Men are more intelligent than women, claims new study.

[bugman]

It is research that is guaranteed to delight men - and infuriate the women in their lives. A controversial new study has claimed that men really are more intelligent than women.

The study - carried out by a man - concluded that men's IQs are almost four points higher than women's.

British-born researcher John Philippe Rushton, who previously created a furore by suggesting intelligence is influenced by race, says the finding could explain why so few women make it to the top in the workplace.

He claims the 'glass ceiling' phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence, rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity.

The University of Western Ontario psychologist reached his conclusion after scrutinising the results of university aptitude tests taken by 100,000 students aged 17 and 18 of both sexes.

A focus on a factors such as the ability to quickly grasp a complex concept, verbal reasoning skills and creativity - some of they key ingredients of intelligence - revealed the male teenagers had IQs that were an average of 3.63 points higher. The average person has an IQ of around 100.

The findings, which held true for all classes and levels of parental education, overturn a 100 year consensus that men and women average the same in general mental ability. They also conflict with evidence that girls do better in school exams than boys.

But Prof Rushton, who was born in Bournemouth and obtained his doctorate in social psychology from the London School of Economics, argues that the faster maturing of girls leads to them outshining boys in the classroom.

And since almost all previous data showing an absence of difference between the sexes was gathered on schoolchildren, the gender difference could easily have been missed.

'It looks like up until late adolescence, the females have the advantage over males because they mature faster, which masks the underlying difference, he said.

Although experts have accepted that men and women differ mentally, with males averaging higher on tests of 'spatial ability' and females higher on verbal tests, it was assumed the differences averaged out, leaving no difference in overall intelligence.

Prof Rushton believes the differences are directly linked to brain size, with other studies showing men having slightly bigger brains than women.

'We know that men have larger brains, even when you take into account larger body size,' said the researcher. 'That means there are more neurons. The question is what these neurons are doing in a man - and they probably have an advantage in processing information.'

It is thought the difference may date back to the Stone Age, with women seeking out men who are more intelligent than them in a bid to pass on the best genes to their children.

'Some people have suggested it evolved because women prefer men who are more intelligent than they are for husbands,' said the professor.

'Just as they prefer men who are taller than them, they also prefer a male who is a little ahead of them in IQ.'

Critics claim Prof Rushton's results could have been skewed by the inclusion of more test results from females than form males.

Prof Rushton, who four years ago triggered a scientific row by claiming intelligence and behaviour are influenced by race, with blacks being more likely to be involved in crime and Asians having a greater chance of high IQs, however, stands by his results.

'These are unpopular conclusions,' he said. 'People should not be made to feel afraid to study controversial issues.

'We have the right to find the truth. One should really look at the facts.'

His work appears to confirm British research which showed men have bigger brains and higher IQs than women, which may explain why chess grandmasters and geniuses are more likely to be male.

The analyses of more than 20,000 verbal reasoning tests taken by university students from around the world revealed that women's IQs are up to five points lower than men's .

Women needn't feel despondent, however, as the scientists believe women can achieve just as much as men - as long as they work harder.

[milk]

The study - carried out by a man

Hmmmm.

[ThisGuyIKnow]

The study carried out by a man, using a test written by a man

[harper]

Who makes IQ tests and what do they mean? Don't get me wrong, I will enjoy the outrage caused by such a publication as much as you will. I like watching hyper-sensitized people hit the roof over meaningless measurements. It just doesn't really mean anything except men score measureably higher on an IQ test. It doesn't mean they are more intelligent. What is intelligence?

(Hint: don't look for it in MR.)

[bugman]

Never posted in MR. Not Once.

[monkeyman]

Yeah, me neither.

It's an interesting study...and not just because it proves that men are better...everyone already knew that anyway. :rolleyes:

This must be why there are more male unicyclists!


yes, I'm kidding....

[UniBrier]

It is thought the difference may date back to the Stone Age, with women seeking out men who are more intelligent than them in a bid to pass on the best genes to their children.Hmmm... (http://www.sosuave.com/romance/david/art61.htm)

[bugman]

Hmmm... (http://www.sosuave.com/romance/david/art61.htm)

More intelligent, not super duper intelligent.;)

[vuniw]

pwnage by the men

[unisteez]

womens brains are 1/3 the size of a mans brain. it's science..duh:rolleyes:

[johnfoss]

Never posted in MR. Not Once.
Me either. I waste enough time on these forums and reply enough already.

I'm not going to show that one to Jacquie, who owns her own "glass ceiling" and pushes it up as high as she chooses to go. What I do know is that when a thought travels through a male brain, even if it ends up at the exact same place as the same thought in a female brain, the route it took to get there is totally different.

[JJtheunicycle]

the only place women should be is in the kitchen!














just kidding

[Gilby]

the only place women should be is in the kitchen! Wow... thus disproving the original point mentioned in this post. Thanks for ruining it for the rest of the Y chomosome advantaged individuals.

[JJtheunicycle]

Wow... thus disproving the original point mentioned in this post. Thanks for ruining it for the rest of the Y chomosome advantaged individuals.
im not gonna ask cuz itll make things worse...:p

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

the only place women should be is in the kitchen!

That reminds me of a Slowpoke comic I saw once where sombody said "A woman's God-given place is at home in the kitchen, MAKING ME SNICKERDOODLES!"

[cathwood]

Like his earlier research I don't understand the point behind it. Who does this benefit, how will it help anybody? Seems that just to say nuh, nuh, nunuh, nuh (sp?) isn't justification for research. I wonder who funded it.

Besides which, there is a lot more to intelligence than just intelligence tests. There's how you use it. For instance I would have thought that my husband is more intelligent than me. Although he hasn't reached such a high academic level I'm sure he could if he wanted to. He has been able to get all his studies paid for whilst I have paid for my own. He has more confidence in his abilites and knowledge than I have (in fact the more I learn the less I seem to know). I'm also a bit scatty and a bit dyslexic. However in every Test the Nation quiz I have come out consistently aprox 5 points higher than him. (Which ofcourse drives him mad, especially the one about the TV cos I never watch it and he's an addict).

So my main points are 1) So what? and 2) it's not that simple.

Cathy

[jake_amos]

It is research that is guaranteed to delight men - and infuriate the women in their lives. A controversial new study has claimed that men really are more intelligent than women.

The study - carried out by a man - concluded that men's IQs are almost four points higher than women's.

British-born researcher John Philippe Rushton, who previously created a furore by suggesting intelligence is influenced by race, says the finding could explain why so few women make it to the top in the workplace.

He claims the 'glass ceiling' phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence, rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity.

The University of Western Ontario psychologist reached his conclusion after scrutinising the results of university aptitude tests taken by 100,000 students aged 17 and 18 of both sexes.

A focus on a factors such as the ability to quickly grasp a complex concept, verbal reasoning skills and creativity - some of they key ingredients of intelligence - revealed the male teenagers had IQs that were an average of 3.63 points higher. The average person has an IQ of around 100.

The findings, which held true for all classes and levels of parental education, overturn a 100 year consensus that men and women average the same in general mental ability. They also conflict with evidence that girls do better in school exams than boys.

But Prof Rushton, who was born in Bournemouth and obtained his doctorate in social psychology from the London School of Economics, argues that the faster maturing of girls leads to them outshining boys in the classroom.

And since almost all previous data showing an absence of difference between the sexes was gathered on schoolchildren, the gender difference could easily have been missed.

'It looks like up until late adolescence, the females have the advantage over males because they mature faster, which masks the underlying difference, he said.

Although experts have accepted that men and women differ mentally, with males averaging higher on tests of 'spatial ability' and females higher on verbal tests, it was assumed the differences averaged out, leaving no difference in overall intelligence.

Prof Rushton believes the differences are directly linked to brain size, with other studies showing men having slightly bigger brains than women.

'We know that men have larger brains, even when you take into account larger body size,' said the researcher. 'That means there are more neurons. The question is what these neurons are doing in a man - and they probably have an advantage in processing information.'

It is thought the difference may date back to the Stone Age, with women seeking out men who are more intelligent than them in a bid to pass on the best genes to their children.

'Some people have suggested it evolved because women prefer men who are more intelligent than they are for husbands,' said the professor.

'Just as they prefer men who are taller than them, they also prefer a male who is a little ahead of them in IQ.'

Critics claim Prof Rushton's results could have been skewed by the inclusion of more test results from females than form males.

Prof Rushton, who four years ago triggered a scientific row by claiming intelligence and behaviour are influenced by race, with blacks being more likely to be involved in crime and Asians having a greater chance of high IQs, however, stands by his results.

'These are unpopular conclusions,' he said. 'People should not be made to feel afraid to study controversial issues.

'We have the right to find the truth. One should really look at the facts.'

His work appears to confirm British research which showed men have bigger brains and higher IQs than women, which may explain why chess grandmasters and geniuses are more likely to be male.

The analyses of more than 20,000 verbal reasoning tests taken by university students from around the world revealed that women's IQs are up to five points lower than men's .

Women needn't feel despondent, however, as the scientists believe women can achieve just as much as men - as long as they work harder.

you my good man are treading on thin ice

[brownboy13]

I agree with Amos. I linked my girlfriend to this post and she's already ready to rip ur limbs off nd decapitate u. I suggest u run away. Quickly

[Borges]

Stirring the pot again are we?
I'm beginning to think bugman and Billy_The_Mountain are one and the same. ;)

[jake_amos]

for some reason i used to think that nut iunnno anymore

[jake_amos]

I agree with Amos. I linked my girlfriend to this post and she's already ready to rip ur limbs off nd decapitate u. I suggest u run away. Quickly

kate is gonna think your even more weirdly obsessed with unis now

[iridemymuni]

women must be more intelligent than men.

i mean, cause the women invited the lightbulb and flew into space first, right?

hah!



that wasnt supposed to be sexist. please don't get offended :p

[BillyTheMountain]

Prof Rushton, who four years ago triggered a scientific row by claiming intelligence and behaviour are influenced by race, with blacks being more likely to be involved in crime and Asians having a greater chance of high IQs, however, stands by his results.


Bugman,

Please do not pay any attention to this oddball. Nobody else does.

One thing it does reveal is that he lacks the intelligence to understand his research results, and that the press is understandably duped by a charletan again.

For him, the operational definition of intelligence is the score on an IQ test.

But everyone knows that's a very poor operational definition.

Everyone knows this research is a waste of someone's money and time. No one in their right mind would fund it. Even if it were true, you cannot do anything with the results. There are still many women more intelligent than you and me (Remember: I couldn't pass the Mensa IQ test--just failed it AGAIN for the 25th time.....).

Spend the research money and effort to cure cancer, please. Something useful, please.

[Borges]

But everyone knows that's a very poor operational definition.

But it's also the best we've got if you need a measurement.

[bugman]

Bugman,

Please do not pay any attention to this oddball. Nobody else does.

One thing it does reveal is that he lacks the intelligence to understand his research results, and that the press is understandably duped by a charletan again.

For him, the operational definition of intelligence is the score on an IQ test.

But everyone knows that's a very poor operational definition.

Everyone knows this research is a waste of someone's money and time. No one in their right mind would fund it. Even if it were true, you cannot do anything with the results. There are still many women more intelligent than you and me (Remember: I couldn't pass the Mensa IQ test--just failed it AGAIN for the 25th time.....).

Spend the research money and effort to cure cancer, please. Something useful, please.


Come on Billy, this guy is a PHD, and a Professor. Should I listen to him, or a stock boy at Walmart.;) Crazy Walmart employee at that.

Definition of Crazy: Someone who does the same thing over and over and over, expecting a different result.

It's a good thing so many men have stepped up to comment and protect the women who according to this research are less capable of defending themselves.:confused:

Before I posted this I showed my wife who is also a very intelligent women, but likely not as smart as me.:D She said "Why do they always spend money on research to confirm that which is common knowledge?"

[tomtrevor]

all men and women are equal!

aren't they?

[BillyTheMountain]

Definition of Crazy: Someone who does the same thing over and over and over, expecting a different result.


A favorite quote of 12-steppers!

Thankfully, no one here truly takes this guy seriously.

But what a waste!

[ivan]

all men and women are equal!

aren't they?
Yes, but some are more equal than others...

[gollum89]

ok many might not like this but heres a funny one I recently heard

w.i.f.e.-> washing, ironing, f...., etc.

still I support that men and women, although not equal should have equal power and should be treated equal...

[bugman]

A favorite quote of 12-steppers!

Thankfully, no one here truly takes this guy seriously.

But what a waste!


I usually take two steps forward and three steps back. 12-steppers? A new dance.;)

[bugman]

Stirring the pot again are we?
I'm beginning to think bugman and Billy_The_Mountain are one and the same. ;)

Thanks for the compliment. But too many on this forum know both of us through unicycling gatherings. Though the two of us have never met, nor been in the same place at the same time, I am pretty sure we are two different people.

[BillyTheMountain]

Thanks for the compliment. But too many on this forum know both of us through unicycling gatherings. Though the two of us have never met, nor been in the same place at the same time, I am pretty sure we are two different people.

Even tho we're just the same in so many ways!

I'll never forget that first thread I met you on..... so long ago.

Formidable debating playmates we were.

[Zzagg]

Remember: I couldn't pass the Mensa IQ test--just failed it AGAIN for the 25th time.....I can't believe you tried it 25 times:(
That IS a waste of time if you ask me:o

[Borges]

Thanks for the compliment. But too many on this forum know both of us through unicycling gatherings. Though the two of us have never met, nor been in the same place at the same time, I am pretty sure we are two different people.
They could be in on your elaborate scheme, but I'll accept it as a working hypothesis until I can get real proof.

(If in doubt, don't take me seriously)

[BillyTheMountain]

I can't believe you tried it 25 times:(
That IS a waste of time if you ask me:o

I'm ashamed to admit it. The things I'll do do prove myself worthy.....

As if unicycling while juggling 3 clubs 11 miles isn't enough.....

[Zzagg]

The things I'll do do prove myself worthy.....Ohh I KNOW what you mean;) ...
I tease you though I have to admit I passed the online test in English AND french.:o
I would certainly have tried them a hundred times if the first results had not confirmed I'm soooo smart (consequently suuuuuuch a MAN):D :D :D :D :D
;)

[BillyTheMountain]

Ohh I KNOW what you mean;) ...
I tease you though I have to admit I passed the online test in English AND french

I bow to you!!!

[maestro8]

Prof Rushton believes the differences are directly linked to brain size, with other studies showing men having slightly bigger brains than women.
But we all know that size doesn't matter, it's what you do with it that does. ;)

[bugman]

But we all know that size doesn't matter, it's what you do with it that does. ;)

Very valid point. Makes you wonder if there is a success quotient. The idea of success is so hard to pinpoint, it may not be possible.

[Naomi]

Very valid point. Makes you wonder if there is a success quotient. The idea of success is so hard to pinpoint, it may not be possible.

In my experience a substantial component of success is related to confidence. In a number of areas I have demonstrated to my own satisfaction that if I approach somthing, sure that I will be able to do it, then I am more likely to succeed than if I approach the job with a negative attitude.

As regards IQ and IQ difference between the sexes. IQ is a measure of how good you are at doing a test that someone has decided measures IQ. Whether it accurately defineds intelligence depends on how good the test setters are at the job, and how well they have defined what they wish to test for. How THEY have defined intelligence. It is far more scientific than the "test the nation" claptrap, but is also in itself still imperfect. Apart from indicating how good you were at doing that test on that day, it also may provide an indication of how good you are likely to be at certain other problem solving and thinking processes. But there are other things needed in this life, many other important things.
Man initially evolved at a rate that suited prevailing conditions, and it is almost certain that the male, genetically tweaked to be bigger and stronger, did most of the hunting and therefore probably needed to do much of the thinking. As such this MIGHT have lead to an expected genetic component in the difference of IQ between the sexes, as measured by our good doctor.
I know it may annoy some people to hear it, but the sexes have evolved in specialist ways, and each has its own natural niches. And it will take a long time for our evolution to catch up to modern thinking about various "equalities".

Another factor affecting IQ is environment, and like it or not, women are still subjected in general to a slightly different environment to that experienced by men. That experience of life in itself, where you live, how you spend your time, who your friends are, has an effect on your environmental IQ component.

Does the research matter? Will it prove useful? Probably not greatly, but when was that a deterrent to research? I have just read that someone has researched sense of smell differences between left and right nostrils. Interesting research, but hardly likely to solve any of man's problems. But someone funded it, as they have funded many other areas of very trivial but often fascinating research.
Then of course the newspapers get hold of the story and print silly conclusions, or isolated extracts.
The reporter suggests that the fact that girls do better in school is evidence that the guy's research on IQ is wrong. Rubbish! Girls work harder in school, and it shows. And that is probably a factor in why their exam results are better, but likely has little to do with IQ. But such explanations grab smaller headlines, and sell more papers.

Nao

[cathwood]

I agree with most of the other things you said but this is wrong:


The reporter suggests that the fact that girls do better in school is evidence that the guy's research on IQ is wrong. Rubbish! Girls work harder in school, and it shows. And that is probably a factor in why their exam results are better, but likely has little to do with IQ. But such explanations grab smaller headlines, and sell more papers.

Nao

Actually in the standard IQ test (the WAIS) a good half of the sub tests are based on school learning. Consequently it correlates very highly with exam results.

I wonder what tests he did.

Cathy

[bugman]

I was anxiously waiting a reply from you Naomi. I enjoyed an appreciate your point of view on this topic. I was very curious how a women that is likely more intelligent than most men would approach the findings of a study like this. Thanks.

[BillyTheMountain]

Another factor affecting IQ is environment, and like it or not, women are still subjected in general to a slightly different environment to that experienced by men. That experience of life in itself, where you live, how you spend your time, who your friends are, has an effect on your environmental IQ component.
. Nao

And socioeconomic status--that's a big one in ALL the research, if they bother to look at it.

Power, Corruption, etc are also factors in Success, sad to say.....

[bugman]

And socioeconomic status--that's a big one in ALL the research, if they bother to look at it.

Power, Corruption, etc are also factors in Success, sad to say.....

Nothing like built in excuses for failure.

[tomtrevor]

Yes, but some are more equal than others...

whaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MORE EQUAL???????

[Naomi]

I was anxiously waiting a reply from you Naomi. I enjoyed an appreciate your point of view on this topic. I was very curious how a women that is likely more intelligent than most men would approach the findings of a study like this. Thanks.

Thankyou very much for that Bugman. It would have been very silly of me to have gone off half cocked and to rubbish the report. The guy is a very well known PhD and should know how to achieve a statistically significant result. He has achieved both critical and commendatory comment from many significant scientsts. One went so far as to suggest he should receive a Nobel prize. It is delicate subject matter that he chooses to research, and that will always attract negative comment from those who might interpret his results as being politically incorrect. That others offer acclaim suggests his work is also seriously considered as being accurate.

Interesting bit from Cathy there. The WAIS method. Well it is but one, and certainly far from being the only method to determine IQ, (and one I have no direct experience of.) My general understanding of IQ tests and my ideal test though, would be a test in which they try to exclude a person's knowledge level. Not to do so would result in the older entrants scoring far higher, although it could certainly be weighted in order to even out the advantage of knowledge gained with age. IQ is not about how much knowledge you have, more how you use it.

Girls & women, certainly in modern UK tend to do better at school, so if their success at school translates partly into their IQ scores, can we conclude that their base, uneducated genetic IQ level, is not on average just 3.6 points lower than that of their male counterparts, but actually even lower than that?

The above paragraph is of course some tongue in cheek speculation based on what WAIS apparently looks at, but paragraphs within this arena of content often contain very sensitive stuff for many, and that is probably why Rushton gets so much stick from some people. People see him as making politically incorrect statements. In reality he is just producing the results of some research into sensitive subjects. He has ventured into research areas that others have avoided: race and IQ, race and brain size, race and penis size being just a few. In my view there is probably little beneficial to be gained from most of his research though. It may be interesting, but unless it can be used for something useful all it does is provide discussion fodder. It is mainly harmless, unless seen and used by someone similar to Hitler, who might try to use it in nasty ways.


Nao

[BillyTheMountain]

The guy is a very well known PhD and should know how to achieve a statistically significant result.

Nao

Either you misspoke, or you're suggesting he could have stacked the deck and committed fraud.

On the other hand, scientists always discuss how you can get a statistically significant result, even when the difference in REALITY is NOT CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT. That is what happened in this case. He also took OLD well known data, and selected one age group where the difference is greatest BY CHANCE. I always wonder if these guys are just looking to stir up controversy, or they truly do ot have the sophisiticated understanding of a) the test specs and b) the concept of intelligence. Being a SOCIAL psychologist, and not a school or clinical psychologist, he's a bit out of his area of expertise, so I'll cut him some slack and not impugn him bad motives.

One easy way of getting statistical significance when there is no clinical significance is by increasing the N, or number of subjects in your sample. he did this.

PS Maybe if Mensa would follow the suggested procedure for admission to gifted programs, I could get in. For example: confidence interval a common use of the standard measure of error (SEM). To select students with a specific score within a 68% confidence interval, one must include all students who score more than the desired score minus the SEM for the test. To select students within a 90% confidence interval, one must include all students who score more than the desired [GIFTED] score minus 1.65 times the SEM for the test. This means when using screening tests to screen for giftedness with 68% confidence, the school must look at all students scoring 130 minus the SEM for the screening measure, or for 90% confidence, all students scoring 130 minus 1.65 times the SEM.

Google confidence interval IQ score and you'll find more about this....

[treepotato]

nnnnno

[BillyTheMountain]

nnnnno

Hi tree!!

Thanks for your response. I was feeling all alone out there, and even misunderstood. Good to know your there for me, and I really
like your avatar!

Billy

[treepotato]

Hi tree!!

Thanks for your response. I was feeling all alone out there, and even misunderstood. Good to know your there for me, and I really
like your avatar!

Billy

thakyso bud arent ayou a man anywae?

[BillyTheMountain]

thakyso bud arent ayou a man anywae?

Have another drink and get back to me on that one....

[Naomi]

Either you misspoke, or you're suggesting he could have stacked the deck and committed fraud.....



Either you misunderstood me, or you ignore the possibility that the guy is well able to ensure that the statistical methods he uses are valid, and as such lead to good conclusions.



PS Maybe if Mensa would follow the suggested procedure for admission to gifted programs, I could get in. For example: confidence interval a common use of the standard measure of error (SEM). To select students with a specific score within a 68% confidence interval, one must include all students who score more than the desired score minus the SEM for the test. To select students within a 90% confidence interval, one must include all students who score more than the desired [GIFTED] score minus 1.65 times the SEM for the test. This means when using screening tests to screen for giftedness with 68% confidence, the school must look at all students scoring 130 minus the SEM for the screening measure, or for 90% confidence, all students scoring 130 minus 1.65 times the SEM.

Google confidence interval IQ score and you'll find more about this....


SEMs work both ways, they allow people in who should be excluded and exclude some that should be included. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and only repeated testing of each individual will improve accuracy. The ideal is not to be able to pass ( or to fail) a one off test, but to establish a more accurate evaluation. Time and money.

I don't know whether you were joking when you suggested you had tried a large number of times to gain entry to Mensa, but if you had, and failed on each occasion, then your results would tend to suggest, statistically, that you were likely well below the required figure, and that should you eventually pass a test, then it could well be that you did it because you had a result at the top end of the spread on that day. Failing by a few points once does not guarantee an IQ below the required level, but failing by a few points several times makes it far more likely.
Keep trying and you may one day draw an ace, but would you have convinced yourself that overall it was deserved? ;-)

Nao

[cathwood]

Either you misunderstood me, or you ignore the possibility that the guy is well able to ensure that the statistical methods he uses are valid, and as such lead to good conclusions.

Nao[/COLOR]

Well you would think so wouldn't you? Unfortuntaly history can show us that whether people are able to do this or not, they don't always do it because it's more important to them to prove a point, become famous, etc. And the more qualified and well known you are the more likely that you will be able to get away with not being so rigorous as the rest of us researchers, who have our work scrutinised down to the last full stop.

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

Either you misunderstood me, or you ignore the possibility that the guy is well able to ensure that the statistical methods he uses are valid, and as such lead to good conclusions.

Keep trying and you may one day draw an ace, but would you have convinced yourself that overall it was deserved? ;-)

Nao

statistically valid conclusions are often not clinically significant, as in this case. These differences have been known for years, and are part of the validation efforts for every individually administered IQ test. Just pick up the manual for any test and see for yourself (Stanford-Binet; WISC; WAIS; etc.) They're just too small to be considered CLINICALLY significant.

Health fraud is rampant. Don't be so fast to choose laetrile for your cancer treatment, even after reading the research.

Thanks for the ?encouragement? :D

Billy

[BillyTheMountain]

The Concepts of Power Analysis: The power of a statistical test is the
probability that it will yield statistically significant results. Increasing the number of subjects ensures statistically significant results, even when the results are clinically meaningless.

Did you notice the huge N for the research sample?

[bugman]

I think IQ tests are biased against Walmart employees, or Walmart is biased against hiring MENSA members. Either way you have no chance.;)

[Naomi]

Well you would think so wouldn't you? Unfortuntaly history can show us that whether people are able to do this or not, they don't always do it because it's more important to them to prove a point, become famous, etc. And the more qualified and well known you are the more likely that you will be able to get away with not being so rigorous as the rest of us researchers, who have our work scrutinised down to the last full stop.

Cathy

I think it depends far more upon the results that come from the research, rather than how well known the researchers are. If someone comes up with a result, statistically valid, but likely to have a negligible effect on science and society, then it is hardly worthwhile anyone spending the time ticking every line of the work. (PhD students excepted). If however the research might have major significance, others will descend like vultures to try to confirm the work, to validate it and to repeat it. Cold Fusion, and the recent Korean cloning scandal are two well known incidents. IQ reseach is more likely to come under scrutiny to determine if it is politically correct to state the results publicly, whether anyone will be offended, and to determine why the research was necessary, should it have been done? Stay away from controversy and you can pretty much research what you want. Someone researched bath water, to try and determine why it seemed to go colder as you lay it it. He concluded it really did get colder. Although subjected to much press ridicule ( by reporters who may have cherry picked from his research), he offended no-one, nor did anyone seek to prove him right or wrong.

Nao

[cathwood]

I think it depends far more upon the results that come from the research, rather than how well known the researchers are. If someone comes up with a result, statistically valid, but likely to have a negligible effect on science and society, then it is hardly worthwhile anyone spending the time ticking every line of the work. (PhD students excepted). If however the research might have major significance, others will descend like vultures to try to confirm the work, to validate it and to repeat it. Cold Fusion, and the recent Korean cloning scandal are two well known incidents. IQ reseach is more likely to come under scrutiny to determine if it is politically correct to state the results publicly, whether anyone will be offended, and to determine why the research was necessary, should it have been done? Stay away from controversy and you can pretty much research what you want. Someone researched bath water, to try and determine why it seemed to go colder as you lay it it. He concluded it really did get colder. Although subjected to much press ridicule ( by reporters who may have cherry picked from his research), he offended no-one, nor did anyone seek to prove him right or wrong.

Nao

Fab post. Very amusing.

I suppose I was thinking more of the ethics committee stage. I can't imagine the university ethics committee that I've just been through agreeing to let through any research that might offend anyone.

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

The research is flawed, but even if it weren't, here's what is meant by not clinically significant.

I just did research that demonstrates MUni riders are 1 cm. taller than Trials riders.

Headlines: MUni riders TALLER than Trials riders!!!

The correct response to such research should be: Yawn. 1 cm, big deal, and the ruler you used isn't even precise to 5 cm.

The correct response to the IQ research should be: Yeah, but 3 IQ points, big deal, and the IQ test you used isn't even precise to 4 IQ points.

The IQ difference is negligible, and the IQ test used isn't precise. [See level of confidence]

Now I've got an IQ test that proves DOGS are smarter than cats!!!!

Is that controversial?! Or does (Yawn) everyone already know that?

[Naomi]

[QUOTE=BillyTheMountain]The research is flawed, but even if it weren't, here's what is meant by not clinically significant.

I just did research that demonstrates MUni riders are 1 cm. taller than Trials riders.

Headlines: MUni riders TALLER than Trials riders!!!

The correct response to such research should be: Yawn. 1 cm, big deal, and the ruler you used isn't even precise to 5 cm.

The correct response to the IQ research should be: Yeah, but 3 IQ points, big deal, and the IQ test you used isn't even precise to 4 IQ points.

The IQ difference is negligible, and the IQ test used isn't precise. [See level of confidence]
QUOTE]

You tend to try and oversimplify. I will try not to go too much into the maths but there is no reason why a test that has a confidence margin should give results that favour one sex over the other as a direct result of that margin. Provided that you do sufficient tests, it becomes possible to greatly increase the level of confidence with which you can state your result. Now I have not read the results of the research, I simply do not have the time, but I would wager that he has taken sufficient data so as to narrow down the confidence interval such that he can justifiably make the claims he has made. Clinically significant is not just about whether a single measurement of IQ is accurate to plus/minus x. It depends also on how many such measurements were made. If the graphs and histograms are skewed by three points and enough measurements have been made, you still have clinical significance. If a lot of readings have been taken, then to suggest that the results are incorrect is to suggest that the test, by pure chance, resulted in men always veering to the +ve end of the confidence limits and the women towards the other end.

Whether the difference of 3 matters at all is another argument entirely .

Your argument: emphasized I admit, is: I threw a coin 4 times : it landed on heads 3 times. You then suggest that a scientist might has infer from that , that it was more likely to land on heads. 75% /25% . Proves it Guv.
As I am sure you know, such an experiment needs a large number of iterations, and that by increasing the number of samples we also increase our confidence level that flipping a coin is truly a 50/50 event. Simple statistical theory. Flip it enough times and you would likely see a result 50.3%/49.7% and you have a lot more confidence that 50/50 is the true probability.

If you wish to challenge the IQ findings, you need to go into the statistics produced, and show that the number of samples is insufficient for the good doctor to say, with a fair degree of reliability, that his results are meaningless. It should be possible to make statements such as: "Using test x men have a 3 point higher IQ measurement. The statistics generated from the data samples enable us to say this with 95% confidence."

The correct response to the IQ research should be: let's have a look at the figures on the paper, check the data, check the maths. Did he make any errors or assumptions? Then, if you really wish, yawn and work out whether 3 points will have any effect on peoples lives.

In short in the same way he has to statistically justify his results, you have to statistically justify your criticism of his results. You cannot say that one single sample has a 6 point confidence level and then apply that to the whole research, thus concuding that the results are incorrect. The whole point of statistics is to try to eliminate erroneous results that could be seen by taking just one measurement.

[tobbogonist]

The 'glass ceiling' is but an archilogical masterpiece created in order to reproduce the feeling harry experienced upon first entering the great hall in the first book: Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone.

(I would take the time to comment seriously on such matters as this but i spend 6 hours a day and at least 2 hours a night doing school work on it *roughly*)

[BillyTheMountain]

I think a LOT of misunderstanding occurs because people do not know what IQ is.

It's not some hard IQ reality handed down by the all knowing psychologist who created, standardized and validated the test.

The only true meaning of IQ comes from the fact that it "predicts" school achievement, by correlation. That fact provides the validation. IQs don't do anything else. IQ is nothing but a culture specific predictor of school achievement. Which means the best IQ test was standardized on subjects for which it's being used. A British IQ test will be far less accurate (some may say "of very limited validity") on USA subjects, and even less accurate in Eastern Europe and Africa.

It's not like the psychologist who developed the test layed her hands on each subject, magically discerned her IQ, then made a test that correlates with this divined knowledge in order that others could do this too.

And in this study, the females in the 17-18 year group with (marginally and trivially) lower IQs actually performed BETTER in school.

WOW! Some may ask: How do those particular females outperform same-age males, despite having LOWER IQs??? VERY STRANGE! Must be some BIG explanation for this.

But another psychologist will ask: If this holds across the standardization studies, then the test is failing to do what it's supposed to do. Then they re-standardize the test. They do this every 10 years or so now anyway, in the USA, and recognized the need to do this long before The Flynn Effect was observed (The Flynn Effect notes the rising mean IQs over time, in all USA samples).

It'd be like having a test that predicts unicycle high jump [JQ: Jump Quotient], and finding on average males have higher JQ scores, but all NAUCC and UNICON stats show those same-age females jumping higher than males. That JQ test ain't predicting what it's supposed to. How do those females consistently jump higher, with less ability and lower JQ??!!! Amazing, aren't they?!

There are so many reasons this finding isn't taken seriously in the USA, and won't get coverage in real scientific journals. None of which are political, unless you're talking The Politics of Science. In which case you should go to the ID and Atheist threads.

I'm still waiting for the Vet Journals to join the debate about dogs being FAR smarter than cats. But then, maybe everyone knows that, and it's no big deal.

[BillyTheMountain]

and if it were to be taken seriously, headlines should read:

Males 17-18 years old are smarter than women 17-18 years old (but inexplicably, those smarter males don't do so hot in school)!!!!

Or better: IQ test fails to function in 17-18 year olds!!!!

Anything else is a gross overgeneralization from the findings.

[cathwood]

The finding wont be taken seriously over here either.

In fact the whole IQ thing isn't very popular over here. Psychologists tend to use other aspects of cogntive tests to establish a person's cognitive strengths and weaknesses rather than an IQ score as it doesn't tell you much.

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

[QUOTE=BillyTheMountain]I just did research that demonstrates MUni riders are 1 cm. taller than Trials riders.

Headlines: MUni riders TALLER than Trials riders!!!

The correct response to such research should be: Yawn. 1 cm, big deal, and the ruler you used isn't even precise to 5 cm.

The correct response to the IQ research should be: Yeah, but 3 IQ points, big deal, and the IQ test you used isn't even precise to 4 IQ points.

The IQ difference is negligible, and the IQ test used isn't precise. QUOTE]


Clinically significant is not just about whether a single measurement of IQ is accurate to plus/minus x. It depends also on how many such measurements were made. If the graphs and histograms are skewed by three points and enough measurements have been made, you still have clinical significance. If a lot of readings have been taken, then to suggest that the results are incorrect is to suggest that the test, by pure chance, resulted in men always veering to the +ve end of the confidence limits and the women towards the other end.

Whether the difference of 3 matters at all is another argument entirely .

Nao: You said: If the graphs and histograms are skewed by three points and enough measurements have been made, you still have clinical significance.

Not true. You may have statistical significance, but there's no way 3 IQ points is going to be clinically significant. A 3 IQ point difference will always be trivial. Like a 1 cm difference in height. Trivial.

Cath: Thanks for your input. You being in the field makes all the difference!! and that's a clinically significant difference :D
My buddies stocking shelves with me really enjoy your input!

[Naomi]

[QUOTE=Naomi]

Not true. You may have statistical significance, but there's no way 3 IQ points is going to be clinically significant. A 3 IQ point difference will always be trivial. Like a 1 cm difference in height. Trivial.



OK Billy. I had not realised exactly what you meant by clinically significant. It appears to be a somewhat woolly non mathematical term, and I admit I was trying to stay within the mathematics. So we are approaching from different directions.

I am not really happy with the term clinically significant. 1 cm not clinically significant?. Is 2 acms clinically significant,? Three? It is all a bit like multiplying zero by various numbers. No clinical significance between 99 cms and 100 cms. No clinical significance between 100 and 101. between 100, and 102, but sooner or later you will say ah ! 99 to 110, that is C.S.
Between which two of the numbers 99 to 110 did the clinical significance occur? It wasn't between 99 and 100, it wasn't between 100 ands 101...

So clinically significant is something I think you have to almost arbitrarily define, make a judgement about, rather than mathematically define. You might defne it as 10 IQ points, or 3 cms or whatever. It doesn't have any mathematical rigour. It has a finger in the air touch about it.

And I think this is where and why we have been differing. I like things to have a reliable mathematical basis, and I think our researcher has mathematically detected a difference to a statistically significant degree. You have thrown over the top of that an arbitrary level of clinical significance, which you have defined as being a measurement somewhat larger than that margin seen mathematically.

I could be wrong : so: perhaps you have a mathematically viable way to determine what,for IQ, is clinically significant? If so would you explain? Or are you just making a judgement?

Taking a man in the street, you are not, on meeting him going to be able to determine his IQ as being 110 or 113 (say), so for practical purposes, in everyday situations a difference of 3 is not noticeable. So maybe that could be what you mean by clinically significant: resulting in a noticeable behavioural difference? It's still a judgement, and as such, depends on how good you are at observation. All you can do on top of that is to define a level, say 6 points at which you feel a difference should be noticeable. But you will STILL have to do the rigorous statistics to gain any real accuracy once you have actually DEFINED a clinical level.


If you CAN define what clinically significant means then I shall be happy with it, otherwise it is a bit meaningless, and certainly should not be used as a critique of a statistical exercise.

I don't think our researcher was trying to show "clinical significance", he was trying to see if mathematical significance existed, and I have little reason to doubt that he has shown it. It is not for me to judge whether his results are clinically significant. I can't do it. All I can do is make a guess until someone defines "clinically significant" in a mathemetically meaningful way.

If you define CS as a 6 point difference, then all you can say is " Based on our definition of 6 or more points of IQ difference being clinically significant, the results of this research are not clinically significant." Purely judgemental. Someone who disagrees with your definition may not accept your conclusion. And it will always be so unless there has been a globally agreed definition of how many IQ points constitute a CS interval.

Mathematically our researcher will have said something like " to a 99% degree of certainty, there is an IQ difference of 3 points". Provided he has not made an actual error, no one can disagree with his results.




Nao

[bugman]

I also found a study that shows men are also stronger than women.

[BillyTheMountain]

I also found a study that shows men are also stronger than women.

Fah!!! Sexist propaganda!!!

Nao:

Clinical significance is all that really matters. With any trivial effect size, you can get statistical significance simply by increasing the N.

You prolly cannot even be capable of discerning the cm. taller one man is from another. No one can discern a 4 IQ point difference in conversation, or school achievement, or anything else. It has no real predictive difference.

Would you pay billions to launch a headache medicine that was statistically better than aspirin, but only because you used such a large N. You know the "effect size" [an important mathematical term] is trivial. Prolly not.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[Naomi]

Nao:

Clinical significance is all that really matters. With any trivial effect size, you can get statistical significance simply by increasing the N.

You prolly cannot even be capable of discerning the cm. taller one man is from another. No one can discern a 4 IQ point difference in conversation, or school achievement, or anything else. It has no real predictive difference.

Would you pay billions to launch a headache medicine that was statistically better than aspirin, but only because you used such a large N. You know the "effect size" [an important mathematical term] is trivial. Prolly not.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.


Cheers Billy, I am pretty sure we are now very much on the same wavelength , and we probably have been, right the way through this thread. 3 or 4 IQ points: about 3 or 4% for the average person.

If the medicine made my headache just 3 % better than an aspirin did, then I certainly would not notice. If the pill were a life saving drug, and it had a 3% effect on the ability of an individual to survive, then that equates to a lot of lives in a sample size of 100,000, the number of individuals used in the IQ survey. In gambling, you only need a very small bias to guarantee that the bank wins. Small biases in gambling resulted in casinos banning certain methods, such as card counting, and the differential sizing of bets, which gave the punters very very small advantages, but which over time enabled them to win consistently. Do not underestimate the statistically, but not clinically significant, effects. Once N is large, it has real world effect as well.

Taken as a measurement of one individual, 3 IQ points may not be clinically significant, but applied to the population at large then it could easily be one factor in why so few women, compared to the large numbers of men, succeed and reach the very top in a vast variety of disciplines. You could make one hell of a list beginning with Einstein. You would struggle to turn over the page if you started with Curie.

An interesting survey might be to test the IQs of just the top 5% of men and the top 5% of men. Would the 3.6% difference remain, reduce, increase or change sign I wonder? Would it become "clinically significant"?

Applied to a single individual no one notices these small effects. But once enough N are around, then we have mathematical significance, which enables us to notice the effects in the population at large. If the difference is enough to affect how well we do in IQ tests, why should it not be enough to affect how well we do in other areas?


Lies , damn lies, politicians, and politicians who selectively quote, or who do not understand, statistics.....and Tony Blair.

Nao

[BillyTheMountain]

IQ points have little relationship to percentages--try percentiles!

If you need help, try this link:
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/psychology/iq-conversion.html

[Naomi]

IQ points have little relationship to percentages--try percentiles!

If you need help, try this link:
http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/psychology/iq-conversion.html


Apologies for my lack of mathematical rigour in that statement. You are perfectly correct, but the reality of the situation is that for an IQ curve, moving the vertical line from an IQ of 100 to an IQ of 103 means rather more than 3% of the sample cross that line. You have done much to help my argument.

Figures from this table: http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html ...

would suggest that by moving the IQ line from 100, to 103, then, rather than there being 50/50 split each side of the IQ=100 line, there are now 42/58 as percentages on the two opposite sides of the line. So the IQ difference of 3 points results in 8% of people crossing that vertical line. Getting rigorous just adds weight to my argument. Is 8% clinically significant? 58 from 100 getting a better hangover cure, 42 rather than 50 still suffering when they get up? Do they get the new pill now?
Nao

[bugman]

Fah!!! Sexist propaganda!!!



:D

[harper]

I also found a study that shows men are also stronger than women.

This warrants a new thread. More outrage means more entertainment.

[treepotato]

hmm looking at thread title.......

i think not! :P

[BillyTheMountain]

would suggest that by moving the IQ line from 100, to 103, then, rather than there being 50/50 split each side of the IQ=100 line, there are now 42/58 as percentages on the two opposite sides of the line. So the IQ difference of 3 points results in 8% of people crossing that vertical line. Getting rigorous just adds weight to my argument. Is 8% clinically significant? 58 from 100 getting a better hangover cure, 42 rather than 50 still suffering when they get up? Do they get the new pill now?
Nao

Try googling Just Noticable Difference, Threshold, Vigotsky, Limen, etc.

Regression toward the Mean, etc.

Except by using an IQ test, where the results will be different each time, you cannot distinguish a 5 point IQ difference.

That makes it trivial, and clinically insignificant.

You may like tall men, but you cannot distinguish a 1 cm difference. You cannot distinguish the 1 cm difference in sexual excitement which occurs in the presence of the man who is 1 cm taller. You'd need a vaginal photoplethysmography to do that.

You also cannot distinguish a 3% change in your headache. It would have to hit you over the head before you notice it. Don't pay TOO MUCH more for pills that promise it, cause no one will notice the difference. To do that, you'd need some sort of phenomenology machine, that detects human experience not available to humans. ???:confused: :eek:

I'm out. Billy