Thread 16764620

How can we raise female IQ's and is it morally right to do so?

They clearly cant keep up in purely mental fields like chess, running a business, or science/stem.

>>16764620 (OP)
>is it morally right to do so?
>>>/mlp/

>>16764620 (OP)
>purely mental fields like chess, running a business, or science/stem.
Who leads in cooking, Iron Chef says men. Who invented dry cleaning? Thomas Jennings. Who invented the sewing machine? Elias Howe. Raising children is Developmental Psychology, a male led sub-field of research.
>How can we raise female IQ's
An open palm and without anger.

>>16764638
why is that chinese man eating a bell pepper?

>>16764645
He isnt eating it, he bit it to kill it and is savoring its suffering.

>>16764620 (OP)
we're not straight here, you need to go back to >>>/tv/

>>16764638
ew faggot

>>16764645
>He's not aware of the absolute, pure kino that was Iron Chef.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2e9nTeIwFk

>>16764620 (OP)
Isn't the female average slightly higher, it's just that the male distribution has longer tails? i.e. more male geniuses and idiots.

>>16764620 (OP)
When I see people who have most of their teeth showing constantly, I immediately assume they're retarded and or manipulative. Maybe robots or holograms.

>>16765330
>Isn't the female average slightly higher
No, IQ was literally designed to be equal on average for men and women. they had to expunge most cognitive task subtests that favour men to achieve this goal, ironically these subtests are also why the Flynn effect "exists".
Those seeking to promote Sexual equality like racial equality by equality I mean those promoting the idea that all are the same have done immense damage to this field of research

It's better to look at specific subtests

>>16767253
>No, IQ was literally designed to be equal on average for men and women. they had to expunge most cognitive task subtests that favour men to achieve this goal
Never heard this, where can I read more? And what about the fact that there are a lot of different IQ tests?
>ironically these subtests are also why the Flynn effect "exists".
Elaborate.

>>16764638
Finally, your first good post.

>>16764632
Mlp is indeed the most moral board on 4chan.

>>16767526
Because its the most 4Chan of them all?

https://youtu.be/QV7SHnKSgs0

>>16767301
Emil Kierkegaard wrote about it on his blog.

Flynn effect is due to the prevalence of low g loaded subtests with higher trainability magnifying the results many of the more g loaded tests were deemed too biased.

>>16767529
>How MLP
I thought k-on was the culture of choice for /pol/?

>>16767532
...can you point to any specific posts rather than expecting me to read through an entire blog?

>>16767253
They did this a few years ago for big standardized tests, like the MCAT/LSAT/GRE, by adding lots of "verbal reasoning" and written sections that can then be graded based on sex.

The old versions, which were basically just logic tests based in Science/Rhetoric, now became "comprehension" and "interpretation" based.

This is also where all the "emotional intelligence" and "athletic intelligence" Newspeak comes from to make non-whites seem accomplished.

Meanwhile, when we want to test real IQ in real life, regardless of organism, we used very simple tests like pattern recognition using shapes, colors, simple numbers and/or combinations of these items. Look at Ravens, Parrots and Chimps, they have higher "IQ" in every measurable way than most 8 yo Nogs, but this can never be admitted, so they add all the "verbal" nonsense.

>>16768407
Where can I read more about this?

>>16768411
the MCAT redesign is probably the best example in the US. I think it was about 10 years ago when they re-designed the whole thing, making it twice as long and 50% "verbal"/"comprehension" while it had been a pure Science test prior to that.

You can also look up acceptance rates by race on the AAMC site (or you used to be able to), and POC/Black students were being accepted with MCAT scores in the bottom 5% overall while the Eurasian kids had to have well above average, of course. Ultimately, if they didn't do this there would effectively be ZERO "Black" doctors at all. There are even Med Schools whose "Mission" is to make docs for "underserved communities" and are basically just diploma mills.

>>16764620 (OP)
women being dumb is the only thing keeping this species alive

>>16768518
Explain.

>>16768523
they have destructive tendencies only limited by their on average lower competency. higher IQ in women is also correlated with far lower birthrates and general misery

>>16768542
>higher IQ in women is also correlated with far lower birthrates and general misery
only under modern conditions where women are pushed into universities to rack up debt, bodycounts, and globalist antinatalist indoctrination

>>16768422
anon asked where to learn more and you just gave more unsupported claims. go back to /pol/

>>16768072
Do search engines still allow you to search specific sites with "site:" ? might find more with that.
I'll try to find the specific article if I can find but I suggest searching yourself if you can I tend to get a bit lost down a rabbit warren reading his stuff.

>>16764620 (OP)
>How can we raise female IQ's
Stop giving them money and doing them favors for being sexy
>and is it morally right to do so?
Coomers disagree

>>16767532
>Flynn effect is due to the prevalence of low g loaded subtests with higher trainability magnifying the results many of the more g loaded tests were deemed too biased
LMFAO
>N-n-o! Believe me! There ARE tests that measure "g" b-but the dog ate them. The femenists t-took them!

>>16764620 (OP)
by loving them

>>16764620 (OP)
>How can we raise female IQ's and is it morally right to do so?
Is it even desirable? I for one want a klutzy tardwife.

>>16769255
Do you not understand how IQ tests work?
Some question types are better at challenging the basal performance.

>>16769677
prove: maybe you start by proving your tests test anything beyond the smell of your ass, and only then do you start hallucinating which questions are and arent better at attracting the moon

>>16769682
Be honest with me anon which sort of test is easier to train for: a reaction speed test or a simple addition and subtraction equation coded into pictures?

>>16769696
Which of those are "loaded for g [you probably mean A]" and how do you know? Do you know what A is and how it relates to g? How do you know?

>>16769701
Answer the question please.

>>16769705
In general the latter one is easier to train for, but it depends somewhat on the details.

Now answer mine.

>>16769712
Thank you.

How do I know personally or do you mean in the wider sense?
Personally I don't "know" I can only reply with how I have interpreted the general literature on the subject that I have been exposed to.
As I understand it G comes from "Spearman's general factor of discrimination" and was a product of examining a wide spread of different tests design to challenge the brain in some way, from which patterns of correlation were found with individuals who excelled in one test tending to excel both in related tests and in other seemingly unconnected tests which led to a conclusion that there must be some underlying factor which ties to cognitive performance in general.

>>16768542
>higher IQ in women is also correlated with far lower birthrates
Only if they're atheists.
>But, teeheehee, high IQ = atheist
Historically not true and the converse certain isn't true, even today.

>>16769718
g is the (hypothesized) general intelligence factor in an individual that is (hypothesized) to manifest as test scores in different psychometric intelligence tests. That factor might be due training, childhood, genetics - anything.

So we break it down in A (genes) and C (environment), which are borrowed from the twin studies ACE model. Those twin studies are the reason IQ test proponents believe that their tests are measuring something that is hereditary (g~=A)

But whether the tests measure g or something else and whether g~=A, is not in evidence. If there was a straightforward way to "g-load" or even better "A-load" questions, it would.

>>16769735
Which dog is smarter, a collie or a pug?

>>16769723
I mean to be fair you have to be pretty retarded to believe in the magic jew

>>16769736
You just know dont you? Like you know whites are smarter than niggers. So why are you here discussing science things? No science needed - you already know.

>>16769747
Well I'm just asking if you recognise that there is a clearly heritable component of intelligence or not because unless I misread it you were attemoting to cast doubt on the idea by arguing over A & C

>>16769750
*attempting

>>16769750
Does a human have more sophisticated cognition than an ant? Yes. Does follow that whites have more sophisticated hereditary cognitive faculties than niggers, or that I have more sophisticated cognitive faculties than you? No. Maybe we just had nicer dinner conversations in my family. Maybe I just really wanted to conceive of myself as smart when I was in middle school and aped the behaviors that would accomplish that.

We dont know. That's what we use science to try to understand.

>>16769757
So as I thought you are using a gaps argument to deny that groups have different levels of intelligence due to their genetics.
I'm going to ignore you unless you can accept reality and make a real argument not disproved by adoption studies.

>>16769762
>to deny
So it's a "prove me wrong" kind of thing? It's not that you actually need to bring proof that niggers are stupid, it's understood until the opposite is proven. Fine, but then why the pretense? "I know I'm smarter than a nigger and it will take a whole fucking lot of evidence to change my mind". If you start out like that we can have a nice talk from an honest starting point.

>adoption studies
There is actually just two (2) legit "reared-apart" datasets, and they are both:
>very old
>non reproducible because twins arent split up any more and certainly not at birth
>Done before it was known what huge impact uterine conditions and 1st year devopment has on later outcomes. Those two studies pretty much assumed that the impact of any shared environment in utero and during infancy was negligible which we now know is false.
>in extremely few cases were twins actually reared apart without any contact. Most of the time they were in the same neighborhood or otherwise were aware of eachother and had contact.

>>16769772
>There is actually just two (2) legit "reared-apart" datasets, and they are both:
What where did I say twins? no there are plenty of studies comparing the iq of children to their adoptive and biological parents where they allmost universally are closer to their bio parent's iq

>>16769773
Because the much cited 60-80% of general intelligence is hereditary is based on those two twin reared-apart studies. That's the "finding" that psychonometricians have been trying to replicate with statistical models, but profoundly failed, for many years now.
>plenty of studies comparing the iq of children to their adoptive and biological parents where they allmost universally are closer to their bio parent's iq
Meaningless in itself since we "know what huge impact uterine conditions and 1st year devopment has on later outcomes" (something I've already pointed out so you ought to know by now). If you share blood with a heroin junky and is born at 1500 gram, that's going to have an impact on what happens next.

>>16769774
Could you not use a animal based heritability model of say sheepdogs since they can be raised under vastly different conditions surely you can generate effective data.

>>16769779
I accept your concession

>>16769799
I haven't conceded anything your argument is fundametally over the impact of developmental conditions on mature traits which you are quibbling affects heritability estimates by a few percentage points.

>>16769804
>a few percentage points
source: "I made it up"

>>16769762
It's true that "no effect of population group-correlated alleles whatsoever on the brain" is not even a thing that makes sense to postulate. It's also true that the current level of discrepancy in outcomes cannot possibly be caused entirely by genetics, since we know for a fact that both discrimination and the aftereffects of worse past discrimination exist.

>>16765353
Why? What does it mean if you constantly show your teeth

If women got smarter they will realise how fucked they are biologically and try to resolve that in ways entirely unpleasant to men.
You don't want smarter women.

>>16764620 (OP)
that would be awesome, but g is fixed sadly lol

>>16764620 (OP)
Good choice of game.

>>16773331
What exactly are you suggesting women would do? Because I'm a woman with a fairly high IQ (tested around 160 in childhood, now generally test around 130) and it's not occurring to me what you mean.

>>16773331
They would still be weaker and have worse performance under stress/lack a killer instinct.

>>16773864
That's very much a matter of averages. Killer instinct isn't a binary switch where every man has it and no woman does, it's two partially overlapping bell curves.

>>16773879
There would be very little overlap, with only the far right tail of women equaling the average level of men's response to fight or flight situations. Very similar to grip strength where the average man is stronger than something like 97% of women. Then other dimensions with large distances in average distributions such as spatial ability, recovery time from injury (testosterone affecting inflammation etc) come into play. Women are behind on so many metrics that it makes me laugh how "equality" could ever be a widespread belief in our globohomo western society. The government needs to handicap men at the barrel of a gun in many ways to allow women to have the status they do in society.

>>16767253
Men perform better nigga women dumb as fuck

>>16769040
Shut up liberal

>>16769712
Training is irrelevant you’re supposed to test raw ability or you end up like langan

>>16773901
I suspect you underestimate just how much killer instinct the average woman will display when her children are threatened.

>>16774187
So you say women need to get birth for their killer instinct DLC to kick in?

>>16764620 (OP)
>high IQ female
>invents new ways to cheat on you
>calculates optimal way to divorce rape you
>STILL manage to be dumber than the average man
No. Foids are the one species we must not uplift under any circumstances.

>>16774215
Perhaps, though it might be able to kick in in some capacity for nieces/nephews since they share a quarter of her DNA.

>>16774187
This is what Kipling's "The Female of the Species" is about.

>>16774215
>>16774187
You're wrong, women don't have a "killer instinct" they just aren't cognitively facilitated with the ability to operate discression under stress so simply operate an annhilatory response to any emotional threat.
It's what makes them vulnerble to propaganda and groupthink

>>16774299
What is the distinction between killing and annihilation that you're making here, exactly? And what do you call the thing women exhibit towards threats to their children if not a killer instinct?

>>16774302
I'm just trying to make the distinction that's it's more their brain being unable to handle the stress.