Men have more variance -- your biggest losers and your biggest winners will all be men. Women tend to clump in the middle, neither exceptionally good nor bad.
This tends to make women shitty leaders. I've seen this borne out across cultures, too, so it's not part of the unique American ennui going around. It doesn't mean that women can't be leaders (Margaret Thatcher, like her or hate her, was definitely a leader), it just means that trying to fulfill leadership quotas or pointing to a 50/50 split is a bad thing.
Men have more variance -- your biggest losers and your biggest winners will all be men. Women tend to clump in the middle, neither exceptionally good nor bad.
Men are encouraged to excel and break away from the pack as such traits attract women.
Women are berated and ostracised if they try to stand out because it diminishes the remaining women.
So women may clump in the middle more however that could be a result of social pressure from their harridan peers rather than a true representation of things.
Why can't it be a social pressure that is biologically motivated? Human societies evolved these traits for survival in a different time, but we still have to answer to our biological instincts.
How much better the world would be if we leaned into our sexual dimorphism and brought the best manliness characteristics out alongside the best feminine characteristics.
You'd probably see a lot less mental illness. Our world and social order has changed dramatically in a very short amount of time, and not enough research has been done into how this "change in social ecology" has affected us.
I mean, just look at this post and tell me that's a rational adult who can depend her on opinion. And that's a TEACHER! Future generation is either growing up dumb as brick or based because they learn on their own.
Yea including iq, women have a “higher” average, but are all overwhelmingly mediocre and the vast majority reside in the 90-110 range. Men tend to be far more spread out and completely dominate iq percents over 110. Unfortunately women keep breeding with low iq men then end up single moms, which repeats the cycle. Using chess as an example there has been 1 woman, Judit Polgar, who completely demolished the women's league, but never won a male tournament.
She has been the highest-rated woman ever since FIDE's January 1990 list, and in 2003 she entered the overall top ten. In 2005, she became the first woman to take part in the final of an open world championship cycle when she participated in the FIDE World Championship Tournament (2005). Although she finished last.
The simple fact of the matter is for the most intelligent woman there are at least 50 men who are just as if not more capable. This is why women don’t want equal opportunity but equal outcomes. Men must be castrated down to the womens level.
They don't like to acknowledge that bit; like all disadvantages of males and masculinity, they skip over it because it's inconvenient. They want to cherry pick the "men are smarter" part so they can have something to be outraged about.
By birth yes. The fun part about retards is most of them don't live long. Whether by physical struggles/defects or just being retarded enough to get themselves killed young.
So by a certain age, the retarded half will be dropping off and distorting the average in men's favor.
By nearly every statistical measure, men are both superior and inferior to women.
Nature realized a long time ago that wombs are expensive productions, while sperm is cheap. That's why the Y chromosome is much more mutatable and variable than the X. So it can try out new shit and not lose a lot if it fails.
Which means the stupidest and smartest people will always be men. In every category it is almost guaranteed the top and bottom will be men. Women will just cluster at the "average" area.
I wouldn't even consider comparing height or strength, because sexual dimorphism means there isn't even a playing field to compare on. The physical differences that are the literal definition of men vs women. Its comparing pugs to wolves at that point.
women are statistically inferior to men, that's why you made up emotional IQ despite women having the emotional control of a 5 year old.....
The way I think of it is this:
Men have more variance -- your biggest losers and your biggest winners will all be men. Women tend to clump in the middle, neither exceptionally good nor bad.
This tends to make women shitty leaders. I've seen this borne out across cultures, too, so it's not part of the unique American ennui going around. It doesn't mean that women can't be leaders (Margaret Thatcher, like her or hate her, was definitely a leader), it just means that trying to fulfill leadership quotas or pointing to a 50/50 split is a bad thing.
Men are encouraged to excel and break away from the pack as such traits attract women.
Women are berated and ostracised if they try to stand out because it diminishes the remaining women.
So women may clump in the middle more however that could be a result of social pressure from their harridan peers rather than a true representation of things.
Why can't it be a social pressure that is biologically motivated? Human societies evolved these traits for survival in a different time, but we still have to answer to our biological instincts.
How much better the world would be if we leaned into our sexual dimorphism and brought the best manliness characteristics out alongside the best feminine characteristics.
You'd probably see a lot less mental illness. Our world and social order has changed dramatically in a very short amount of time, and not enough research has been done into how this "change in social ecology" has affected us.
I mean, just look at this post and tell me that's a rational adult who can depend her on opinion. And that's a TEACHER! Future generation is either growing up dumb as brick or based because they learn on their own.
Including IQ? Serious question.
I wonder if they lag behind men in mental games like chess, too.
Yea including iq, women have a “higher” average, but are all overwhelmingly mediocre and the vast majority reside in the 90-110 range. Men tend to be far more spread out and completely dominate iq percents over 110. Unfortunately women keep breeding with low iq men then end up single moms, which repeats the cycle. Using chess as an example there has been 1 woman, Judit Polgar, who completely demolished the women's league, but never won a male tournament.
The simple fact of the matter is for the most intelligent woman there are at least 50 men who are just as if not more capable. This is why women don’t want equal opportunity but equal outcomes. Men must be castrated down to the womens level.
Thank you, sir.
So men have a higher share of the retards?
Duh? It’s been known for a while that autism is a male majority
They don't like to acknowledge that bit; like all disadvantages of males and masculinity, they skip over it because it's inconvenient. They want to cherry pick the "men are smarter" part so they can have something to be outraged about.
By birth yes. The fun part about retards is most of them don't live long. Whether by physical struggles/defects or just being retarded enough to get themselves killed young.
So by a certain age, the retarded half will be dropping off and distorting the average in men's favor.
Absolutely. Top female chess ELOs are around 500th in male ranking. Just like the Braasch/Williams tennis matches.
I still get a giggle out of: https://boysvswomen.com/
You wonder instead of Yandexing it?
Top women grandmaster is #388 in mixed gender ranking.
Source: https://www.chess.com/players?page=16
At this point, I don't trust any site that doesn't end in .win anymore.
I don't even trust nba.com to tell me basketball scores.
By nearly every statistical measure, men are both superior and inferior to women.
Nature realized a long time ago that wombs are expensive productions, while sperm is cheap. That's why the Y chromosome is much more mutatable and variable than the X. So it can try out new shit and not lose a lot if it fails.
Which means the stupidest and smartest people will always be men. In every category it is almost guaranteed the top and bottom will be men. Women will just cluster at the "average" area.
I wouldn't even consider comparing height or strength, because sexual dimorphism means there isn't even a playing field to compare on. The physical differences that are the literal definition of men vs women. Its comparing pugs to wolves at that point.
Women are more likely to be average or slightly above average and men are more likely to be on one extreme or another