Mittwoch, 6. März 2013

Sex differences on g and non-g intellectual performance reveal potential sources of STEM discrepancies

Sex differences on g and non-g intellectual performance reveal potential sources of STEM discrepancies
Gina C Lemos et al., 2013


Abstract

The analysis of sex differences in cognitive abilities is largely confusing because these differences are masked by the pervasive influence of the general factor of intelligence (g). In this study a battery of five reasoning tests (abstract [AR], numerical [NR], verbal [VR], mechanical [MR], and spatial [SR]) was completed by a sample of 3233 young and old adolescents representative of the population. Using a latent variable approach, mean differences on the general factor were estimated after examining measurement invariance. Results show that the difference, favoring boys in latent g increases with age from two to four IQ points. Further, boys outperform girls in all the subtests and the observed differences were generally explained by g. However, mechanical reasoning is a systematic and strong exception to this finding. For the young adolescents, the observed difference in MR is equivalent to 10 IQ points, and this difference increases to 13 IQ points for the old adolescents. Only 1 (young) or 2 (old) IQ points of the sex difference in MR can be accounted for by g. The findings suggest that the persistent – and usually neglected average large advantage of boys in mechanical reasoning (MR) — orthogonal to g – might be behind their higher presence in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) disciplines. A new look at this relevant social issue is proposed in this study.

[So it seems as if there are at least two factors which are responsible for the over-representation of men in the STEM-fields. (A) Men have slightly higher IQ's and the SD of the male IQ-distribution is larger, and (B) men are much better at MR. Are women better at psychological reasoning? I think so. (Although men seem to be more talented for doing psychometric research.) But currently there are no tests which could measure this female advantage. Until now emotional-intelligence-tests are quite useless.]

Kommentare:

  1. Female advantage in accepted peer reviewed emotional intelligence test -

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103484



    And there are no IQ differences in the average male and female. The results in your study do not represent the general population as do most IQ studies since they use poor recruitment and sample specificity.

    AntwortenLöschen
    Antworten
    1. http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/multiple-intelligences-emotional-intelligence-creativity-and-g/

      "Emotional Intelligence" is nothing than a desperate attempt to spin the poorer performace of victim groups like women or Blacks as just a matter of different specialties instead of lower intell

      Löschen
    2. It's not what emotional ''INTELLIGENCE'' or ''ABILITIES'' are, but how it has been used, for what. There is emotional skills, ask for a psychopath... And yes, some this PSYCHOS and Gullibles are using ''multiple intelligences'' & ''emotional intelligence'' to try to neutralize human discrepancies, BUT

      indeed

      women are emotionally smarter than men, period.

      seems there are subgroup of blacks, men and women, who are emotionally smarter than avg white or east asian men, period.

      OR

      ''IQ-intelligence'' is nothing than a desperate attempt to spin the poorer EMOTIONAL performace of opressor groups like white rich men.

      Löschen
    3. ''seems there are subgroup of blacks, men and women, who are emotionally smarter than avg white or east asian men, period.''

      Correcting

      There are subgroup of blacks who are emotionally smarter than the avg white and east asians.

      Löschen
    4. If you call IQ-testing a desperate attempt, you should also call the measurement of temperature a desperate attempt. In my opinion women tend to think more about what's going on in other people's heads, and on average they are making better judgments about what's going on in other people's heads, so it could be said, that they are on average better at making psychological judgments. Nevertheless IQ-tests are reliably measuring individual differences in information processing capacity and IQ-scores are probably a better predictor for valuable real-life outcomes than EQ-scores will ever be.

      Löschen
    5. I'm not call IQ-test like that, it's the psychometricians on the right who are massively mechanicists and seems can't accept the mentalistic side of intelligence that call ''emotional skills'' a desperate attempt to neutralize IQ-assymetries. Even, temperature is better measured than intelligence, period. You know creativity and rationality are fundamental aspects of human intelligence.

      Yes, because women are more upper-hand on empathetic skills they are better than men in that skills but still they tend to be insufficient to surpass men ''only' or specially using this skills because seems their emotional skills suppress their logical capacity, and many times women prefer alternative versions of reality than reality itself, or a combination of both.

      Of course because what IQ measure scholastic tests also measure. In other words, what people create to test youngster technical skills, a simulacrum of adult labour life, and it's important to their career, whatever where, it's also measured by IQ tests. IQ = quotient of technical potential of worker and not exactly intelligence of human being.

      Löschen
    6. Although IQ is called 'intelligence quotient', it's not a quotient. I don't think that the whole discussion makes a lot of sense. IQ tests measure how effectively we process information, i.e. how effectively we think. And they do it quite well. Maybe or perhaps even probably there will be much better / more accurate IQ-tests in the future, nevertheless IQ-tests of the present do a good job at measuring individual differences in cognitive ability.

      Löschen
    7. ''Although IQ is called 'intelligence quotient', it's not a quotient.''

      Why not*

      ''I don't think that the whole discussion makes a lot of sense.''

      Develop.

      ''IQ tests measure how effectively we process information, i.e. how effectively we think.''

      - without real contexts

      - without measure how we can think in creative, rational


      ''And they do it quite well.''

      How quite well*

      [expecting the same answer most hbd'ers and alt-righters like to argue: because it correlates with a lot of ''outcomes'']

      Good job is not enough. But i agree it's a good job.

      Löschen
  2. IQ scores aren't measured in a ratio scale.

    IQ scores have predictive value.

    It's not the job of IQ-tests to measure creativity. I haven't heard of a rationality construct that would measure something that isn't closely related to 'IQ'.

    Much of the discussion about intelligence testing is a discussion about personal feelings on intelligence testing. Since personal feelings aren't very educable such discussions are a waste of time.

    AntwortenLöschen
    Antworten
    1. One of the most greatest BLIND SPOT of ''iq-supremacists'' is that:

      they think they are protected from ''personal feelings'', so wrong,

      indeed, they are more near to the rock regards their emotional skills but still it's doesn't mean they are that superior breed who no have biases, indeed, IQ tests is build totally in the personal biases/''feelings'' of teachers, engineers, all this proto-robot humanoids... period.

      Well, everyone need start from something, all begginings are biased, but during this process is always important re-evaluate it to see if it's in the right path. What's not happening in fabulous world of psychommetrics, and i no have hope that it's will become true in the near future, specially with your comments.

      They think they have all knowledge of ''intelligence'' in their feets, so wrong, so dumb

      Creativity is part of intelligence, indeed people must use creativity all the time. In the true semantic understanding of this term creat-activity is not ''INVENTION OF USEFUL PRODUCTS'', it's a forced or unpurified concept, creativity is what its own name is saying, it's the capacity to create, WHATEVER the product, and yes, the intelligent usefullness of creativity is this popular and wrong concept. To us to write this comments we must need be creative, because we are re-manipulating words and its meaning generally to produce the same product, to reach the same result, but with different paths, just like a convergent creativity, just like change the orderness of words in latin but preserving the overall meaning of sentences. Only a true ''autistic-robot'' caricature can think and never change their thinking lines that creativity and intelligence are separated departments, one complete the other, in the ideal world, because in progressively fordistic-style selective world where we live, it's possible to select creativity and intelligence in different people specially because hierarchical social-general structures that creates this collective mutual dependence.

      By now your replies has been very insatisfactory to me.

      Löschen
    2. ''Iq scores have predictive value''

      Nothing new by now...

      ''It's not the job of IQ-tests to measure creativity.''

      ''I haven't heard of a rationality construct that would measure something that isn't closely related to 'IQ'.''

      Rationality it's a combination of psychological with cognitive traits, or basically intelligence and not just cognition ''pretend to be all intelligence concept and applicability''. Other thing is that rationality is difficult at least by now to be ''predictive'', because it's how we work in real world in real scenario, right now. Rationality is the intelligence in real time. Also should be intelligence as well, but not...

      Intelligence, and specially human intelligence, without creativity, no make sense, everything we have, we use, maybe even important part of human identity was forged by creative work. So, yes, MUST BE the work of pretend to be INTELLIGENCE tests analyse one of the most important features of intelligence. It's just dumb and waste of time tell the self-obvious for stubborn arrogant people.

      Löschen
    3. 'You' are in control, you who can evaluate my ideas as correct or not, so WE are dependend on people as you, just like a test, we need pass in your test, but many if not most of this people in the higher social position NO HAVE ideally correct credentials to evaluate others and their works, and often they are very very below the minimally recommendable. In the ideal world, ideal people would be apt by themselves to understand ideas and/or possible facts without ''be convinced'', in other words, be convinced from the truth, specially when the fact look so easy to understand, it's complicated. Waste of time, absolutely, it's what HBD and similars are doing since a already long time, try to convince people on the control of society that they are wrong, of course, with very lower persuasive skills, just repeating the same thing and supposedly they understand how very naturally stubborn philosophically hopeless species as ours is.

      Löschen
  3. Just a few answers:

    "IQ tests is build totally in the personal biases/''feelings'' of teachers, engineers ..."

    Jensen wrote a great book on Bias in Mental Testing. If you are interested in that topic maybe you should read that book:

    http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Bias-in-Mental-Testing-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf

    ~ "only ignorant people think that intelligence and creativity are separated departments"

    To my knowledge IQ-scores are better predictors of creative achievement than any other psychometric scores. Additionally the openness dimension tries to measure the "creativity dimension". Nevertheless, although creativity and intelligence are related, the relation isn't that strong. There are many highly intelligent people who will never make a great invention. Volkmar Weiss wrote that quite many highly intelligent but uncreative people choose to work as civil servants, e.g. as teachers, etc. It's simply a fact, that high intelligence increases the likelihood of making creative contributions to society, but that it is not a guarantee.

    AntwortenLöschen
    Antworten
    1. ''To my knowledge IQ-scores are better predictors of creative achievement than any other psychometric scores''

      ''Nevertheless, although creativity and intelligence are related, the relation isn't that strong. There are many highly intelligent people who will never make a great invention.''

      You are just repeating what i already know, and yet, i'm already bored about it.

      IQ don't predict nothing about creativity, only correlates, to IQ predict something about creativity at least IQ need measure creativity potential, and as you said ''it's not the IQ-department to deal with creativity'', your own words. Because IQ measure cognitive skills that are the basis of intelligence, so IQ bump on creativity.

      0,3 seems to be that correlation between creative achievements and IQ. Seems a avg correlation at the best.

      The next time try to answer point by point my comments. I do not wrote it only to be ''visualized''.

      Little impression you don't reply my comments.

      Jensen is full of personal biases about a plethora of stuff, but seems he believe he is naturally protected from this* It's already a sign of particular stupidity neglet their own levels of self-confidence without check if it's factually correct.

      Again, because many people here on hbd are refrigerators it's doesn't mean they are, on avg, naturally protected from ''personal/emotional biases'', this mean they are more ''vulnerable'' to believe they no have any personal biases or that they are restrictly ''scientific'' as if science is synonimous to neutrality.

      Dry or flow is worse in different ways but worse.

      One of the mental biases psychometrics on the right have is exactly that BELIEF emotional and or psychological skills are not part of intelligence if not highly influential.

      Creativity even without great achievements is a sign of hyper-perfectionism usually oriented to the certain specific areas or area of intellectual deepening.

      whatever

      Löschen
  4. You have the impression that I don't reply to your comments, but I really don't know exactly what you are trying to say ...

    AntwortenLöschen
    Antworten
    1. Please, again this excuse not...

      ''Creativity even without great achievements is a sign of hyper-perfectionism usually oriented to the certain specific areas or area of intellectual deepening.''

      What a f...k you can't understand in this part*

      Löschen
  5. why should creativity be a sign of hyper-perfectionism?

    AntwortenLöschen
    Antworten
    1. So your problem is to understand my ideas and not exactly my english*

      Creativity is strongly correlated with insular perfectionism. Firstly we have people who are obsessed with something, secondly we have people who are not jus obsessed but they start to search for mistakes or things they believe don't make or it's incomplete or inaccurate. So this second people start to search for incongruencies while the first people are fine about that. Insights start to happen when people believe, correctly or not, that some knowledge is incomplete or have potential to be safely expanded. Attention to details is something all ''very' creative people have. This a play of words that mean basically the same thing or have similar goals. Attention to details IS predictive factor to perfectionism, to clean everything that looks illogic OR imperfect, the search for perfectionistic symmetry, we know logic or ''physical laws'' define/create/sustain everything. This is our underlying and primordial refference of the reality.

      Other predictive factor that can result in creative achievements but also result in creative impulse itself is ''hyper-perceptiveness'' usually directed to specific subjects. In this perspective we can note that creativity is a complement of intelligence but because different selective pressures, they has been separately selected OR even creativity is a novel trait or complicated trait that in the current conjunture is not desirable while ''being'' only while ''achievement''.

      So i'm or not giving a direction to the origin of creativity or, why some people have insights and others or many others not* Because the first people are more hyper-perceptive and seem more details, and see more mistakes, and be more perfectionists at least about their areas of obsession.

      Löschen