I have seen other evidence and datasets that can lead to similar conclusions; high acheivers in some academic fields (especially sciences), low acheivers and the prison population, etc.
It's something that needs to be looked at, but very important it's looked at carefully, just because there might possibly be far fewer females with IQ above 140 doesn't mean they can't/don't exist (given I live with one, for example).
But it also might show a bias in what IQ actually measures, it's a particularly narrow form of intelligence that I've neve given much credence to.
I did some reading about this when I had recruitment responsibilities which I dimly remember and will try to summarise.
Almost any form of IQ measurement is problematic. The "pioneer" who invented the term IQ was later exposed as faking his results.So,the first issue is whether there is actually a meaningful result in the first place.
It's generally agreed that IQ tests are culture specific and culture dependent, although some modern tests are supposed to be better than the earlier ones. Results are generally considered to be more reliable in the 90-120 range -if someone is at either end of the scale, it is much harder to assess them .
The 11 plus exams have changed over the last 80 years but the general trend is that girls do relatively better each year while boys do relatively worse.
Opinion is divided as to whether this is the result of social improvements for girls or worse social conditions for boys or something else entirely .
I'd expect a more recent Scottish result to be flatter with markedly fewer sub 90 boys , fewer sub 90 girls and more over 115 girls.
Sorry, just read your above comments. I don't change my opinion, but I wouldn't have commented at all if I had read the comments first. It was rash of me.
My impression was that the idea that men had a slightly wider variance of IQ than women was moderately mainstream these days. I can't quote you anything definitive, but wikipedia has some pointers:
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-07-03 01:24 pm
no subject
It's something that needs to be looked at, but very important it's looked at carefully, just because there might possibly be far fewer females with IQ above 140 doesn't mean they can't/don't exist (given I live with one, for example).
But it also might show a bias in what IQ actually measures, it's a particularly narrow form of intelligence that I've neve given much credence to.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Almost any form of IQ measurement is problematic. The "pioneer" who invented the term IQ was later exposed as faking his results.So,the first issue is whether there is actually a meaningful result in the first place.
It's generally agreed that IQ tests are culture specific and culture dependent, although some modern tests are supposed to be better than the earlier ones. Results are generally considered to be more reliable in the 90-120 range -if someone is at either end of the scale, it is much harder to assess them .
The 11 plus exams have changed over the last 80 years but the general trend is that girls do relatively better each year while boys do relatively worse.
Opinion is divided as to whether this is the result of social improvements for girls or worse social conditions for boys or something else entirely .
I'd expect a more recent Scottish result to be flatter with markedly fewer sub 90 boys , fewer sub 90 girls and more over 115 girls.
no subject
Probably doesn't apply today, at least not to that extreme.
Oh wait wait wait. It's how they plotted the graph. Looks a bit neat.
(no subject)
no subject
IQ is a load of bollocks.
I mean, that's my own personal opinion, but.
Sorry, just read your above comments. I don't change my opinion, but I wouldn't have commented at all if I had read the comments first. It was rash of me.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence