Well, now we know for fact that men are more intelligent than women. The article actually says men are cleverer than women. Does intelligent mean the same thing as clever? Maybe in Britain it does. Seems I’ve mistakenly always thought of cleverness having as much to do with personality as it does with bare-bones intellect. Intellect was the software and cleverness was the manner in which it was applied. But I’m wrong. I’m wrong a lot of the time. I possess very little in this brain of what’s to be known in this world. Circle “lesser than”, maybe even “least”, on most subjects. You tell me what you know and I’ll say, “Oh, really!” because I’m likely to know nothing about it. I tell you what I know and the person sitting next to me will quite likely say, “Excuse me, not so,” because they’ll usually know better than I. There will always be someone, and probably a good many people, who know more than I do on any particular subject.
And I know nothing about statistics or tests. Like the validity of IQ tests. I’d always thought they were culturally and sexually slanted, but I read in the comments section of the article on men being more clever than women that the modern IQ tests are not biased at all and can be taken by anyone anywhere in the world with any level of education. Nigel says so. He also says that he’s tired of men always being bashed by the media as incapable and it’s nice to have evidence to the contrary. And someone named Huw says that women may be socially intelligent but their general knowledge is abysmal and so the test is no big surprise.
I did a brief search on Technorati and all that a Baptist, Evangelical minister has to say about it is did we really need a science test to prove the fact?
Elsewhere in his blog he writes on the marginalization of Evangelicals and that what you really need to know about them is that they’re deeply spiritual, reading their bible every day, believe it and have a personal responsibility to share, with non-Christians, their beliefs on Christ, on the existence of Satan, on salvation, on good deeds not getting you the pearly gates and on the bible being accurate in all that it teaches.
That Monty Python’s “Search for the Holy Grail” appears to be one of his favorite movies is, well, uhm….OK, I’ll accept that…on faith. Sure.
Anyway, there are a fair share of men (I didn’t say all men) who will sleep easier to night because of the little BBC article on men being cleverer than women, so it was found through the heroic research of Dr. Irwing of Manchester University. And heroic it is too, isn’t it, considering the tide of degenerate political correctness he’s going to be battling.
Who is this brave man, I wonder. This individual who is willing to risk the foul political correctness of women (and the men who love them) who will, of course, say, “He is a white European male who wants to keep the status quo white European male.”
Really now. These are sound statistics. I’m sure. I don’t have them in my hand but stats is stats and mercilessly unflinching stats don’t lie. No matter how much it is to our sorrow, stats are the camera that only speaks the truth and nothing but the truth. I’m sure. There’s no reason to say sexism is involved.
“Or racism.”
Who said anything about racism? This is a test about women. Has nothing to do with race.
Wanting to know who this brave man is, I google Irwing and find that he is Paul Irwing, and that there was a co-author that the BBC neglected to mention, a fellow by the name of Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster, “who has caused outrage in the past with claims white people are more intelligent than black people.”
Dr Irwing said: “My politics are rather different from Richard’s and I would prefer it if we were wrong.”
But he said that he had resolved to put “scientific truth” above his personal political conflicts and potentially even his reputation.
The researchers concluded that there was a very strong case that men not only have larger brains but have a higher IQ than women, by about five points.
That’s interesting. I wonder just what Dr. Lynn’s politics are.
Though, Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, at first felt uncomfortable with the results, he later got convinced after getting enough evidence on differences in intelligence between racial groups.
Source: It’s official, men are more intelligent than women, “Asian News International
Well, now we know…oh, wait, that’s Dr. Irwing who was convinced in the study after getting enough evidence on differences in intelligence between racial groups.
What does evidence in the difference in intelligence between racial groups have to do with differences in the intelligence between men and women?
Hmmm.
Well, Dr. Irwing was apparently introduced to the illuminated path by the a flashy light wielded by Dr. Lynn, so what are Dr. Lynn’s beliefs?
I graduated in psychology at the University of Cambridge and have worked as lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter, professor of psychology at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, and at the University of Ulster.
Most of my work has been on intelligence. In 1983 I published a paper in Nature showing that the IQ in Japan had increased over the course of the previous half century, a phenomenon now known as the Flynn Effect following the demonstration by Jim Flynn of secular increases in intelligence in number of countries. In 1989 I proposed that the increases in intelligence have been caused by improvements in nutrition. I have also published several papers showing that intelligence is associated with brain size and reaction times.
My work on intelligence and brain size led me to consider the problem that women have smaller brains than men even when allowance is made for their smaller bodies. This implies that men should have higher average IQs than women, but it has been universally asserted that men and women have equal average IQs. In 1994 I proposed that the solution to this problem is that girls mature faster than boys and this compensates for their lower IQs, which only appear at the age of 16 onwards. Among adults men have higher average IQs than women by about 4 IQ points. This advantage consists largely of higher spatial abilities but is also present in non-verbal reasoning.
My major discovery is that the Oriental peoples of East Asia have higher average intelligence by about 5 IQs points than Europeans and peoples of European origin in the United States and elsewhere. I first published this finding in 1977 in a paper on the intelligence of the Japanese. In subsequent years the high Oriental IQ has been confirmed in numerous studies of Oriental peoples in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Singapore and the United States.
In 1991 I extended my work on race differences in intelligence to other races. I concluded that the average IQ of blacks in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 70. It has long been known that the average IQ of blacks in the United States is approximately 85. The explanation for the higher IQ of American blacks is that they have about 25 per cent of Caucasian genes and a better environment.
I didn’t know this! African-Americans are smarter because they’re part white. How lucky for them! Thank those slave ships and white masters begettin’ and begettin’ on the dusky slave women! Isn’t fate funny that way? I guess this is what they call taking lemons and making lemonade out of them?
The theory I have advanced to explain these race differences in IQ is that when early humans migrated from Africa into Eurasia they encountered the difficulty of survival during cold winters. This problem was especially severe during the ice ages. Plant foods were not available for much of the year and survival required the hunting and dismembering of large animals for food and the ability to make tools, weapons and clothing, to build shelters and make fires. These problems required higher intelligence and exerted selection pressure for enhanced intelligence, particularly on the Orientals.
Well, it’s real cold in Noble Prize Country. Can’t dispute that. And Ingmar Bergman was obviously smart. Probably a little depressed too. I wonder if he would have preferred to be dumber and happier. Maybe black people didn’t mind so much the slave ships because they couldn’t read and write good English? Consequently, when they started getting some of those depressive white genes in them, they may have ironically been not as happy with their lemonade as they were with their lemons.
That’s sad. It reminds me of the movie “Charley” where the retarded guy was real happy and then he got real smart and wasn’t so happy because he was self-aware. But being smart was only temporary. He soon became dumb again, but because he was dumb again he was also happy and free again. Real bittersweet, that movie was. I was about eleven years of age when I saw it, and I shed a few tears for poor Charley.
Now, why the cold made Asians smarter than whites I don’t know.
Can Dr. Lynn clear this up for me?
Nope, no such luck. He just tells me we’re all getting dumber and dumber.
My book Dysgenics showed that the eugenicists were right in their belief that modern populations have been deteriorating genetically in respect of health, intelligence and the personality trait of conscientiousness. This deterioration began in the second half of the 19th century and has continued up to the present.
My book Eugenics considers what measures could be taken to rectify this and discusses the genetic future of mankind. It is argued that genetic improvement is likely to evolve spontaneously through the technique of embryo selection in which women will use IVF to grow a number of embryos, have them genetically assessed and will select for implantation those with genetically desirable qualities. It is also likely that some authoritarian states will use genetic engineering to improve the genetic quality of their populations for military purposes.
My book IQ and the Wealth of Nations (co-author Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Helsinki) considers the problem of national differences in wealth and economic growth. Economists and other social scientists have been trying to solve the problem of why some nations are so rich and others so poor since Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776). We argue that an important but hitherto unrecognised factor is the IQs of the populations. We give measures and estimates of average IQs in the world’s 185 nations and show that national IQs are strongly related to national incomes and rates of economic growth. The principal reason for this is that nations whose populations have high IQs can produce goods and services that command high values in international markets.
Source: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/
White supremacists are very pleased with Dr. Lynn. That’s partly because they are fortunately white and like being able to say, “I bet I could be MENSA material, too.” It’s also because they’re not black. If they were black, they wouldn’t like Dr. Lynn so much. Go figure. “Sour grapes,” say the white supremacists to African Americans, “you’re just jealous you’re not smart like me.”
You know, if those dark people don’t stop breeding with the white people we’re going to have a major, “And the Sons of God looked upon the Daughters of Men and found them attractive” problem on our hands. That’s what Dr. Lynn seems to be saying.
Here’s what Dr. Lynn looks like. Does he look like a god?
He, at least, looks proud of himself and his achievements, doesn’t he? I suppose everyone has a right to pride in their achievements. But he needs to get a clue on web design. He may not have designed it but he likely approved it and his page is very pink. Pink gradating into white. Someone was having fun with the weary gradient tool in Photoshop. Dr. Lynn is quite pink himself and it just doesn’t look right. Too much pink. But maybe pink is a favorite color of his. And white.
So, is Dr. Lynn right? Do eugenicists believe that modern populations have been deteriorating genetically in respect of health, intelligence and the personality trait of conscientiousness, the deterioration beginning somewhere about the second half of the 19th century and having continued up to the present?
I’m not sure how they could tell this, not being able to give proper IQ tests to the dead. But I wonder why the second half of the 19th century?
Apparently because stupid and degenerate people have lots of babies and smart women don’t have all the babies they should be having. That’s what Dysgenics says. And blames knowledge of contraception.
Those white women are going to have to stop with the birth control!
Even though we’re getting stupider, a Dr. James Flynn has found instead that there are massive gains in intelligence in the US and elsewhere, despite declining SAT scores. A Christopher Brand says we’ve simply become better test takers. Dr. Lynn, who believes we’re all getting stupider, believes our getting smarter at the same time has to do with nutrition and fertilizer.
But I’m still wondering about this thing about conscientiousness which is being linked, seemingly, absolutely, to intelligence.
Throughout our evolution, the weak and diseased died young and didn’t pass on their genes. Now, because of modern medicine, people with numerous genetic diseases live long enough to reproduce and transmit defective genes to their children. (Examples: cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, diabetes, pyloric stenosis, various heart defects, thalassemia, phenylketonuria, and sickle cell anemia.) The incidence of many of these disorders is doubling or tripling each generation. No one would deny sufferers treatment, but it’s important to realize that, as a result of it, our genetic potential for robust good health is declining. Life-long care will require ever-increasing expenditures. Furthermore, while sufferers are grateful for medical advances, most would nevertheless be quick to point out that the quality of their lives would be far better if they’d never inherited a disease in the first place.
Conscientiousness, traditionally known as “good character,” consists of honesty, a strong work ethic, and concern for others. Since IQ is positively correlated to a number of desirable traits (such as altruism, anti-authoritarian attitudes, and middle-class values of hard work, thrift, and sacrifice), when IQ declines, so do these traits. People with low IQ’s are far more likely to become criminals, so the fact that our genetic potential for intelligence is declining means our genetic potential for crime is increasing. Moreover, some evidence suggests that despite lengthy sojourns in jail, criminals still manage to procreate at a faster rate than the rest of us. Professor Lynn’s research on London criminals found they had nearly twice as many offspring as non-criminals, and those figures are almost certainly underestimates. In demographic studies of fertility, the entire category of underclass males is frequently omitted because reliable data on their offspring simply can’t be obtained–their sexual behavior is often promiscuous, and their relationships transient. Since twin studies and adoption studies have established that there is a substantial genetic component to criminality, the higher fertility of criminals significantly increases the genetic potential for criminality in the population.
Source: Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, by Richard Lynn, reviewed by Marian Van Court (p.s. I think Marian Van Court is a white person who may think white people are better)
Oh, now it all makes sense. Doesn’t it. All makes sense. Very simply, if you have a higher IQ then you are nicer and will want to spare those more recently “Out of Africa” people the suffering of sickle cell anemia. Got it.
As for the question of what to do about our intelligence being squandered by black people having so many babies (except for when its with white people, which makes them smarter)?
The solution to genetic deterioration in intelligence, health, and conscientiousness is not a matter of knowhow or resources. Rather, it’s a matter of overcoming the pernicious association of eugenics with Nazi genocide….
In the first half of the 20th century, a total of 29 countries passed eugenics laws, including Germany, The United States, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Venezuela, Estonia, Argentina, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Brazil, Italy, Greece, and Spain. History tells us that in one country, Germany, there was genocide; in the other 28, there was not (Saetz, 1985). Further-more, numerous cases of genocide have been committed without so much as a mention of eugenics. Communism–far and away history’s biggest mass murderer–never advocated eugenics, and, in fact, held the opposite beliefs from the Nazis, that the environment causes everything, and heredity counts for nothing. So how can there possibly be a causal connection between eugenics and genocide? In order to prove causation, it’s necessary minimally to show a true association. Put simply, one case out of 29 does not an association make.
Consider the following analogy: Imagine that the most salient historical event of all times was the Crusades, instead of the Holocaust, and that for the past 50 years, the Crusades had been the subject of highly sensational movies, documentaries, commemorative ceremonies, newspaper and magazine articles, books, lectures, museum exhibits, and so on. If we didn’t know much about Christianity, it would be easy to conclude that it was a war-like religion, and quite reasonably, we’d be concerned that if we should ever convert to Christianity, we might wind up fighting and dying in some Crusade. The emotionally-charged association between “Christianity” and “war” would become indelibly imprinted in our consciousness after being paired thousands of times. It wouldn’t be a true association, with predictive value–whenever there’s Christianity, there’s likely to be war (and vice versa), as would be the case if Christians had actually engaged in a disproportionate share of the wars throughout history–but in fact, it would be a false association, because it’s based on just one event which is replayed again and again
Wow, what an argument. I thought Christianity was associated with war. Guess I’m wrong. It’s a false association. I’ve been playing the Crusades in my fucking head when I thought of the Pope and his Bulls approving the extermination of everyone in the New Found Lands who didn’t submit to Christ and slavery.
Instead it was just the miracle of eugenics at work. Whites were smarter. They killed and took, which was conscientious because every single broken treaty paved the way for this great Democratic Republic of America.
Fate, like I said, is funny.
Professor Lynn concludes Dysgenics with a word to his critics:
[W]e have considered the criticisms of the view that the genetic quality of modern populations is deteriorating. These are that there is no genetic determination of intelligence, conscientiousness, crime, educational attainment or socioeconomic status; that there can be an inverse association between intelligence and fertility without genetic deterioration occurring; that there are no genetic differences between the social classes; that there are no such things as bad genes; that the genes for genetic diseases should be preserved, especially in other people, because they make a positive contribution to creative achievement; and that all human types, including the mentally retarded, criminals and psychopaths, are equally valuable. All these arguments have been examined and found wanting. Only one verdict is possible concerning the critics of eugenics who have advanced these arguments, and that is that they have not taken the trouble to examine the research evidence. The eugenicists believed that modern populations were deteriorating genetically. The evidence set out in this book shows they were correct.
Perhaps Professor Lynn is being charitable to his critics by suggesting that they are merely ignorant. A decidedly less charitable view would be that–at least with regard to the high percentage of Marxists and nihilists among them–his critics have read the research, and know perfectly well that it’s true, but publicly they insist it’s utterly false (in a tone of moral indignation, no less) because it threatens their thinly-veiled political agenda. Like all important works on genetics and IQ of the past few decades, Dysgenics is bound to send Marxists/ nihilists into apoplexies of agitation and rage. They respond to scientific facts which don’t fit their egalitarian ideology by attempting to suppress them, branding scientists who report them “Nazis” and “racists,” and publishing devoid-of-substance, pseudo-scientific “rebuttals,” which–unlike the scholarly, substantive, straightforward works they line up en masse to rebut–are welcomed with open arms by the politically-correct media. They can do all of these things, and they can pitch a fit ’till they rupture an artery in their collective, thoroughly repugnant, brain. But they cannot make these facts go away.
We are deteriorating genetically, and the only alternative to leaving future generations an increasingly chaotic, violent, degraded society is called “eugenics.” What a dilemma! Have we no other choice than to bequeath to our children a poorer genetic legacy than the one we ourselves inherited? And what if they too live in terror of the ghost of Adolph Hitler? Where will it end?
From every imaginable perspective–the economy, education, literacy, crime, welfare, government, the “misery quotient,” advancing civilization, and science, to name just a few–human genetic deterioration in intelligence, conscientiousness, and health is a disaster. For the believers among us, add to these the religious implications of dysgenics: How could it be God’s will for us to behave irresponsibly and cruelly to people who come after us? Would it not be a sacrilege to thoughtlessly squander God’s most precious gifts–in fact, the very ones used to create us in His image?
The Bible Believers of Australia seem to like Dr. Lynn as well. At least some of them. I can’t say all because I haven’t done any study on it and don’t have any statistics to say yea nor nay.
Dr. Lynn is on the board of directors of The Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer Fund provides him big grants. The Pioneer Fund was established in 1937 to “aid in conducting study and research into the problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race”. It is now headed by Philippe Rushton whose research showed that black people had made low cultural contributions to society while breeding a lot, and that whites and asians made a lot more cultural contributions and didn’t breed as much.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has The Pioneer Fund as one of its watched groups. in other words, a hate group.
The most famous Fund recipient is Nobel Prize-winning physicist William Shockley, who identified African-Americans as having average intelligence measured at 15 points lower than that of Whites, and who then offered to pay to have lower intelligence persons voluntarily sterilized. Other recipients of funding include:Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., Raymond B. Cattell, Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Garrett Hardin, Richard Lynn (also on the editorial board of Mankind Quarterly), R. Travis Osborne, Roger Pearson, and J. Philippe Rushton, the current president.
The Fund has given significant support to immigration reductionist organizations, including FAIR, American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF), and ProjectUSA.
Source: Psych Central
I wonder why the BBC report didn’t let its readers in on the association of Dr. Irwing with Dr. Lynn?
It’s regretable that a fair number of people will hear or read of this report and believe it. But they are people who would be looking for arguments to back their prejudices.
The Manchester Evening News has a poll going. The question is, “Do you believe the results of the group’s study? ” Thus far, 69 percent believe the study.
This is Dr. Paul Irwing.
He’s white, too. Like Dr. Lynn.
Dr. Lynn and Dr. Irwing set out to find that men were smarter than women. These are the self-professed faces of conscientiousness. Of altruism and anti-authoritarianism (oh, gag me). They are the faces of the middle-class values of hard work, thrift and sacrifice. Humble servants of mankind, they bring us the results of their labor, that men indeed are smarter than women, just as they believed it would be.
It’s convenient they’re both men.
And we can only hope that they represent, as they fear, a dying breed.
Leave a Reply