Sexing Intelligence

(Posted by guest blogger zoe kentucky of demagogue.)

By way of Atrios we learn that there is a provocative new British study that I’m sure we’ll hear about ad nauseum.

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

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

Their research was based on IQ tests given to 80,000 people and a further study of 20,000 students.

Dr Irwing, a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University, told the Today programme on BBC Radio Four the study showed that, up to the age of 14, there was no difference between the IQs of boys and girls.

“But beyond that age and into adulthood there is a difference of five points, which is small but it can have important implications,” he said.

“This is against a background of women dramatically overtaking men in educational attainment and making very rapid advances in terms of occupational achievement.”

The academics used a test which is said to measure “general cognitive ability” – spatial and verbal ability.

As intelligence scores among the study group rose, the academics say they found a widening gap between the sexes.

There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.

At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

Nobel prize-winners

Dr Irwing told The Times the differences “may go some way to explaining the greater numbers of men achieving distinctions of various kinds, such as chess grandmasters, Fields medallists for mathematics, Nobel prize-winners and the like”.

The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men “possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work”.

There are a myriad of things wrong with all of this. First of all, IQ tests themselves only measure certain things, they are quite limited in measuring something as complicated as human intelligence. Unfortunately I think that the average person makes a lot of assumptions about IQ tests, that they test innate, natural abilities and have little to do with environment or culture. I question how aware the average person is of how truly controversial they are in academia.

Putting the question of the legitimacy of IQ tests themselves aside, I also find it troublesome because of how the results are being packaged. Frankly, I’m all for people trying to understand if and how our brains are different based on sex, which would have been a perfectly acceptable way to characterize these findings. But to conclude that men are “smarter” instead of “different” strikes me as a very limited way of thinking about such a complicated matter. This leads me to wonder about the researchers themselves, because they certainly have a lot of options about the way to present their findings to the world. They don’t seem to concern themselves with the possibility that these findings could be used to justify unequal treatment of men and women. In fact they seem to imply in their comments that as women “overtake” men in certain areas that the area is in danger of being weakened overall. Or perhaps they didn’t realize that? Just how smart are they? What are their IQs? Lastly, is it at all a coincidence that the people who make these conclusions are men?

I suppose, as a woman with an IQ above 125, I should relish the fact that I’m among the minority of women who fall into this category. I was tested at a young age and frankly, I personally don’t think it means much.
Although, stereotypically, my IQ is not at all reflected in my mathematical abilities. (I’m studying for the GRE, so I’m acutely aware of this right now.) Yet, I do have a sister who is about to finish her third year of medical school and who already has a MS in genetics under her belt. (Granted her IQ easily qualifies her for a Mensa membership.) However, while we do come from the same familial environment we did not spring from the same gene pool. But she came from long line of people who are brilliant in science and math, whereas my family is much more verbal and inclined towards the arts. Think that might have anything to do with the differences between our IQs? Or what about my wife? She too excels at math and science, is it mere coincidence that her father was an engineer and her mother was a computer programmer? I know this is only anecdotal and not at all emperical, but I’m surrounded by women who are exceptional at both math and science and the one thing they have in common is that other people in their families are also gifted in math and science. At this point the study isn’t out yet but it doesn’t appear to take heredity into account.

One last word, the part where Dr. Irwing says that women “are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work” is pure poppycock. I find it difficult to say that either sex is better adapted to long sustained periods of hard work. Historically I think that burden has been shared pretty equally by both sexes, just in varying spheres.

I think these researchers need to defer to The Grateful Dead and their wonderful tune, Women Are Smarter. To not at least acknowlege the song, clearly shows that they did not do a thorough search of existing “literature”.

All snark aside, I think the poster has it exactly right. IQ tests are seriously flawed and astounding narrow in their assessment. Plus the fact that there were no women represented in the group of authors make this “study” worthy of The Onion.

  • While the results of the study are, I suppose, interesting from an academic standpoint, I don’t think they hold much significance in the context of daily life. If you overlay a bell curve of male results on a bell curve of female results, the significance is pretty minimal. It really depends on where we as individuals fall into the bell curve. In other words, just because the average male scored 5 points higher than the average female doesn’t mean that all males are 5 points “smarter” than all females.

    I feel that I’m a reasonably intelligent person, but I’ll be the first male to admit that there are PLENTY of women who are a helluva lot smarter than I am. My wife being one of them! That’s part of the reason I fell in love with her (really!).

    Even if we’re willing to believe that men, on average, score a bit higher on a standardized exam than women, there are so many other variables that factor into one’s being “smart” that this study really only touches the surface. Once you lump all of these factors into the hopper, there’s probably no discernable difference whatsoever.

    So, while this topic may make for interesting dinner conversation, I don’t think it goes much beyond that.

  • I wholeheartedly agree with you. But the problem is that insipid news vechicles like CNN will be all over this, like flies on shit. They just love to talk about anything like this.

  • You’d think that Fox News would be all over it, especially since they’re almost literally like flies on shit!

    But even beyond that, this is where the religious right wing pundits would be expected to spin this into a justification for why women should subjugate themselves to men, as dictated by the Bible. “See, there’s a reason why God wanted women to be subservient to men.” Blah, blah, blah.

    Watch, it’ll turn into “Cumbayah Time” for the right wing Christians and the fundamentalist Muslims, just as the new Iraqi Constitution is agreed upon with a glaring lack of rights for women.

    Me thinks there will be lots of flies on that Constitution!

  • Is this the 80’s re-run?

    BTW, this Richard Lynn seems to have a certain history of “research”: “What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the ‘phasing out’ of such peoples…. Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality.” Atrios has a link.

  • Well, let’s see if any of this makes any sense:

    1) a perfect test to establish “intelligence” will never be devised. That doesn’t mean we can’t measure intelligence. It means we can’t do it perfectly.
    2) The best IQ test people have devised so far, while not perfect, is still useful. Zoe tells us her test score (125+) and that her sister has a high IQ, then tells us a high IQ score doesn’t mean much. But why mention these scores if they are meaningless?
    3) Her objection that the study did not account for heredity indicates that Zoe believes that this may play a role in IQ, which I would agree with. But I’m sure there are tons of anecdotes to “disprove” that too. And couldn’t that information be used by racists?
    4) We can say men and women are “different”, but not that one or the other has higher average scores on a specific test? Or is the problem THIS one attribute (intelligence)? Progressives never seem to have a problem when someone says “women are generally more empathetic” or “women generally have better verbal skills” (obviously some people would object to these statements, but in general, they are accepted)

    And finally, Zoe says: “They don’t seem to concern themselves with the possibility that these findings could be used to justify unequal treatment of men and women.”

    No, they probably don’t. Science does that a lot. The truth, whatever it is, is what scientists are (or should be) after first. How that truth can be used or misused is not the first question. (It’s a very good question, but not the first question)

    Zoe offered her anecdotal data, and I could offer anecdotes about how that study generally fits with reality as I have experienced it. And it wouldn’t make much difference anyway, because averages don’t mean jack with regards to any individual. I have met all kinds, of both sexes.

    But my question is… are we so PC that we refuse to accept empirical data about this one attribte? Until a better test is available, what on earth is wrong with accepting the results of this test? (tenatively, as with all scientific tests)

  • First off, predictably, I defend why I even mentioned my IQ. Because I don’t think it really matters. I took a risk using anecdonatal evidence, I know. I just think it makes things more interesting. It wasn’t offered as emperical evidence.

    What I find perplexing is why anyone would put too much stock in study that says that men are, on average, 5 points higher? Do you not consider that to be a totally marginal number? Now if it were 20 points or more, I could understand examining it a lot closer. But 5?

    I think it is possible that whatever “intelligence” the test is measuring that men, overall, may proform slightly better on it. But I also think a test could be developed that may play to women’s different brain functioning, if it exists, if that is what we’re actually talking about here.

    My problem with it has less to do with whether or not it’s “PC” than whether or not researchers are interpreting results in a way that doesn’t actually help anyone understand the why or the how. So far that is how it strikes me.

    However, if you are you asking if I have a problem with accepting the notion that men are inherently smarter than women based solely on IQ test results?

    I give you a loud, gutteral YES. I’d reply the same to a study that “proved” that women are inherently smarter or that men are inherently more insecure and gullible and need tests to tell them that they’re supeioror to women.

  • I’m surpised they published the study after
    the drubbing Herrnstein and Murray took
    for “The Bell Curve.”

    Given that intelligence is not one
    dimensional, but a number of cognitive
    abilities, obviously a single measure
    has to be some kind of weighted
    average, and therefore not very
    meaningful, when one takes into
    account that men and women do
    differ in several categories. For
    example, don’t women have a higher
    verbal aptitude than men?

  • Zoe wrote: “What I find perplexing is why anyone would put too much stock in study that says that men are, on average, 5 points higher? Do you not consider that to be a totally marginal number? Now if it were 20 points or more, I could understand examining it a lot closer. But 5?”

    If all it showed was a 5 pt difference, it would be a rather unremarkable finding. While I am not putting ANY stock in it prior to peer review, the study appears to show a marked differential which widens drastically as the scale goes up:

    “There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125… At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.”

    I look forward to the peer reviews of the study, but if it holds up there’s obviously much more going on there than just an average 5 pt difference.

  • I was takling about the more averages, not the higher end. I don’t know what to make of the higher end. Except that I just don’t trust IQ tests much to begin with. Depending on how they are designed they are looking for aptitute in certain things, of which men could conveivably score higher– although it all depends on the value we are placing on certain kinds of intelligence, doesn’t it? Considering I have a social science background, I just don’t believe IQ tests are all that they are objective (because it’s a myth, yadda, yadda) so I can’t help but take the results with a boulder of salt.

    I am with you about the peer study and, of course, the sampling methods. Perhaps this survey only reflects the average performance on IQ tests by people who are British or living in England? (smirk) We’ll have to wait and see.

  • I assumed we were talking about the findings discussed in the referenced article, not just one piece of their data.

    It will be interesting to see exactly what questions they were asking, and how well the study was designed. They did seem to have a respectable sample (80,000 people) which would indicate to me that they took their work seriously.

    I’ve heard all my life from the PC police that the only reason there’s fewer women in top positions is that men discriminate against them, but in my 20 yrs working in high tech, I have personally met very few men I would consider capable of such ridiculous behavior, and none of /them/ were in positions of power. >>If

  • I don’t doubt that the results will be found scientifically
    valid. It’s what cognitive skills are being tested that
    counts. There’s a whole range of them, from verbal
    skills to abstract reasoning to mathematical ability
    to logical reasoning to creativity (outside the box
    thinking) to mechanical reasoning to spacial
    relations to street smarts to memory and many others, all
    of which are part of the human intelligence
    equation. Human intelligence is multi-dimensional,
    and can’t be expressed as a scalar number. It’s
    a multi-dimensional vector, mathematically speaking.

    If men are so smart, why is the whole of human history
    riddled with violence and war? Do you believe that
    women would have made the same mess of things?
    War is the ultimate, irrational act.

  • Racerx,

    I’ve known a lot of people in the IT world, both men and women, and in my experience the men never think the male-dominated work environment is at all hostile to women. But if you can ask the women to speak frankly, they’d tell a different story. But your repeated use of “PC police” does itself tell me that you have issues around people challenging certain terms or assumptions, which is what the whole PC movement was supposed to be about. There certainly are times when things that are “PC” are taken too far, but a lot of the time people who have the most issues with it are the ones being challenged the most, in ways that make them uncomfortable. I’d hazard a guess that they might even need it the most. Not that I’m saying that about you, I don’t know you, but it’s something worth thinking about considering that you seemed a little quick to say that the PC police prevent us from even considering that men are inherently smarter than women. Like maybe a part of you wants to believe it. Just my 2 cents.

  • Stereotypes are always dangerous. However, my personal experience has been that:

    1) Women are absolutely more intelligent than men, and
    2) They are also much more capable of longer periods of hard work, and
    3) They can multitask in ways that men just can’t begin to attempt.

    I work with full-time moms. An average mom with 2 kids performs on a daily basis, really hard multivariate optimisation problems, constantly. Just try to figure out how to shuttle 2 or more kids back and forth between their various schools and numerous after-school activities, making sure they are dressed, lunched, breakfasted, and fed dinner, the house is cleaned or at least doesn’t fall apart, food is bought, childhood emergencies and traumas taken care of, homework is done, playgroups and playdates are attended, clothes are done, etc. If one or more of the kids is really little, infant-toddler-preschool, the work is constant, unending, and brutal, and it lasts all day long and often all night too. It’s enough to drive a poor guy insane, but the moms (most of them) handle it with aplomb (and occasionally some help from Wellbutrin and Zoloft). It’s not only hard work, it’s really difficult problem-solving. Every day is a logistical challenge, a mini invasion of Normandy. Gentlemen, we can’t compete with this.

    However, book larnin’– even the really hard stuff– is a *lot* slower-paced and contemplative. I find us guys a lot more comfortable doing that kind of thing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what the IQ tests actually measure.

  • Interesting comments, goatchowder. You may be on to something. I also would agree that, in my experience, women tend to multi-task better than men (including me). I tend to do better when I can focus on a single issue, task, etc. My wife can have five different things going at once and not miss a beat.

    Regarding the apparent disparity between the number of men and women at the upper end of the scale, it’s also possible (though not mentioned in the blurb that I read) that there is a much greater share of men vs. women at the LOWER end of the scale, too. It depends on the shape of the curve, which is determined by variability in scores. There may be more variability among men than among women, whereas women may cluster much closer around the mean. It’s all in the statistical analysis.

  • Looks like about half my comment above was lopped off by my ham-handed formatting…

    I think it’s self evident in the way this question continues to be framed that that political correctness is indeed being invoked. Whether the people doing so realize this is rather irrelevant and IMO to be expected. The specifics of the article seem to be less a part of this discussion than broad interpretations and a series of anecdotes which conflict with the title of the BBC article rather than the study’s apparent results.

    I haven’t said that I think “men are inherently smarter than women”, or that this one test is somehow a measurement of overall intelligence (which I’m sure there’s no such thing as) yet this is apparently the argument that some people hear me making. There’s not much I can do if plain, well written english is misinterpreted. The study seems to indicate that there are more men in the top tiers of intelligence (by this one measurement) than there are women, by a factor of /five/. It doesn’t say that men are smarter than women in general, unless 5 pts is seen as a big deal to someone (I would say its not). Of those folks who are NOT in the top tiers, it looks like it might be entirely possible that women are (in general) the smarter gender!

    Science cares nothing for the human ability to accept its findings. We apparently are evolved apes, and mortal, etc, despite any and all wishes to the contrary. If it was done correctly, this one study will reveal /some/ truth, whether anyone wants it to say one thing or another. This is the cold nature of science. If ANY study indicates that a subgroup of one gender has an attribute, attempts to psychoanalyze the people of that gender who talk about these findings is hardly a logical reaction to the findings. Yet this is what I perceive to be occurring. I see a viceral reaction going on, and I base this observation on rhetoric such as “loud gutteral” answers to questions that weren’t even asked. I don’t have “issues around people challenging certain terms or assumptions”. I love a good discussion that challenges assumptions, but it has to be based on real data, not anecdotes (which indeed are the basis for most assumptions).

    I have no doubt that there are many, many ways to measure “intelligence”, and that this test is imperfect. It did not measure how “smart” or “clever” anyone is, because those are subjective terms. It measured how well certain tasks were performed by 80,000 people. I would be fascinated by any studies that further our knowledge of multi-tasking and who is better at it. Anecdotally, I would tend to agree that women seem to be better at that. Like goatchowder, I really don’t think there’s any question about whether women are better at juggling kids!

    For what it’s worth, “the PC police” have never even pulled me over for questioning, and my outspoken views are generally seen (in my deeply red state) as being distinctly liberal (and therefore “PC” to some people). That said, I do not buy into Zoe’s blanket statement that (all?) women would say that their work environment is hostile to women, if only we could get them to “speak freely”. I’ll bet many /would/ say that, and that many would be right, and some would be wrong, but the assertion Zoe makes is by definition unprovable and too general to be of use as anything other than a rhetorical bludgeon.

    I have indeed met men who were blatantly sexist, and this should be challenged at EVERY opportunity. But I have also heard from more than one woman who, I assume speaking quite freely, asserted that they would rather work for and with men than women. Their reasoning involved nothing about intelligence stereotypes, but the way men (in their opinion) were better at having strong disagreements and even heated arguments without taking things personally or launching vendettas. I found these anecdotes to affirm my own casual observations, and I assume this issue may have something to do with some observations of discrimination and “hostility”.

    But as a male, I can’t say such things without raising issues of bias and sexism, which almost seem to be a baseline assumption for some people. Perhaps they will devise a study to analyze this question someday.

    It’s a pity that /no one/ can be an “objective observer” in discussions that involve different groups of humans, but I guess that’s part of what makes life interesting.

    Thanks for the interesting discussion, any disrespect is my own unintentional doing.

  • Comments are closed.