09 July 2010

How to Artificially Create More Girl Geniuses than Boys


The chart above is based on extensive research of a type that is no longer allowed by the PC Thought Police. It reveals that males make up the majority of both geniuses and imbeciles.  The higher on the IQ chart you go, the more male geniuses there are, compared to female geniuses.  This is important, since most of the transformative sciences and technologies which distinguish the advanced world from the more primitive third world, are based upon work by males (and a few females) at the higher end of the IQ curve.

From Christina Hoff Sommers at American.com :
...on standardized intelligence tests, more males than females get off-the-chart test scores—in both directions. The greater variance of males on intelligence tests is one of the best-established findings in psychometric literature. More males are mentally deficient, and more are freakishly brilliant. The difference in variation isn't huge, but it is large enough and consistent enough that a fair selection process should produce more boys than girls in a gifted and talented program.
The Bloomberg administration imposed a uniform and transparent admission process so that all applicants (about 15,000 four- and five-year-olds) now take the same two standardized tests. Only children who score in the 90th percentile or above can enter the programs. This approach leaves little room for parental lobbying.
The reformers believed this open and consistent procedure would yield a more ethnically diverse group of students. So far it has not. It has yielded more girls than boys. As the Times reports (and disgruntled mothers of boys say on websites like UrbanBaby ), the test is “more verbal than other tests” and it plays to girls’ strengths. Boys are especially disadvantaged by the necessity to sit quietly for one hour and focus exclusively on the test. Pre-kindergarten boys with mental abilities three or four standard deviations above the mean have astonishing talents. But as Terry Neu, an expert on gifted boys, told me, sitting still for an extended period of time is not one of them. The capacity to remain seated for a long test does not reliably measure brilliance, but requiring pre-K children to do it is a sure way of securing more places for girls than boys in a gifted program.
The developing gender gap in the gifted programs of New York City does not signal that girls are smarter than boys. Rather, it exemplifies how well-intentioned government officials and educators can disregard boys’ needs and abilities and unwittingly adopt policies detrimental to boys’ well-being. It is a small part of the long story of how American boys across the ability spectrum and in all age groups have become second-class citizens in the nation’s schools.
There you have it. To artificially create more girl geniuses than boys, start with a pre-pubertal population. Then slant the cognitive tests to favour the strengths of the girls -- more verval skills, better able to sit still for testing, etc. Before you know it, you have a population of gifted students on the fast track to success -- with a lot more girls included than boys.
Such a strategy spread across the curriculum has been successful in bringing the proportion of female college graduates in the US close to 60% for Bachelor's and Master's degrees -- over 60% for Associate's degrees.

Just make school as unpleasant as possible for males, until many of them -- and some of the smartest -- give up in disgust. You waste a lot of male talent that way, but you can get an awful lot of females through college and into the work force. A radical feminist's dream of gender payback.

Society pays a huge price for the politically and sociologically designed destruction of human capital. But the policies which assure the continuation of this destruction are well entrenched, and not likely to be changed before the US government itself collapses. Of course, at the rate Obama Pelosi is going, that may not take much longer.


Bookmark and Share


Blogger neil craig said...

If the differential is as low as that it is quite surprising. That means 1.5 male geniuses (ie 140+ for each female. Since the historic record is far wider than that it would suggest nurture to have been an overwhelmingly controlling factor. Looking at history that wouldn't be astonishing. However 11 is an age before sexual differences are most pronounced & it is possible the differential in adulthood is greater. As you say - social science is a "science" where inconvenient experiments & measurements aren't allowed.

Saturday, 10 July, 2010  
Blogger Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

Back in college studying engineering (early 90's), I remember there was a big push to get women into the engineering / science fields, which at the time were about 10:1 men vs. women. They got it down to something like 5:1. By graduation time though, the ratios was back up to near the original 10:1. The attrition rate for women was much higher. For men, as our course load became more concentrated in our chosen field, our grade performance generally improved (I went to an 'old school' engineering college that made you take a full breadth of courses in physics, advanced math, humanities, and engineering courses outside your chosen field for the first three years). The women however, overall did worse.

One factor was the fact that by junior and senior the exams became open book (at least for mechanical engineering). The ability to memorize and regurgitate facts and data was no longer an advantage. I was greatly relieved by open book tests since I no longer had to spend effort on wrote memorization (which I hate) and could put my efforts solely on understanding the concepts of the course.

Women are far better at wrote memorization than men. When I was in public school, much of the course work was memorization. The 'advanced' classes were dominated by women. I remember being in a physics course and being one of only three boys in the entire classroom.

As an example, my senior design partner was useless because all she could do was repeat formulas that were in a book. Our project (a hybrid of a counter and cross flow heat exchanger to improve humidity removal on an A/C system) required coming up with a whole new set of formulas to properly size the heat exchanger. She just couldn't go it. I would bang my head in frustration in her inability to come up with even a basic formula, based on the concepts of heat exchanger design, that we would then test by actually building / testing a prototype.

My conclusion: Men / boys learn far more effectively with applying the concepts while learning (preferably hands on). Want to teach your son some basics about geometry? Build something cool (say out of wood) that requires him to figure out a large number of cuts and angles. You have the text book opened right next to the miter saw.

Want your son to fail? Sit him in a classroom memorizing stuff whilst insulating him from any idea how that 'stuff' can be applied. Be sure he has to sit in one place 6+ hours a day while doing it.

Saturday, 10 July, 2010  
Blogger Loren said...

I can second Newark. I flunked Calculus twice--not because I couldn't understand it, but because I couldn't remember all the little details(some going back to algebra) needed to do the math. Part of this was bad study habits, but derivatives are mostly memorizing the rules and remembering the earlier algebra you haven't used much since learning it.

Instead of an hour of lecture a few times a week, two or three hours of a lab type environment at least three times a week would work better for me.

My electrical engineering is going to be an associate's for now, with slow and steady night school afterwards to get the BS. While I need the science for some things I want to do, getting into the workforce and earning real money is more important.

Saturday, 10 July, 2010  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts