It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


men are more intelligent than women

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:32 PM
I have been telling my wife this for years now, and she always reminds me of who bring more money.

Just emailed this to her office, No more sex for me.

Academic says men are more intelligent than women

By Sarah Cassidy, Education Correspondent
Published: 25 August 2005

Men are more likely to win Nobel prizes and achieve excellence simply because they are more intelligent than women, an outspoken male academic has claimed.

Richard Lynn, the emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, argues that men have larger brains and higher IQs than women, to such an extent that they are better suited to "tasks of high complexity".

Is this a clever thing to say about women's IQ?

By Tony Halpin, Education Editor

HALF the population will dismiss this story, but a study claims that the cleverest people are much more likely to be men than women.
Men are more intelligent than women by about five IQ points on average, making them better suited for “tasks of high complexity”, according to the authors of a paper due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology.

'Men cleverer than women' claim

Academics in the UK claim their research shows that men are more intelligent than women.
A study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests.

Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn claim the difference grows when the highest IQ levels are considered.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:45 PM
I liked this quote. I think it sums it up.

If your report is accurate, what this study actually shows is that men are better at IQ tests than women. This is not (necessarily) the same as saying men are cleverer than women. That would require rather more criteria than just an IQ test.
Phil Evans, Keele, UK

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:47 PM
I feel sorry for the poor researcher having to sleep on the couch for the rest of his life.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:47 PM
Is it any wonder that most of the people making the studies and reaching the conclusions were MEN.

It's men who make wars and mostly men that fight them. Smart!!
It's men that design and build WMDs. Smart!!

Turn the world over to women!! That would make this man very happy.

To think that IQ equals intelligence; thats just stupid!!

[edit on 26-8-2005 by whaaa]

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by whaaa
Is it any wonder that most of the people making the studies and reaching the conclusions were MEN.

Nah, that can't have had any sort of influence....

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:49 PM
Moving this to slugfest before it even gets started

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:50 PM
I was never as smart as my mother. She reminded me of that everyday.

Now my wife has taken that job.


posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:52 PM
This report is a typical response of someone with an intelligence complex. If you are smart you don't go on about it. You just are. IQ tests will just reveal certain aspects of your intelligence but won't measure things like emotional intelligence or creativity - for men AND women.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by nikelbee]

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:09 PM
"God Made Dinosaur, God Kills dinosaur, God makes Man, Man makes Dinosaur, Dinosaur Eats Man, Women inherit the Earth." Jurassic Park 1 Ellie Sadler.

Anyways good read, good laugh.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:54 PM
I think it's safe to say that while I don't think this study could possibly determine that (considering our vast lack of knowledge about natural science and our biology, i.e. brains) men are "smarter" than women, it should be said that men are better equipped to do a great many tasks better than women naturally.

That is something that can't be said too much due to the "bigot guard" that partrols the media like attack dogs.

What is common left out of these sorts of things is that there really is no overall result, but rather that the combination of our talents can (and at some points in the past) resulted in great strides for mankind.

We are a team, but sadly in America and many places in Europe, we are being genderly euthenized in lieu of a genderless and roleless society where there is no boundery or respect for respective strengths.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:55 PM
If it wasn't for sterotypes growing up as a child women would feel more validated and eager to work/use their smarts more like men... As a boy your taught that someday 'your going to have to provide for your family'
as a girl she is told 'someday your going to marry a successful man and have a wonderful family and your going to have ot take care of them'

If a boy grew up with just having that he'd turn out to be a cross dressing drag queen.

Here's a short story:

Jimmy's father was always telling him to help him out in the garage with stuff.. Out there he would educate the boy on cars, tools, wiring basics, ect...
Jimmy's mother was always telling Sally to help her in the kitchen with the cookies, there she would talk to her about what house chores she wanted her to do, how to use a vacum, a mop, and a broom... Changing bed sheets was very important as was preparing daddy's suit for work the next day.

After she helped her mom in the kitchen and learned some of those basics, she went to her room and played with her barbie. Eyeing her because she was beautiful and somewhat envyvous of her because she wasn't old enough to wear make up and look like that... Jimmy and sally both went to school the next day. Learned the same subjects and both got good grades.

12 years later it was time for graduation, they were off to college to work for degrees...
Jimmy met a girl and he wanted her for his own. Sally met a man and wanted to be with him... They both thought of their new found loves as funny, good looking, 'smart', and good people... Both of them got married on the same day. The next year both siblings were expecting babies!

9 months later one had twins, and jimmy had a baby girl.
Who's going to look after them?

Most likely the women... She can now use all those helpful things her mother taught her as a child... She's definitely going to have to look after these things around the house now!

The husband is still at work, using his brain... He has other interests he likes to read up on.. He has the time because his wife is going all the care taking...

society sucks when it comes to this issue... It's very touchy for me because I see the sterotypes being portrayed on a consistant basis...

It's normal for a man to be smart, hard working, ect, it's also accepted for a women to be that way too... ...But gender roles have been passed down throughout generations and women are giving into the roles too easily... Men were brought up with the notion that he's the one who has to provide for the family, so he would use his smarts more.

If the roles were reversed women just may have those extra 5 points on their side instead.

I'm a lover and a hater of the man... Indeed, it's a bittersweet relationship.

If women just went on their marry way and worried about their career and their own self interests (apart from childrearing and caretaking) those 5 points would be added on because they would be using their brain more...

I've listened to songs written by men about girls they like, i've seen the tv shows where it's status quo for the women to be child rearing and care taking and the man works, i've heard jokes about women belonging in the kitchen, and the dumb blond jokes but men don't have a problem #ing them.

Men have pre concieved notions of women before they experience relationships, they already have a picture painted of what they want...

Do men actually give a damn about what women want?

Women by nature are caretakers, they raise children... Women also have dreams of finding that perfect man. Like a romantic knight in shining armour.
I have yet to hear a woman say she found the man of her dreams...
You know that dream that society tells women is the ultimate dream?
A good lover in bed, a big dick, a man that cooks fabulous dinners, is a great father, buys her things to show her that he loves her, ect....

That's the typical dream... do women think more about this stuff then logical rationale like men? I can't speak for all, but I think women may introspect on this more then men?

Men think about survival moreso because they've been told they are the providers and it's their job to become a true man and provide according to their fathers advice?

I'm just Sick... so sick of this berating of women...

If we didn't have ovaries, women would rule the world... and there would be no wars....

Studies on E.Q has been found to be more important then I.Q....

Why couldn't you find a study on that??

I know, you wanted to beat your chest...

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:03 PM
True Lies

1) I think you should read my post above yours first

2) I think roles are not bad universally, and that they are inherant roles that are helpful to understanding the relationship between men and women.

3) Because the roles have been perverted by powerful people in the past (the Church, rulers, etc) does not mean they are not, at the root, true and important.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by KrazyJethro]

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:06 PM
By the way,

Do men have organizations that help men Balance their work and family?

Do men even think about this stuff cuz I know women do for sure? Could that be because women have given up hope that their husband wouldn't even think about that?

Indeed, women would be more of an advanced species if it wasn't for this little diddy, and the status quo/ gender wars spouted by societies 'teacher's....

It's habit to fall into gender roles all too easy... Sure a women thinks about her choices, but she doesn't make a conscience effort on a daily basis to buck the status quo...

So these 'habit's if you will do a good job of sucking people into them on top of the subtle gender conditioning throughout the years..

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
True Lies
1) I think you should read my post above yours first

I just did and agree with what you say....

This is from 1915, a man interviewwed 65 women and came up with this conclusion about women... I am not mad about it and do agree with what he says....

In "Notes on the Intelligence of Women" (December 1915), an author named W. L. George reported on conversations he had had with women in his daily life to assess the difference between men's and women's intelligence. "These notes," he wrote, "are based on the observation of 65 women, subdivided as follows: Intimate acquaintance, 5; adequate acquaintance, 19; slight acquaintance, 41; married, 39; status uncertain, 8; celibate, 18. Ages, 17 to 68 (average age, about 35)." He highlighted what he saw as women's penchant for faulty logic, a poor sense of the law, politics, and religion, and an impoverished vocabulary. He fleshed out his perception of Woman thus:

She can seldom carry an idea to its logical conclusion, passing from term to term ... This comes from a lack of concentration which indisposes a woman to penetrate deeply into a subject; she is not used to concentration, she does not like it. It might lead her to disagreeable discoveries.

my personal experience....just one... My husband asked me last night what 3000 x 12 was... I gave him the answer and he didn't believe me... he said no, hold on... and tried to figure it out himself... after 5 mins he came up with the answer... I told him before, but he didn't want to take what I had to say seriously...I thought, was this because i'm female? Does he think i'm stupid?
What the hell was up with that?

So W.L George continues to say:

Men have been found to deny woman intellect; they have credited her with instinct, with intuition, with a capacity to correlate cause and effect much as a dog connects its collar with a walk.

But intellect in its broadest sense, the capacity consecutively to plan and steadfastly to execute, they have often denied her. They have gone further, I seem to remember that in the Middle Ages an ecumenical council denied her a soul. I forget the result, but it never occurred to the council to discuss whether man had a soul, possibly because its members were all men.


Vanity is as old as the mammoth. Romantic lying, obviously connected with vanity, is justly alleged to be deve1oped in woman. No doubt woman's chief desire has been to appear beautiful, and it is quite open to question whether the leaves that clothed our best ancestress were gathered in a spirit of modesty rather than in response to a desire for adornment.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by TrueLies]

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Amuk
Moving this to slugfest before it even gets started

A VERY good call!

Now the question is, will this research be looked into and confirmed by others, or will it just be dismissed because most of the researchers were men? In other words, will political correctness trump science?

Now what would be really funny is if someone did actually buck the tide and do extensive research into this subject, and discover that women, in fact, were smarter than men.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:12 PM

Originally posted by SIRR1
Academic says men are more intelligent than women

I guess the woman that did this article was paid by the "Christian Coalition"

My mother always told me that men are smarter than women that is why they have two "Brains" is just that they usually let the "Littler Brain" take over the "Bigger Brain"

Occurs I found that out after I got married what the brain thing was all about.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:32 PM
As an intelligent woman, I am not even going dignify some of the above comments with a response. However, those that give this research merit should consider its source.

Richard Lynn is a eugenicist, meaning that he belives that negative genetic traits should be removed from future generations. Considering his belief that people have limitations on thier intellect, strength, personality and emotional capacity based on their race and/or gender, this has serious implications for what he would like to do to future generations of humans.

How about a quote?

"What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." (cited in Newsday, 11/9/94)

Phased out? Ummm... isn't that a nice way of saying....

Yeah. He's the second coming of Mengele.

Herr Lynn was also the man who concluded that lighter-skinned African-Americans are smarter than darker-skinned African Americans. (Skin color and intelligence in African Americans. Population and Environment, 2002)

Also, in his article entitled "Intelligence and The Wealth & Poverty of Nations", he suggests that the reason why counties like the U.S. and Japan have healthy economic growth is because of the higher IQ's, and poorer nations are poor because of lower IQs.

Will someone please teach this man the difference between CORRELATION and CAUSALITY? This is what happens when good regression analysis goes bad.

Lynn has also received significant funding from The Pioneer Fund, which was set up in 1937 by a rich white supremacist who supported the Nazi parties' "breeding programs." Now, the Pioneer Fund calls themselves "race-realists" and claim that they are agnostic, but oddly, all of their research seems to conclude that Caucasians have a superior gene pool, although Asians are very intelligent (if only we could splice out the shortness... but Pioneer-funded scientists are working on it!) African-Americans, well... to quote Herr Lynn again...

"Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?" (cited in New Republic, 10/31/94)

They have given large grants to Lynn and his ilk and eschew those who call them "nazis" and racists as ignorant namecallers. Oh, did I mention that Otto Frieharr von Verschuer, the man who taught Josef Mengele everything he knew, was an editorial board member of the Pioneer Fund's science journal?

Oh, but that was BEFORE the Holocaust.

Back to Lynn. His most controversial conclusions, however, surround the concept that based on your genetic limitations, you should assume certain roles in life. Men have higher aptitudes for finace and sports and women have higher aptitudes for cooking and child-rearing.

Even more controversial is the idea that through genetic modification, certain "undesireable characteristics" should be weeded out of the population through mating of genetically well-matched parents, destruction of embryos with inferior genetic traits and COMPULSORY STERILIZATION OF PEOPLE WHO CANNOT PRODUCE GENETICALLY SUPERIOR OFFSPRING. (Eugenics: A Reassessment. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001)

Not Hitler. Right.

Where is that grain of salt again...?

More on the debate here...

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:42 PM

Originally posted by lmgnyc
As an intelligent woman, I am not even going dignify some of the above comments with a response. However, those that give this research merit should consider its source.

What is wrong with my comment?
don't you have some sense of humor?

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:58 PM
I guess we will attack the source and not the information. Score one for PC over science!

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:17 PM
Before I leave for the weekend, I would like to point one thing out. I don't care about this research. I am not a sociologist, this research means nothing to me. I haven't even looked at it, I don't care. I've known women who are smarter than me, and I've known women who are dumber than me (no offense, marg (
j/k, figured you were safe to joke with
) I've known men who are smarter than me and men who are dumber than me. I judge a person based on the person.

What bothers me about this is that research is being discredited and ignored because people don't want to hear it or are afraid of it. lmgnyc, this is not about any one individual, this is a sociological issue, not a psychological one. This research, true or not, does not say you aren't smart. It is information that a sociologist could use. All of these research topics that delve into race and gender are stopped before they can even begin by calling them sexist or racist.

People give Christians that try to stop research that they're afraid of the results crap all the time, but often the same ones cry racist or sexist as soon as the tables are turned and it may be scientific data that they're afraid of.

Keep politics out of science. Don't shoot the messanger because you don't like the message, shoot the message with a valid message of your own.

<<   2  3 >>

log in