Lion of the Blogosphere

Archive for the ‘Biology’ Category

The genetics of homosexuality

As an HBD blogger, I’ve always said, duh! of course gayness has a strong genetic component. Proven right again.

However, as attitudes towards gayness have progressed from something considered disgusting and gross to something considered awesome and prideful, of course more people of borderline sexuality are going to go over to the other team.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 29, 2019 at 2:33 PM

Posted in Biology

Women lack the urge to win

Commenter “toomanymice” writes in a comment:

My sister is something of a math whiz, but her career ambition was close to zero. I think lion is grossly underestimating the role female lack of competitiveness plays in these statistical differences. Even the ambitious women aren’t all that ambitious by male standards.

Wanting to be best, the drive to be high earning will have a snowball effect on all kinds of life choices. And conversely having little interest in either will have an anti-snowball effect.

I’m not denying men (at least at the top end) are smarter than women, just that the ambition disparity is a huge factor in life trajectory.

I don’t think I’m underestimating anything. Many times I’ve brought up what John Tierney wrote 14 years ago in the New York Times, that women lack the urge to win.

I’ve also repeatedly cited the boringness factor as the primary reason it’s so hard to find women coders. Even though higher male intelligence at the top-end would mean that the best coders would be men, there are a lot of women smart enough to code if they wanted to, but they don’t want to because they find it boring.

I don’t think that either of these things has anything to do with males outperforming females on the SAT. Girls do better in high school, even in math and science classes, so I would assume that they would also bring those same qualities to the SAT which everyone knows is very important, so I don’t believe that males are outperforming females on the SAT because they are studying harder for it.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 29, 2019 at 2:01 PM

White men are smarter than white women, more evidence from SAT scores

I specifically say “white,” because among blacks, the ability gap between men and women is much smaller. For evidence I cite this paper. Although it’s form 1988 using data from 1985, we know that these differences between races and sexes have not changed much at all over time.

It may actually be better to look at test scores from the 1980s, because I am pretty sure that since then, the ETS has been trying to jigger the test so that it’s more biased in favor of females and against males. (In fact, I suspect that the recent change in which ETS stopped reporting the multiple-choice verbal section scores independent of the written essay was intended to hide the fact that females score lower on the non-essay verbal section.

In the 1985 data, white males outperformed white females by 52 points in math and 8 points in verbal. (And black males outperformed black females by 31 points in math and 10 points in verbal, but black females far outnumbered black male test takers in 1985.)

The report is also kind enough to provide the standard deviations for every average, and we see that men have a higher standard deviation than women. (And we also see that blacks score the expected 0.96 standard deviations less than whites on the verbal section, and 0.97 standard deviations less than whites on the match section.)

On the one hand, the scores are biased against females because more females take the test, and the extra test-takers disproportionately come from the lower half of the bell curve. I believe this is the reason we see a females doing worse on the SAT from the 1980s onward compared to earlier times when college education was seen more as a male thing because women weren’t expected to have careers for their whole lives.

But on the other hand, the scores are biased against males, if we are only looking to measure aptitude rather than achievement, because females are almost surely putting more effort into preparing for the test. In all levels of education, females get better grades than males. This is even true in high school math and science classes. Girls get better grades than boys in high school math and science classes. (Because our society is gynocentric, no one cares about school being biased against boys. You hardly ever hear about it.) But this advantage does not carry through to the SAT because the SAT is more of an aptitude test than high school grades which are more heavily weighted in favor of conscientiousness (more studying and more time spent doing homework assignments) and agreeableness (telling the teacher what they want to hear and good behavior in class). But if girls are studying more than boys for their high school classes, then surely they are also studying more for the SAT, so I suspect that if studying had been equal, the male-female gap on the SAT would be even greater.

* * *

The next issue to address is whether the SAT measures intelligence, and whether the math or verbal section measures intelligence more.

The SAT measures g (the general factor of intelligence), preparation for the exam, and two ability factors independent of g, m (for math ability) and v (for verbal ability). If we could know every test taker’s true measure of g, v, m and prep, we’d be able to do a regression analysis and come up with a predictive formula which would look like this:

SAT-V = g*xv + v*yv + prep*zv
SAT-M = g*xm + m*ym + prep*zm

Men definitely have an advantage over women in m. It’s possible that women have a similarly high advantage over men in v, but because total verbal skills are a combination of g and v, and men have higher g, overall verbal ability is approximately equal between the sexes. I say it’s possible, I don’t know this for certain.

* * *

The next issue to address is whether this matters. I say that the overall difference between all men and women doesn’t matter, what does matter is differences within certain segments of the population. Based on what I wrote yesterday about men having a higher standard deviation of intelligence, the reality is that in the bottom third of the population, women are smarter than men, and when combined with women having higher conscientiousness and agreeableness, among the bottom third of the population women are much better citizens than men. But in the top third of the population, men are smarter than women. It’s in the top third of the population where all of the important activity takes place which advances civilization. The bottom third of the population just provides menial labor.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 29, 2019 at 10:38 AM

Posted in Biology

The higher standard deviation of male intelligence

How the New SAT has Disadvantaged Female Testers

It has been stated by many intelligence researchers that men have a higher standard deviation of intelligence than women. This is seen in the SAT data at the link above.

Female test takers are disproportionately likely to score between 800 and 1190 (and especially disproportionately likely to score between 800 and 990) while male test takers are disproportionately likely to score above 1190 and below 800.

Among people scoring 1400 and above (which is equivalent to 1350 for people who took the test before the scoring was re-normed in 1996 to make the verbal scores higher), males outnumber females by 1.29 to 1, even though fewer males take the test.

I believe that, overall, men are on average a little bit more intelligent than women, but if you only hang out with college graduates, then your perception of men being smarter than women is going to be more pronounced. On the other hand, if you don’t have any education beyond high school, and you only hang out with people similarly educated, then your perception might be that women are smarter than men.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 28, 2019 at 4:01 PM

Posted in Biology

If super-high-IQ people are so smart, why can’t they … ?

This question has come up repeatedly, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of what high IQ means. It’s the ability to reason. High IQ people also tend to know more stuff, because learning by reasoning things out is one of the main ways of learning.

As I’ve previously written, there are three main ways of learning: by reasoning things out, by rote, and by mimicking. High IQ people don’t have that much of an advantage in learning things by rote, and have no advantage in learning by mimicking. For this reason, having a high IQ doesn’t mean you can learn a foreign language easily, if at all. There are many dumb people who speak multiple languages, and smart people who speak only one. Henry Kissinger was very smart, yet he could never learn to speak English without a thick accent.

Social skills, which are related to having what they call “common sense,” are learned by mimicking. When you have a conversation with people, it comes spontaneously, it’s not like solving a math problem. When high IQ kids are rejected by the peers because they are too different, they lose out on the opportunity to develop the social skill that other kids develop. It’s kind of like learning to speak a foreign language without an accent: if you miss out on exposure to the language at a young age, for most people, even very smart people like Henry Kissinger, it’s impossible to catch up.

Rick Rosner, who has a very high IQ, nevertheless was an outcast in high school, and he infamously forged papers so he could attend high school over and over again until he could finally get it right. But getting high school right never helped him stop being what I consider somewhat of a weirdo. (Not that there’s anything wrong with being a weirdo.)

The other question which comes up is, why can’t super-high-IQ people automatically become wealthy? This is something I’ve pondered for a quite a bit. The answer is that value creation rarely happens at the individual level, but rather at the business entity level. And having a high IQ doesn’t help you get hired into working for a business entity. An article at Quartz magazine explains how 500 hiring professionals were asked to rank six applicant traits in how highly they were valued, and intelligence came in dead last. All of the other more valued traits are the types of skills learned by mimicking rather than by reasoning things out.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 27, 2019 at 9:32 AM

Posted in Biology

D&D is a very white hobby

I’ve been watching the webseries Critical Role, which is eight white people playing D&D. (Exception: This guy appeared as a guest player on one episode.) Every other D&D video I’ve come across also features white people (although generally nerdier and not as good looking as the people on Critical Role).

It’s easy to explain the absence of blacks. Only people with a higher than average IQ would enjoy D&D, and the average black IQ is only 85 compared to 100 for white people. But what about the absence of Asians? Considering how Asians are heavily represented in other nerdy activities like videogames, they are very underrepresented in D&D videos. Probably because D&D requires more verbal creativity, especially when played at the higher levels like they do on Critical Role. Asians like grindy computer rpg games like World of Warcraft, but not so much D&D which was the forefather of those types of computer games.

It’s not an issue of Asians not liking to be on camera. There are lots of Asians making videos about photography gear, and many videogame streamers are Asian. The most famous Hearthstone streamer, a guy who calls himself Trump (before Donald Trump became president), is Asian. Asians are very well represented in online videos for hobbies they are interested in.

Finally, a word about Hispanics and D&D. My best friend who I played the most D&D with when I was a kid was Hispanic. But he was more privileged than me. His father drove a Mercedes, a car that my parents never could have afforded. And his father also owned a boat, which I understand are real money pits. When his father took us to Great Adventure, he went on all the rides with us (not something my dad would have done), and he bought us lunch without the slightest grumbling about how the food was overpriced. Unlike my cheapskate parents who would have snuck food into the park to save money. Yep, my Hispanic friend definitely had the cooler dad. But at the time, I didn’t know he was Hispanic. I though he was white like me, except he had a Spanish last name and his father had a slight Spanish accent. And I’m pretty sure he also considered himself white.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 26, 2019 at 3:58 PM

Posted in Biology, Nerdy stuff

The Inappropriately Excluded

I have not read this article before today. I have nothing profound to add to it, but I think it’s worth reading.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 26, 2019 at 9:39 AM

Posted in Biology

Epstein and eugenics

But does he believe in HBD? If he had ever said anything “racist,” I’m sure the NY Times would have gone all out to highlight that.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 31, 2019 at 9:21 PM

Posted in Biology

Are French people Latino?

If Latino means you speak a language derived from Latin, then doesn’t that include the French?

* * *

I think I found the answer. In the U.S., Latino is actually short for latinoamericano, that is people from the Americas who speak a language derived from Latin, regardless of their racial origin.

So that means the whitest blondest person from Sweden should be classified as Latino if he or she grew up in Mexico speaking Spanish. Or a Japanese person in the same situation. (Cameron Diaz fits into this category. She’s pretty darn white, but also Latino, or maybe half Latino. Do people stop being Latino when they stop speaking Spanish? Will Cameron Diaz’s very white descendants be Hispanic in perpetuity because of one Cuban ancestor who in turn was descended entirely from white Europeans?)

So the next question is this: Can someone be Latino and still have white privilege?

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 30, 2019 at 4:47 PM

Posted in Biology

The coming HBD apocalypse

While liberals insist that the big future disaster for the world comes from what they call “climate change,” which is pseudoscience, the real future disaster will be from the lowering IQ of all developed nations, caused by a combination of dysgenic fertility and massive immigration of lower-IQ populations. Once a nation’s average IQ drops too low, everything goes to hell. Ironically, the liberals call HBD “pseudoscience,” even though it’s 100% scientific fact. The liberals are the true science deniers.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 8, 2019 at 10:11 AM

Posted in Biology

%d bloggers like this: