ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Are men smarter?

Posted: Thursday, September 07, 2006 6:57 PM by Alan Boyle

Newly published research could fuel the fiery debate over whether one gender is innately more intelligent than the other - a controversy that already has featured the resignation of a Harvard president and an academic battle in Denmark. The latest study from Canada reports that 17- to 18-year-old males have a slight edge in IQ, based on an analysis of more than 100,000 SAT scores. But even the researcher behind the study acknowledges that the findings don't represent the final word on gender and intelligence.

Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario says the research was prompted by earlier studies in Britain and Denmark that reported a 4- to 5-point IQ advantage for men, based on assessments of general intelligence. "My colleague, Douglas Jackson, and I decided that we really needed to confirm [the findings of] these other two psychologists, and we confirmed them," he said.

Past studies have tended to declare the gender intelligence contest a virtual tie, with men rating higher in spatial ability (for example, reading a map) and women having an edge in verbal ability (using a varied vocabulary).

In their analysis, Rushton and Jackson interpreted the SAT results from both the math test (where males do better) and the verbal test (where females do better), focusing on 145 questions that seemed to emphasize general intelligence - also known as the "g factor."

"The g factor really is the active ingredient, if you will, that permeates all types of intelligence," Rushton told me.

Rushton cites an easy example of the difference between a low-g and a high-g task. First, think of the last four digits of your phone number. That's low-g. Now, think of them in reverse order. That's high-g. "It is a real cognitive load for everybody," Rushton said.

Unfortunately, Jackson passed away before the results could be published, but Rushton finished the work - and the study now appears in the September issue of the journal Intelligence. Based on their measurement of the g factor, they found that males had an IQ advantage of 3.63 points in the 17-to-18 age group.

That male advantage was found "throughout the entire distribution of scores, in every level of family income, for every level of fathers' and of mothers' education, and for each and every one of seven ethnic groups," Rushton said in a university news release.

In the paper, which is available online, the researchers suggest the advantage is due to "extra male neurons" in a guy's brain, which is on average larger than the female brain. (Other researchers have questioned whether size really matters when it comes to intelligence.)

Now, there are questions galore about this type of research. I'll start with the ones that Rushton addressed in my interview:

  • Don't women get better grades than men in college? "Women do do better, in many but not all grades," Rushton replied. "And that's not just in college, but even in high school. Obviously, there are other things going on besides general intelligence. The one big factor that women have is conscientiousness." Rushton said "women will always do better" in an environment that emphasizes continual assessment (such as a quarter's worth of coursework) rather than one big effort (such as a final exam or project).
  • Don't girls generally start out smarter than boys? Rushton acknowledges that in the early teens, females tend to have higher IQs than males. "We think it's because females mature faster ... so this masks the cognitive development," he said. In his view, it's a biological fact that males catch up and surpass the females as they mature.
  • Isn't society to blame, for pressuring girls to "dumb themselves down" as they mature? "We're not really saying whether this is a genetic or an environmental factor," Rushton said. "We think it's probably both, but the fact that it shows up on the g factor rather than on specific types of items, inclines against that view" of society putting pressure on girls.
  • Are SAT scores and the g factor really the proper ways to measure intelligence? What is intelligence, anyway? These are questions that cast a pall over all sorts of comparative intelligence studies, due to the controversy surrounding SAT tests as well as the g factor. Rushton says that measures of general intelligence are, if anything, more reliable than test scores - and he claims that the military uses such measures to predict how well recruits will perform tasks ranging from combat operations to potato-peeling. "What the psychologists have found there, is that it's the g factor that predicts all the different criteria they could want to predict," he said.

Science writer Deborah Blum, who surveyed decades' worth of research on gender and intelligence in her book "Sex on the Brain," raised bigger questions about the whole idea of pitting men against women in a showdown over average IQ.

"I would take any study that averaged results with an enormous grain of salt," she said. Males tend to show more variability than females in intelligence tests, which could skew the broader statistical results in favor of the males, she said.

Blum does believe, however, that there are differences between male and female brains - a view that has received some high-profile media exposure, thanks to recent research and a hot-button book titled "The Female Brain." She goes along with the "spatial/verbal" gender split, for example.

"Everything that I have seen that looks at the basic development of spatial reasoning suggests that there's an evolutionary advantage for the men," she said. The idea is that males came to specialize in the spatial skills needed to be successful hunter-gatherers.

The same rationale could apply to females' verbal advantage: "There are evolutionary reasons for that, having to do with child rearing as much as anything else," Blum said.

Blum's bottom line, however, is that it's not useful to engage in a sexual war over intelligence.

"It makes sense to say it's one big spectrum," she said. "It's all individual variability in the end. I think we're fooling ourselves to say we have identical brains. We don't. ... I get really tired of people telling me that."

So what do you think? Is it scientifically incorrect to talk about sexual differences in intelligence, or just politically incorrect? Feel free to weigh in with your comments.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think that the argument that women's IQs tend to vary less than men's is very interesting.  This study focused on averages. Maybe looking at the median IQs for each gender would cut out really unusual people and show the true situation.  Besides, even if men really do have an advantage in terms of IQ, women have already shown that they have the ability to compensate in other areas (hard work, etc.).  
I think men are smarter when it comes to spatial intelligence such as map reading, mathematics and dealing with tools and that women are smarter in dealing with and reading people.  Total intelligence is nebulous at best in definition.  I belive it's perfectly OK to say men are smarter at some things and women are smarter at others.  We are NOT the same, thank God!  If my wife were like me, I'd never have married her!
Well, you have to be careful in how you interpret them. I've been told by some men that my gender makes me less intelligent than they are, even though my IQ scores are significantly higher than the average, including those of the men who made those remarks.

People should be judged on the merits of their own intelligence, instead of what some ostensible average says they should have.
Well by focusing on gender, scientists can make claims about the relationship between genetics and intelligence without explicitly saying anything about more contraversial issues mainly race.  Isn't that really the big question?  I mean for centuries that very question/issue was the justification of exploitation, enslavement and subjugation of the majority of the world.  Of course, if the bases of general intelligence are SAT scores, then this would clearly have a negative impact on certain minorities and women.  I'm not sure where this research is going, but I hope it's not going where I think it's going....
D'oh!

(see AnoushehAnsari.com)
The IQ differences seem somewhat inconsequential, being only a few points. That point difference is easily overcome by diligence and other personality traits, or likewise negated by lack of ambition when it comes to performance bayond testing. I've long believed in the concept of EQ (emotional quotient) as a more accurate predictor of success in life. I think we determine our level of accomplishment independent of IQ. What a boring world it would be were men and women to possess the same talents.
If men are so smart, how come they can never find their own socks?
I think these test measurements leave out those who are truly "geniuses" in one particular area. Alot of these types that I have seen can do incredible things in a field like Medicine, Mathematics, Biology etc. yet have an incredibly hard time with the simple, ordinary tasks of everyday life (location of car keys, paying bills on time, etc.). "Eggheads" is the usual term applied to these people. I would be willing to bet some serious money that these people, who most consider "Geniuses", would come close to failing if not outright flagging any comprehensive intelligence testing. Yet their contributions have been invaluable. This commentary goes across genders. I would be very interested in overall intelligence testing results of both males and females that are of this personality and IQ type. I personally think alot of talent gets wasted because it is not nurtured as it should be.
From a Buddhist perspective, we all undergo social “conditioning” that - in affect - buries the true person we really are.  Girls are told to do girl things while guys are told to do theirs.  If you are born in a racist family you’ll likely be a racist…  Just as any American could be some extremist suicide bomber if they happened to be subjected to such extreme conditioning while being raised, so too can a extremist suicide bomber be a polite and calm member of society when brought up with that sort of conditioning.  There is no dividing line between race or sex.  It is all our conditioning!  

Buddhism (which is actually more like a psychology than a religion) has many ways to help adults see through past conditioning.  The meditational practice isn’t just to “calm nerves.”  By quieting the mind and by deliberately listening for the seed of subtle thoughts to emerge (thoughts that we always get caught up in without realizing), we can begin to at least see how (and what) our minds react to.  Is it really a subtle fear (which goes unnoticed) that causes us to think a certain way?  Seeing the very seed of even just one subtle thought is more important than any treasure on earth!

In the excellent documentary 1GiantLeap, several of the commentators suggested that even our very religions put women at a disadvantage.  In very ancient cultures (much as in Native American cultures) women were very highly regarded (most often the leaders and even god figures).

In my personal experience as a professional working for a rather large regional bank, I can tell you first hand that the women there were first rate and far keener than I’ll ever be.  There was a woman CEO in the company!  Both of my bosses were women who were remarkable at what they did!  It was amazing how absolutely professional they were.  

P.S.  I guess I got beyond some of my own “male conditioning” when I decided to learn how to design and sew outdoor survival clothing for myself!  My clothes are as well made as a NASA space suite and probably just as well designed.
IQ tests were designed by men. SAT tests, also designed by men (and by no means an IQ test, which should involve non-paper tasks), are a man's idea of intelligence. What about discerning when people are lying to you? Lying to themselves? What about figuring out how to care for a sick animal? Or negotiate bus transportation in a land where you don't speak the language? What about time management?

What is "intelligence" but a judgement based on your values, and therefore a subjective measure.

By the way..I love math and engineering (did better than at least 90% of the boys I went to University with, and a lot of them cheated besides) and scored 96% percentile on an LSAT. So I have fun with tests of IQ. They're entertainment... but don't mean much in the real world.

Shouldn't a test of intelligence *really* be your ability to find happiness, peace, and contentment? Can rocket science ever really match up to that?
Tim, I'd like to expand on your comment if I may.  Native Americans would tell people that we are "all" gifted, or have our own "medicine" to offer in life - usually in some specific field or in some specific way.  Many people do find this talent and make the most of it while others turn away from their “inner calling” and go about doing something they really weren't meant to.  It's not exactly scientific, but following our "gut feeling" is one of the most important things we can do in life as it leads us to where we need to go and what we need to do.  It is (what they called) your direct link to god and/or the spirit world.
Men are genius's in getting women to wait on them and sweet talking their way into bed with them.Otherwise individual intelligence rules!!!
Standardized tests measure performance, preparation, experience - not intelligence.  Scores on such tests can be correlated with success in various endeavors or ability to perform certain types of tasks - but that's not intelligence.  The effects of socialization on standardized test scores dwarf the effects of intelligence differences.  Any research which attempts to draw conclusions about intelligence based on standardized tests is fundamentally flawed.  Even citing IQ as a measure of intelligence is based on the unproven assumption that IQ tests accurately measure intelligence.
I'm male - so I'm supposed to have inferior verbal skills?  Yet I test in the top 5% nationally in standardized tests of verbal skills.  Women have inferior spatial skills?  I'll put Mia Hamm up against most men.  Averages are statistical constructs; people are individuals.  When I hire, I hire smart people - but I don't look for IQ tests, I decide if they're smart enough by talking to them - and although being smart is important, it's not as important as being competent and sociable, knowing you don't know it all and being willing to learn more.  When my company gives applicants tests, they're not intelligence tests, they're experience tests.  If you say you're a C++ programmer, we find out how much you know about it, and how experienced you are at using various features of the language, with a dose of, "How would you attack a problem like this?"  We don't check your college grades, or standardized test scores. And you only need look around our office to see that if you can do the work, it doesn't matter what skin color, nationality or gender you are.  Any "scientific" attempts to determine whether men are marginally more "intelligent" than women - or vice versa - is wasted.  What's the point? The results of such a study, even if it were absolutely definitive, would also be absolutely useless.
When I got my degree in social psychology 40 years ago, I had the privilege of studying briefly with Yuri Bronfenbrenner, and something he said has stayed with me all my life.  We had been reviewing "scientific" "studies" of racial differences, and learning to identify all the flaws in the various studies.  But at one point he held up a sheaf of papers and said, "All this work, just to try to prove that blacks are genetically different from whites." He paused.  "Of course they are!" he burst out.  "In case you haven't noticed, their skins are black!  The real question is, what difference does it make?"
2 of 3 grad Alumni and 3 of 4 current grad students in my small Planetary Science program are women. I've worked with most of them, and MY observation (admittedly from a small 'sample size') is that as far as math/science ability goes, the barrier is almost all cultural-expectation -based, and NOT capability -based.

JM has right that "Total intelligence is nebulous at best in definition". I would go further and say that it's not measurable, or even relevant. I have noticed NO CORRELATION between real research ability, and IQ  SAT or GRE tests. JE has right the fact that "IQ" is NO indicator of research-science ability. I've known a number of very 'smart' people, who were abysmal failures at scientific research (read: 'original thought'). And several others, with 'low' "test" scores, who were whizzes at identifying the important aspects of problems, then 'solving' them.

Tim-aus-GA has right the fact that the LACK of committed mentorship, FROM AN EARLY AGE is a major reason why the scientific talents of fully 1/2 our population wither on the vine, and get "wasted".

However, I'm also sure that "forcing" this issue (as in 'directing education $$ at it') is the wrong answer. Rather, more people in the scientific community have to be more giving of their time and encouragement to youngsters who have such interests EARLY (ie. in grade school). Left untended such interests fade before high school.....unfortunately I must, so far, include myself in this neglect.
Whether one gender is more or less intelligent than the other might be a trivial question. The true concept is that both brains are different and not only in anatomical terms (mass for example).

We know that the brain works via electro-chemicals and we also know that each gender has it's own set of specific chemicals (testosterone, etc.) so why given different sets of chemicals that are used to trigger our reactions, would there be the same results?

Now whether this chemical difference makes one gender be more spatial and the other more verbal, it also give the biological differences that makes us different, unique but also complement to one another.

I guess the idea is that we're much better together.
Using SAT scores, I'd expect this result.  Sat scores are in part a result of the education system which still contains a gender bias in it.  This may simply be a reflection of the gender bias of the system itself.
As Deborah Blum pointed out, the variability of scores within each group (male and female) is far greater than the difference of the averages. That means that an individual woman may be a genius in spatial abilities, and an individual man may be a genius in verbal abilities. Therefore,  while all of these studies are very interesting, they are worthless in predicting the capabilities of an individual male, female, black, or caucasian. A person must be evaluated as an individual, not as a member of a group.
I.Q., per se, is not measurable.  While it is true that performance on I.Q. and Achievement tests can predict with good reliability the ability to perform academically, there are so many other areas of the brain and proclivities of the psyche for which there are no current reliable tests. While academic achievement is of high value to the professional scholar, just glance at the areas of intelligence for which there are not at this time any standardized tests.

I was a high school teacher, a business college instructor, headmistress of a private school, and did Complete Psychological Evaluations for students in a nearby school system.  I administered individual I.Q. tests:  Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale [WAIS], Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children {WISC], Wide Range Achievement Test, applied Jastac Analysis to further score the three preceding tests.   I administered the Bender Motor Gestalt Test; the Rorschach Test; Incomplete Sentence Test; Draw-a-Picture, Draw-a-Person, Draw-a-House Test; and sometime several other tests to derive individually from the student his/her areas of possibly healthful, advantageous strengths or even crippling, detrimental weaknesses which might affect their scholastic potentials.  Of course, the latter tests I mentioned measured certain personality and other factors which could have a profound influence upon the individual students' academic success.  

These tests were valuable in that they were of tremendous value in addressing each individual student's needs and academic potential.  I would select learning materials for the students and instruct the teachers in how to teach each student.  If psychological problems presented themselves on the tests, I then worked with (or had another psychologist work with) those students, with the goal being to address and, hopefully, mollify any psychological or personality problems.  I would draw the parents into the entire teaching/psychological process so that they would be fully aware of what and how achievement goals could be reached.  I also made recommendations to Mental Health and to Psychiatrists.

From my own perspective and experience I have found that "Individual one-on-one testing--" not the "Paper" (i.e. group testing referred to above)-- is by far the most valuable assessment tool.

Race has nothing, whatsoever, to do with intelligence.  Sex does seem in many cases to make a difference--not in the measureable overall I.Q., but in some personality factors.  All of this goes back to the genes, the early and continuous healthy interaction of the family with the child--particularly in speaking, vocabulary, reading, counting fingers and toes, in counting the numbers of objects in any surroundings.

What can parents do to help their children achieve their full potential?  Parents who read to their children, tell stories to them, take them to the library to select books to read, build a home library to be of interest "from the cradle to the grave," take the child on outings to examine the world of their surroundings, teach them to count money, take them to store to help name and select their favorite items, interact with the child about the sure-to-be-asked "what's, "hows," "whys," "whens," "where's" of whatever object or subject is at hand.  See to it that your child learns "manners," courtesies, respect, faith, trust.  Teach them how to be glad and to cheer on the winner, when their child is the loser.  Teach them to honor all colors and hues of skin, hair, and eyes.  Since God made us all so different, He must love the many colors and kinds of people He has made.  

Despite what the President of Harvard University  blurted out concerning the strengths and weaknesses of males compared to females, we each have our own talents that God gave especially to us.  It is up to the child to use the talents God has given him/her.  Throughout history, until after WWII, the father was usually the breadwinner, and the mother was the homemaker.  Little girls play with dolls and pretend they are "mommies."  Little boys love to "rat-a-tat-tat" with a toy, or imaginary, gun.  Girls love to push their dolls in the tiny stroller.  Boys are intent upon building tree-houses.  All of these interests overlap in childhood between the genders, of course.  I bought a boy doll for my son, who enjoyed it somewhat for a few months; then shortly, he ignored the doll altogether and centered on playing with his toy soldiers, utilizing the backyard clubhouse and playground we had built for him.   He later became a U.S. Marine and is  now a banker.    Later we had a daughter, who was a “girly girl,” but she also played cowboys and Indians.  She went into a Social Service career.  None of us has ever gained national or international stature.  

Both of our children, as well as my husband and I, score in the top 1% - 3% of the population on the Wechsler and Wide Range Achievement tests named above.  None of us ever achieved the status of a Colin Powell, an Albert Einstein, a Werner Von Braun, the Wright Brothers, Booker T. Washington, Nelson Mandella, or Eleanor Roosevelt.  Yet we live happy, productive lives, enjoy many friends and activities, have various hobbies, and have a sound faith in God.

I repeat:  There are so many areas of the mind for which there are no standardized tests.  What about Creativity?  Humor?  Compassion?  Unselfishness?  Persistence?  Moral Values?  Ingenuity?  Imagination? Cleverness?  Giftedness in art, music, dance, writing?  Loving children, spouse, elderly, downtrodden, poor, sick, ugly, hopeless, helpless?  Talent for the military, economics, government?  

How do some poor children, like Bill Clinton, get Rhodes Scholarships and become Governor of Arkansas, then a two-term President of the USA?  How does a single tiny man like Mahatma Ghandi inspire millions of his native people to make a "March to the Sea for Salt?"  How does a pastor of a medium sized Baptist church in Atlanta rise to the national focus to help bring his people striding freely, without demonstrating any violence, into the mainstream of American life?  How could a man named Will Rogers who was part Native American, part Caucasian, bring so much homespun joy and mirth to a young radio nation?  There are no tests that these people took which would indicate what their contributions to society would be.  Not everything can be tested--not yet, anyway.  And would we actually WANT tests for everything?  

Doctors and scientists are delving into the workings of the human brain, just as divers are scouring the stygian darkness of the ocean's bottom discovering a dark world of sea life that we had no idea existed.   So man continues his quest to explore--the universe, the flora and fauna in the exploited and ravished rain forests of the earth.  Were "The Gentle Tasaday" on their own island in the Pacific the very last-to-be-discovered race on earth?  Remember Ishi, the "Last Wild Indian in North America" of the Yahi tribe who was found alone in hiding in California?  (He, like the Elephant Man in England, was cared for in safety until his death in the early 1900's.  All of these people had worth and did not take intelligence tests.  But each was of inestimable value to his Maker as well as to mankind in general.

Exploration, documentation, experimentation, further mapping and evaluation of the human brain is a relatively new frontier of science.  I feel that it is imperative to delve as deeply as possible into this mysterious organ of the body.  This article and interactive diagram of the brain on MSNBC’s web page is something that many teachers should utilize in their classrooms as an instructional tool.  
Are 4 or 5 IQ points really statistically significant?  For that matter, is the SAT really the best way to measure IQ?  I mean, come on- Mensa doesn't even use it anymore in its admission requirements.
Look at the person, not what someone else tells you to observe about them.  Individual variability is the crucial thing.  Don't believe me, then talk to the survivors of the Black Plague!  It is a spectrum of capability.

Applies to minds and response to allergens equally well.
When pondering over this question, nearly every beer commercial I've ever seen pops into my mind. You know, the ones featuring the 18-year-old blonde with rubber breasts who silently says to her male viewing public "If you drink this brand of beer, I'll have sex with you!" Gee, am I dumber than my male couterparts? Ummmmmm... no.
I agree, we are different and women do mature earlier than man.
But, before do any study like that, think where this will guide us to.
Give more attention to boys at school? No, because all kids should be treat equally, and more attention only to the child who has trouble understanding, no matter boy or girl.
Choose weather man or woman should be hired for specific jobs? I don't think so, because everyone is good at something, no matter male or female, only skills and desire are important.
Family? Definitely not, if study shows that man are smarter, it will give advantage for them to use it against woman in revelation ship, which will affect the kids in future. It is important that father and mother are equal in parenthood, if mother said no, father should give the same answer and otherwise. A lot of women are suffering from that already! Father comes home, spoils mothers rules and there is no respect from kids for the rest of the time toward her. Finally, kids are growing up with out any respect and morality, that’s when all your intelligent going down generation after generation.

It is an interesting study, just to show that woman’s and man’s brain's react differently, and we are different, inside and out! But no one could say that one sex is smarter than another, the only use will be for this study is to set a fight between both genders, which doesn’t make any sense.
Behind every male there's a female that makes things happen. Mother,sister,wife,grandmother.
Who cares if men are smarter? Women are still better looking!
I have a 165 IQ, however that is not a factor that will determine my success.  Hard work usually wins.  The IQ seems to be more related to finding different solutions quicker, not necessarily having a "correct" answer.  Overall, the observation that women are better at long term ratings and men are better at final exam type situations seems to be obvious from what I have seen and shows the difference in male and female focus.  From the research I have seen, most men do better on IQ tests (final exam type tests) versus actual school grades (long term ratings).  We need to keep this is mind when taking ACT/SAT exams as equal or better in importance to overall GPA.
I still think we haven't adequately defined what intelligence is. Scientists talk about a "g" factor, but what is it really, and how do we accurately test the inner workings of a brain? Although I think most of us know an intelligent person when we see one, there is a lot of inaccuracy on IQ tests. I have known people who are extremely bright, getting multiple advanced degrees and who have incredible thought processes who have scored in the average to even low average range on IQ tests - 97, 98, etc.

Finally, is it really relevant? A 4-point difference in IQ scores is not going to make a difference in anyone's life. The most successful people are those that use the best of their abilities combined with good sense, intuition, imagination, organization, and emotional intelligence. These people appear brightest regardless of their actual score on a test.

As a woman and an engineer, I've seen how the encouragement of parents can contribute significantly to the development of "opposite" traits in men and women. My engineer father recognized early on that his daughter, not either of his two sons, had ability and interest in engineering-related work. My father encouraged my skills in these areas by including me in home repair projects, auto repair, etc. I also have exceptional verbal skills, which I may have been predisposed to because of being female.

I absolutely agree with JC's point about nurturing a child's interest/ability in "hard" sciences at a very early age. It surely worked with me. Some specialty organizations, such as the Society of Women Engineers and the National Society of Black Engineeers, are trying to reach children in underrepresented groups in engineering, but it is only a drop in the bucket.

As the mother of a 9-year-old girl with exceptional spatial skills, I am doing my best, along with my "people person" husband, to encourage my daughter to use and expand her abilities. With good mentoring, the intelligence advantage men have, real or perceived, becomes mute.

- Amy Townsend, Birmingham, Alabama

I am in mensa, but I only scored a 1250 on my SAT's.  What does that mean?  In general I would say that means I am lazy, so it’s a good thing I pick things up so quickly or I would be in bad shape career wise.  I also have a bit of an attention problem, but this could stem from boredom.  As I remember a lot of the SAT's related to vocabulary which is memorization.  A vocabulary test is not a measure of intelligence; it just shows who has been doing their homework.  Believe me when I tell you that I missed more than one assignment.  There have been cases of self taught mathematicians who developed their knowledge base without outside influence.  This speaks to the fact that math is the universal language.  Spoken language and vocabulary will be developed differently every time you rerun man's evolution.  Men and women have different genitals which is a fact, the rest of this is speculation.  I love my wife more than anything and it has a lot more to do with her heart(AKA personality, relax scientists!) than her brain.  
These "scientific studies" are based on the assumption that IQ or SAT (Achievement) testing really do measure "intelligence". Intelligence tests were written by psychologists--not by mathematicians, or engineers, or physicists. There is no hard science here, folks.

Minorities score an average of 15 points lower than their white counterparts on "IQ" tests. Anyone who doesn't have problem with that difference on a so called intelligence test needs to re-examine their own intelligence...think about it.

Now, one of my favorite examples for the lay person on what an abysmal failure an IQ test really is at measuring intelligence:

Two children score identically in the 98th percentile on timed block design. One child played with blocks on a daily basis, while the other never played with blocks in her life. What did this test result really tell you? You see, there is no indication on the test that one child played with blocks for the first time in her life that day. Just a number on a psuedo-science test. I ask you, what result would you consider remarkable compared with the other? OH, that's right, there is no measure of that.

-AM Mazur
First of all 4-5 IQ points is statistically insignificant when compared with average IQ. In fact it becomes even less significant as the IQ increases above average. While IQ is somewhat of a predictor of potential to do a function and the higher the IQ the more likely the person is able accomplish the task and do it in less time than someone with a lower IQ, 4-5 point advantage does not out-way training, experience or attitude of the person slated to perform the task. So why are we even concerned with this?

Secondly there is an inherent problem with the IQ test sort of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - Time. Time is a factor of the test, a set number of questions in a given amount of time. Not only do the correct answers factor in but the number of questions the test subject completed in a given time weighs in. The test is designed to basically measure two things, General comprehension of a subject (i.e. Math, Verbal) and comprehension rate.  Since rate is one of the desired measurements we are looking for you cannot exclude time from the factor. Any factor that expresses a rate has to have time in the equation or it ceases to be a rate measurement. But time in this case is actually affected by two things. Rate of comprehension (which the test is trying to measure) and calculation speed (processor speed). This is where the time index gets a little sticky.

Ok so mathematically the calculation is correct as designed, but you have to take into consideration that two distinct biological populations are being measured. What if the female brain simply has slightly slower synapse or neural transmitter speed than the male brain? Sort of like comparing a 2ghz processor with a 1.9ghz processor. Both can run the exact same calculation and return the same correct answer but one with do it slightly faster. Or perhaps the algorithms that men use to calculate a math problem are different than women. Sort of like programming a computer to do a series of calculations in two different programming languages. Both will return the correct answer (assuming no programming logic errors) but because of differences in the compiler algorithms, the speed of output will be different even if run on the same machine.

Now does this change the results of the study? No. But society tends to take the acronym IQ and substitute it with the word smart (or dumb as the case may be).  These words do not measure a person’s ability to do a job but instead project society’s perception of a person’s worth to society.  Because of this perception it would be better to study the actual physical/chemical/electrical processing of each brain (male/female) and then adjust the timing index to compensate for distinct biological differences. I understand the there is nothing wrong with the science, but when science can influence societies perception and peoples lives, science needs to factor in the socio-political factor and adjust its reporting to show this. It would be totally unfair to women to suggest that men’s brains are superior just because of physiological difference. Whether you believe in evolution, in which case nature made the difference because it was superior for the survival, or you believe in God and creation, the difference was planned and therefore has to be factored.

I, being male can help make a baby but I can’t gestate one. Does this make me inferior? Some would argue it does. Some would argue “why in the world would you want that pain that goes with that process?” and suggest that that makes men superior. Neither is correct. Men and women are different in many ways and that is very much by design.

So factor that difference, understand that difference and celebrate that difference. viva la diferance!  
Who the F cares what what a study says.  Aren't any of you smart enough to see the effects of intelligence in your daily lives.

I come across more dumbassess every week.  There's no end to them.  Not the least of which are the people that spent time and money on this study.  Gimme a freaking break!
I am very skeptical of many of these tests as they are developed by people who bring with them their own experiences, training and--too often-- prejudices. Thus, how about a study about the gender AND race AND ethnicity of the people who design all of these "tests" (IQ, SAT, ACT, etc.)? The biases inherent in the development of these tests should/cannot be underestimated.
i laughed when i read ms. blum's comment "i get really tired of people telling me that."

she sounds just like my wife!  and i don't often hear a man employing that phrase.

indicative.  typical verbalism from a woman.

as if saying were doing.
I think its far more useful to us to begin studying the human brain in regards to the direction they will take as our societies become more gender integrated. How will these pre-existing differences evolve toward a common structure as the necessity for both genders to possess much in the same properties increases?
Smarter than what?
The nature of intelligence is subjective, with nuances that cannot be captured with filling in bubbles with a number 2 pencil.
Boys Rule!
I have given over 2000 intelligence tests in schools.  They usually measure both verbal and nonverbal abilities.  The verbal scores tend to be good predictors of academc success in school most of the time.  However, intelligence tests don't measure motivation, self-responsibility, one's ability to relate to another, or the willingness to apply oneself and use the ability that they have.  These factors are also important to one's success both in school and afterwards. And by the way, I still don't know what real intelligence is.  Perhaps it's the ability to be successful in whatever endeavor one undertakes.
If men are smarter, why do they start wars?
"If men are so smart, then how come they can never find their socks?"

Maybe the men (man) that can't "find" their socks are smarter because they can get women (or woman) to do it for them. I have no trouble finding my socks.

Men and women are different. Does it really matter if women are smarter than men or men smarter than women on an average basis? I don't think it does.

Remember that intelligence tests are human artifacts and have flaws. I doubt that a test given to American subjects would be exactly the same (other than language) as one given to Russian subjects or Taiwanese subjects or Maori subjects. So, variation of a few points in an IQ test is hardly significant.
What needs to be taken into consideration is that Test Taking is a skill just like any other - some people are better at it than others.

I am also amazed that the military's use of "g" is trotted out as justification for its validity!
Why does one sex have to be better than the other? Are we THAT insecure? I do not personally believe that life is a competition.

There's a big difference between people who can solve problems and people who can't...a difference which goes much deeper than gender or race.
These IQ tests are meaningless. So I can multiply faster than you can and have an impressive vocabulary. Im a programmer, I've got my degrees and certifications and all the trappings that come along with it (read I'm in debt up to my eyeballs). My 'dumb as rocks'  friend, couldnt get into  a real college ( those pesky SATs) , went to community college years later when the job required it, works construction ,now a foreman ( read set with low debt and a georgeous wife that cooks to boot).Now,  I know financial status isnt everything but if you ask me he's the genius. $30,000 worth of loans, craming and reciting meaningless facts to code heads down for a company probably logging this as I write. I'll say it again; SATs, IQ tests are meaningless to your sucess in the real world.    
One element was missing from this report - Are these results statistically significant? There is always a margin of error in IQ tests. Also my understanding of the SAT is that it is an aptitude or achievement test, not an IQ test. Although they may appear to be similar, they have been designed for different purposes and are not intended to be used interchangeably. As a female working on a Ph.D. in a field of research, the information provided in this article leaves more questions than answers.
Are men smarter than women?  Are bananas fruitier than oranges?  Both function as they're made to do.  The attempt to quantify and compare fundamentally different entities on a questionable construct, and then act as though the results are meaningful is wreckless.  Bananas are brilliant bananas and oranges are bright oranges.  Comparing them on "fruitiness" diminishes the wonderfulness of both.  
Intelligence is in the eye of the beholder.  The whole idea of assigning a score to someone based on the results of a test is nothing more than an attempt to put a concrete number on an abstract concept.  What's next, an "art quotient" that gives the Mona Lisa a 120, and the Sistine Chapel a 135?
A few points doesn't make a big difference, especially when it comes to what people DO.  I don't mind.  I'll just keep doing the best I can.
This should really be a non-issue.  Some of us are bigger, some smaller.  Some of us are heavier, some lighter.  Some of us are smarter, some not so smart.  What really matters is that we should be evaluated as individuals because, of all the people I've met, none was average.
Are men smarter than women?

Has everyone forgotten that famous study conducted way back when-around the time of Adam and Eve I believe-This study simply asked the question “if a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear him, is he still wrong?”  Well talk about conclusive results- 99.9999% of woman world wide replied with an emphatic yes! Given such results how can we possibly think were smarter –come on guys wise up.

Les L Baisi
If men and women are truly different both physically AND mentally, then perhaps the Supreme Court should revisit the question of federal and/or state support of single sex education programs to focus efforts in the classroom on a specific gender, both to encourage areas where the gender excels and to focus on areas where the gender has a disadvantage (the spatial/verbal issue).  Since it's a known fact that men and women are different, it begs the question as to why the US Supreme Court fails to consider single sex education programs a compelling reason for exception from gender "discrimination", which these programs are not.

Is superior education a "compelling" reason, Supremes?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=3075

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google