13 December 2012

Out of All Geniuses, Why Are So Few Female?

The lifelong effects of early exposure to sex hormones are characterized as organizational, because they appear to alter brain function permanently during a critical period. Administering the same hormones at later stages has no such effect. The hormonal effects are not limited to sexual or reproductive behaviors: they appear to extend to all known behaviors in which males and females differ. They seem to govern problem solving, aggression and the tendency to engage in rough-and tumble play-the boisterous body contact that young males of some mammalian species display. __Sex Differences In the Brain

What is genius? It is an extraordinary level of skill and accomplishment which goes far beyond the commonplace. Genius refers to the ability to push human accomplishment beyond its present limits.

In an exhaustive historical study of human genius across a range of human endeavour from science to art: Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950, very few female geniuses made the lists.
Murray ranks the leading 4,000 innovators in several fields of human accomplishment from 800 BC to 1950. In each field Murray identifies a number of sources (leading encyclopedias, histories and surveys) providing information about the leading figures in the field. The rankings are made from information in these sources. A raw score is determined based on how many sources mention and on how much space in each source is devoted to a person. Then these raw scores are normalized so that the lowest score is 1 and the highest score is 100. The resulting scores are called "Index Scores".
Women invariably come up short.
A Small Gender Curve Shift With Large Consequences for Genius


The same relative shortage of female genius is discovered in lists of science Nobel Prize winners, in lists of top mathematical prize winners, and in most any other objective and meritocratic measure of accomplishment where men and women are free to compete for the prize.

This gender disparity -- although real and enduring -- is far from politically correct. In the PC skankstream, the lack of parity cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. A recent challenge to the reality of the gender imbalance in genius, comes from Scientific American -- once a science journal, but now largely a political organ of the skankstream:
For most of history women in the Western world were denied opportunities to seek higher education and develop their talents.

The dearth of women at the top of their fields is now often the result of compromises made for the sake of family, rather than differences in ability.

Women who seek eminence face difficult choices regarding when to invest in their careers versus their personal lives. More cultural and institutional support for women could dispel the lingering gender disparities. _SciAm
A brief summary is available at the link, but most of the article is hidden behind a paywall.

While women have already surpassed men in overall achievement of college and graduate level degrees, something keeps them from matching men in proportionate numbers at the top levels in the fields which are very difficult to master.

Journolistic and pseudo-scientific skanks attempting to explain this female shortfall have a limitless bucket of excuses from which to draw. And they are never short of grand plans and schemes for "correcting" this disparity. But when the ultimate explanation for the shortage of female genius and grand female accomplishment is finally seen to rest at the biological level, the PC skankstream will have to take a different approach -- if it is to be taken seriously.

The biological explanation fits the data best of all -- although it is the least politically correct.

There is now a growing literature to suggest that, in addition to similarities between male and female brains, there are marked sex dimorphisms in brain morphology, neurochemistry, hard-wiring, and functional outcomes (De Vries and Boyle, 1998; Simerly, 2005; Cahill, 2006; Cosgrove et al., 2007). Moreover, increasing evidence suggests that estrogen can have different (sometimes opposite) effects as well as similar effects in male and female subjects, probably because of underlying brain dimorphisms that occur in some brain processes but not others.

... substantial evidence in humans and experimental animals documents sex differences in specific cognitive and behavioral tasks (De Vries, 2004; Cahill, 2006; Cosgrove et al., 2007). Whether males or females have the advantage depends on the task. For example, men generally outperform women on visuospatial tasks, quantitative tasks, and targeted motor skills, whereas women excel in verbal skill tasks, perceptual tasks, and fine motor skills... _Estrogen in the Brain (& Sexual Dimorphism)
A large and growing body of scientific evidence describes significant statistical differences in the brain structure and function of males vs females. This "sexual dimorphism" of brain strucutre & function begins very early in development, and continues throughout childhood, receives a big boost in puberty, and generally carries on through adulthood and to the end of life.

It is no surprise that such significant statistical brain differences would result in significant statistical differences in behaviour and accomplishment. It is politically inconvenient to a radically feminised establishment inside government, academia, media, and popular culture, yes. But no surprise.

We will have to watch and see how many more tens (and now hundreds) of billions of dollars are wasted on the futile attempt to overcome the built in biological differences between the brains of men and women.

Meanwhile, boys of potential genius are being neglected by tax-supported institutions, because their potential does not fit the narrative.

If you have boy children and girl children, be sure to give each of them full opportunity to choose their own course in life -- without regard to political correctness. And be sure to make them as dangerous as they wish to be.

It is never too late to have a dangerous childhood.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger Matt M said...

Women may not be exceptionally intelligent. But, they test well!

Thursday, 13 December, 2012  
Blogger al fin said...

If you pick almost any area of human accomplishment, you can find women who perform better than roughly 99% of men. It is not a question of whether women are intelligent or capable.

The question is at the very highest levels of genius, where human accomplishment is pushed beyond previous limits. In those rarefied zones, women are under-represented numerically.

Thursday, 13 December, 2012  
Blogger MnMark said...

The institutional discrimination in favor of women and non-whites and against white men could be looked at as an opportunity for white men to harden and test themselves. We have higher barriers to overcome that the women and non-whites don't have. That means that they are going to get softer and we are going to get tougher. It means that a white man is going to increasingly be respected in any field because everyone will know instinctively that any white man that can make it despite having none of the help that women and non-whites get must truly be excellent. Meanwhile no one will respect even the accomplished women and non-whites because everyone knows they got help to get where they are.

Thursday, 13 December, 2012  
Blogger al fin said...

MnMark: Are you serious?

I hope you do not have any boy children, because you are holding out an extremely thin reed of hope to him for his future, if you do.

If your thinking on this topic is representative of what most "white men" are thinking, then the entire group is doomed.

Thursday, 13 December, 2012  
Blogger Dan Kurt said...

I have a chapter from The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur Jensen by
Helmuth Nyborg, Chapter ten, Sex differences in G that I could send to you for distribution should you want it. It is a PDF file. Your graph appears to have been taken from the Nyborg chapter.

Dan Kurt

Thursday, 13 December, 2012  
Blogger MnMark said...

I think my point is uncontroversial. Hardship toughens the population that suffers it.

The jews have a high IQ at least in part because of centuries of persecution that weeded out the weak jews.

The West is evolving into a society that discriminates against white men. That's going to harden the white men who survive it. "What doesn't destroy me makes me stronger."

What's so hard to understand about that?

What I'd tell a white boy child is: you're going to have a tougher go of it than women and non-white men are, so you're going to have to be the best you can be.

That doesn't doom him. That wises him up to the reality of the situation and gives him a positive way of looking at it rather than telling him it's hopeless. It's not clear to me what advice you would offer him instead.

Thursday, 13 December, 2012  
Blogger MnMark said...

Oh wait, I know what you'd tell him...that he needs to be "dangerous". You harp on that every chance you get....whatever it means.

Thursday, 13 December, 2012  
Blogger al fin said...

Dan: Right. Here is a link to the abstract of Nyborg's article containing the graphic: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690400385X


MnMark: It's best not to give advice. Strangers will disregard it, no matter how good. And friends and family deserve more than just words.

There are scores of extinct cultures and civilisations that would be happy to hear you tell them that "what doesn't kill you just makes you stronger," if only they could be around to hear it.

There are many effective approaches to genocide, and the one being taken by western governments against their own people may prove very effective in the long run, unless the light of understanding begins to dawn and the people learn to organise.

The Dangerous Child Method of Education and Child Raising is accessible in part at various locations on the internet. But it is not for everyone. It sounds from your comment as if you are not ready yet. ;-)

Thursday, 13 December, 2012  
Blogger al fin said...

For those who want to download the PDF of Helmuth Nyborg's "Sex-Related Differences in General Intelligence . . ." which contains the image embedded in the above article, here is one place you can get it:


There are quite a number of studies which demonstrate slightly different "g" distributions for males and females. The following PDF summarises the results from several such studies in a table:


Thursday, 13 December, 2012  
Blogger Lime Lite said...

@MnMark - try telling that the the whites of South Africa who are slowly being wiped out by the IQ67 blacks. Most white SAcans have high IQs due to the Germanic blood running through the Boers/Afrikaners. Under Apartheid the white population became extremely industrious due to being cut-off from the outside world. So, in one regard you are correct in that hardship does bring about strength. However, when there is a programmed genocide occurring - as there now is - then whites don't stand a chance. Most genius and high IQ whites have fled the country, taking their intelligence and skills with them. There are barely 5 million whites left in SA, most of whom are either liberal and believe that it will all work out; or who can't leave the country due to personal circumstances. The white race needs to wise up if it is going to survive the miscegenation and low reproduction rates we currently are experiencing. And if whites were really clever they would save the surviving whites in South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and give them new homes among their own race, because to stay in Africa will eventually lead to total annihilation of the race there.

Thursday, 13 December, 2012  

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts