Slashdot Mirror


How Men and Women Badly Estimate Their Own Intelligence

theodp writes "In investigating the question of whether men are smarter than women, British researcher Adrian Furnham came up with some startling results. His analysis of some 30 studies showed that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ, but women underestimate their own intelligence while men overestimate theirs. Surprisingly, both men and women perceived men being smarter across generations — both sexes believe that their fathers are smarter than their mothers and their grandfathers are more intelligent than their grandmothers. And if there are children, both men and women think their sons are brighter than their daughters."

13 of 928 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Variance is the key by Scott+Tracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually he does - it's in the linked article, on the first page:

    "Although [men and women] are on average the same, the people at the very top and the very bottom of the IQ bell curve are more likely to be men."

  2. Re:IQ != Intelligence by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Of course, IQ does a remarkably good job at what it's intended to do: correlate with the sort of things we normally associate with intelligence, in the context of a statistical study. Sure, there are plenty of people who seem stupid in some ways but have high IQ; on average, though, it works well.

    This is yet another case of people who know what IQ is actually supposed to be used for using it that way, and then the uninformed public complaining that it doesn't perfectly match something else.

    Did you have some alternate metric that this study could have used in place of IQ that would do a better job?

  3. Re:Variance is the key by c_sd_m · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA: "Although [men and women] are on average the same, the people at the very top and the very bottom of the IQ bell curve are more likely to be men."

  4. Re:They believe it because it's true by HBoar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even the "wholesome" teenage role model Miley Cyrus has been reduced to pole dancing.

    I can't see how she was ever a "wholesome" role model. Even before she started dancing around half naked, she encouraged young girls to base their self esteem on good looks and their parents wealth.

  5. Re:Also, they don't care by trouser · · Score: 3, Informative

    What he/she said only I'd have used a lot more swearing. "Could care less" meaning "couldn't care less" is one of the most irritating idioms in the American use of English.

    --
    Now wash your hands.
  6. Re:They believe it because it's true by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 5, Informative

    ^ Deary, I.J.; Irwing, P.; Der, G; Bates, T.C. (2005). "Brother-sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979". Intelligence 35:451-456.

    There you go, have a citation for male IQ results having a higher variance than female.

    What, you want an online ref? Here's one about math tests

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121691806472381521.html

    The neurological basis appears to be that males have more pruning during the final stages of brain formation. This can result in more efficient pathways, but has less redundancy.

  7. Re:IQ != Intelligence by turing_m · · Score: 3, Informative

    Allegedly GWBush was has a fairly high IQ (well at least 120+) yet, outwardly at least, he may not seem it.

    120 is top 9%, near enough to 1/10. That's not even 2 standard deviations. For a clerk, it's on the high end. For a president, it's low, unless you want a puppet. There are roughly 28 million people in the US with a higher IQ than 120.

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  8. Re:They believe it because it's true by DeadDecoy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Me specifically? No. But in terms of caffeine providing a general cognitive boost:

    Caffeine's effects on true and false memory.
    Capek S, Guenther RK.

    Sensitivity to change in cognitive performance and mood measures of energy and fatigue in response to morning caffeine alone or in combination with carbohydrate.
    Maridakis V, O'Connor PJ, Tomporowski PD.

    [The effects of energy drinks on cognitive performance] [Article in Dutch]
    van den Eynde F, van Baelen PC, Portzky M, Audenaert K.

    Just to name a few : P.

  9. Re:They believe it because it's true by Toonol · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you plot the number of sexual partners, you'll find men have a curve that rises, peaks at around four (if I remember right), and then descends... a smaller number have had 8 partners, a still smaller 12, etc. It's a pretty normal distribution.

    The chart for females is shaped differently. It has a larger peak at a lower number than men (say, three), descends rapidly... but then flattens. When you get up to HIGH numbers of sexual partners (15, 20, 30), there are more females at that level than males.

    In other words, most women have fewer partners than men; but a small number of women have FAR more partners than most men.

  10. Re:If women are so smart . . . by WaywardGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    If being dumb was her only major fault, we'd still be married. Given the choice, definitely go for a smarter woman. She had other issues, too, like massive depression. Eventually she had other guys in her bed, and that's when I cut her loose. Some guys on slashdot would go for the open relationship, but that's not how I'm wired.

    --
    Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
  11. Re:They believe it because it's true by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

    General Eligibility Requirements for U.S. Citizenship

    To apply for U.S. citizenship, applicants must:

            *
                Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400
            *
                Have been lawfully admitted to the United States
            *
                Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
            *
                Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence
            *
                Have demonstrated physical presence
            *
                Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed
            *
                Demonstrate good moral character
            *
                Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution
            *
                Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
            *
                Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government)
            *
                Take the oath of allegiance to the United States

    Please see the links on the right of this page to learn if you are eligible and how to apply for U.S. citizenship.

    http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ce2b2cd1f7e9e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

    I beg to differ with you. We most definitely have a huge criminal element who comes here, with NO DESIRE to become citizens. Drug mules, money launderers, etc etc ad nauseum. Oh yeah, the human trafficers.

    But, aside from the worst of criminals - most of our 20 million ILLEGAL ALIENS became criminals by reason of having come here ILLEGALLY. The United States is, after all, a sovereign nation, which has the right and obligation to limit immigration. Millions are breaking the law by being here. Hence, criminals. We don't need no more criminals - we have more than enough.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  12. Re:If women are so smart . . . by Velex · · Score: 4, Informative

    Manipulating people into sleeping with you is a nasty, horrible thing to do

    The women here expect you to do this and won't go on a 2nd date if you don't.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
  13. Re:Well by StrategicIrony · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fail? I'm sorry? You actually got a laugh out of me by using that word, in context of your post.

    I'm enjoying how you cherry picked out of Wikipedia without understanding what you're cherry picking, or even reading the rest of it.

    As far as social status... there's not a single study I can find supporting your claim.

    From about 10 lines below where you cherry picked YOUR quotation...

    The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns[9] states that IQ scores account for about one-fourth of the social status variance...

    ROFLMAO. It has almost as much predictive power of social status as your parent's tax bracket... which is to say "extremely high".

    Now, lets get to the quotation that YOU cited.

    You DO understand that in psychology, a 0.6 correlation is ALMOST UNHEARD of, it's so high? By statistical analysis, that means that fully 40% of "job performance" is directly predicted by a (usually childhood) Stanford-Binet IQ score. And as you stated "Job performance" is the most direct indicator of future income. Were you trying to claim this is "fail"? Seriously?

    The only numeric metric that correlates higher than IQ with future income is actually 8th grade standardized testing scores, which in several studies actually has around a .85 correlation, predicting over 70% of future income across a broad range of social and economic classes.

    I'll also happily point out that the only study coming up with the 0.2 number you cited was studying UNSKILLED LABOR jobs, where simply showing up to work was a stronger predictor of "job performance", yet IQ STILL had a statistically significant (though small) impact on job performance across all social spectra.

    And.... since we're quoting Wikipedia, I'll pull down some citations from the rest of the article that you conveniently decided not to quote. Note that Wikipedia doesn't cite very much of the research that's out there - it's just scratching the surface.

    According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."

    Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance.[76] Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background.

    Wikipedia goes to great length to point out varying opinions, noting that ACROSS THE BOARD, for all job types, IQ generally is viewed to have a correlation of around 0.4 to 0.6 on average for skilled occupations. That's about the same correlation that "having unprotected sex one time with someone HIV positive" has with "getting HIV".

    Significant enough?

    While we're on the topic, the correlation between IQ and income actually goes up substantially as the worker gains more experience. So while it may be valid to say that "experience" is a more accurate predictor of job success and income, it's also accurate to say that IQ becomes MORE correlated with income as experience increases, which simply leads to the conclusion that people who score higher on IQ tests are able to grow their income as a faster rate than those who do not. Note, I'm carefully NOT calling these people "smarter", because IQ is just one sort of test, but it is a metric that DOES have a valid, strong statistical correlation with many things.

    But since I'm sure you've already decided to disagree with me, there are other things (like it or not) that IQ correlates with. This may have nothing to do with "being smart" but somehow, the test is a valid statistical indicator of these things.

    People with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. Post-Traumatic Stress Dis