults, males seem to have a higher mean as well as a higher variance.

“This is why our finding that male participants’ brains were, in most measures, more variable than female participants’ brains is so interesting. It fits with a lot of other evidence that seems to point toward males being more variable physically and mentally.”

Which also happens to support the controversial "Bell Curve" hypothesis. i.e. that even if the means are the same, higher variability leads to an overwhelmingly male "genius" population. Don't get me wrong, this hypothesis has problems, namely the Flynn effect (which would argue that the differences are not innate), but this is all papered over in this politically correct "analysis."

EDIT

The controversial—and still unsettled—question is whether these patterns mean anything to intelligence or behavior. Though popular culture is replete with supposed examples of intellectual and behavioral differences between the sexes, only a few, like higher physical aggression in men, have been borne out by scientific research.

ROFL this is such politically correct tripe. Only male aggression is deemed "bourne out." Everything else is "unsettled." You can argue about whether or not the predominance of male genius is innate or not but you cannot argue that it does not exist.

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Seriously, tell me the answer: If there's a 3-4 point difference in mean IQ between the sexes (this has been measured by one test in adults) and both distributions are normalized to have a stdev of sigma=15 (this is the current practice -- call the difference between means sigma/4), then what is the fraction of male to female geniuses. i.e. what is the ratio of males to females with IQ > mean IQ + 3*sigma.

EDIT Or if you dispute these initial conditions, calculate the ratio of male to female geniuses if the male stdev is higher but the means are the same. This is what is measured in the IQ study referenced in your article (Scottish 11 year olds -- non-retarded component). For the sake of argument, call it 5%. i.e. sigma_male = 1.05 sigma_female. I await your answer.

If you dispute even this, find me a single IQ dataset where the male population is not higher than the female one at the very top.

[–]ThirdTurnip0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xNOM0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your question is a lie.

This is one of the most retarded sentences I have ever read. A question cannot be a lie. Questions do not assert anything. They assume things. I left open three sets of assumptions for you to draw conclusions from. You either cannot do math, or refuse to because you know that the answers will not fit your social justice narrative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Current_research_on_general_intelligence

ROFL. How about encouraging people to read actual peer-reviewed research. The facts are:

several studies have shown higher average g in older males. One has not, but only included up to age 18. Male brain development is believed to continue until age 29.
as far as I know, ALL of the claims of "no difference in average g" come from studies of children
NONE of these studies contradicts any ability differences implied in the Google memo, because STEM people come exclusively from the higher end of the distribution which is strongly affected by variance.
a plethora of studies show a higher male variance in g, the mathematical consequence of which is males dominating the higher end
all standardized tests show males dominating the high end of IQ. In mathematics even more so. In language and reading it's maybe even reversed, I have to check.
the very study referenced in the article quoted by /r/ThirdTurnip has a very good dataset of mandatory IQ tests showing male dominance at the top end due to higher male variance. The dataset is of 11-year old children and shows no difference in mean IQ.

EDIT: here is the paper. Use sci-hub if you do not have access.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed&

It is a very interesting and well-executed paper. The only confusing part is the endnote that "Though present at the high end of the distribution, sex differences in variability did not appear to account for sex differences in high-level achievement." By this, it turns out that they mean that they find male dominance at the high end, but not as much as in STEM. Although they give no basis for this comparison. It is basically "men dominate at the high end -- I'm sorry we hurt your feelings so now I'll say something that leaves open the possibility that women are discriminated against."

[–]ThirdTurnip0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xNOM1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rg57 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link