General Question

mattbrowne's avatar

50% of all human beings who are more intelligent than you are female - Why are some men surprised by this observation?

Asked by mattbrowne (31732points) April 3rd, 2009

I’m discounting the extremes of both very high and very low IQs, which seem to have a slightly higher percentage of males in any given population.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

30 Answers

queenzboulevard's avatar

I didn’t know women could be more intelligent than men..hm

EmpressPixie's avatar

I’m a woman and I’m surprised by that observation. Let’s say we have intelligence potential and intelligence realization. I would certainly agree that half of the people with more intelligence potential than I have are men or women, but I am less inclined to agree with the statement regarding intelligence realization. There are many ways to realize intelligence, but considering just education it is absolutely not true. There are still many societies today that only allow for men to become educated members of society. So unless the educated societies are educating more women (they are not), there are still more men than women getting education, more men than women realizing the fullness of their potential, and accordingly more men than women who are more intelligent than I.

Of course there are other ways to measure intelligence beyond education, but I’m not touching them at the moment because they are harder to measure. Yes, women in those societies mentioned develop their own kind of intelligence, but it is different from what the men develop and so the women have less convention intelligence, perhaps, but much more intelligence as it serves their lives.

But I fully appreciate the sentiment behind your statement.

qualitycontrol's avatar

shouldn’t you be making breakfast empresspixie?

dynamicduo's avatar

Here’s the first thing that popped into my mind: the most prominent “smart people” in history tended to be men due to the discrimination against females working/being educated/etc. When I think of “smarter people than me”, the ones that pop into my mind are Einsein, Plato, Newton, Darwin, Dawkins, Paine, etc. Thus, following up immediately by saying that 50% of those smarter than me are women does not jive at all with the image that’s in my head, hence it is a bit off-putting. I’m a girl, and like @EmpressPixie I’m similarly surprised, thus I cannot support the thought that only men would be surprised by this observation.

mattbrowne's avatar

@qualitycontrol – Yes, there are the horrible examples of Saudi-Arabia or an Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban, denying girls and women the realization of their full potential. On the other hand, the continuing transformation of the civilized world into a knowledge-based economy offers increasing opportunities for women. More and more job descriptions require a good combination of IQ and EQ as well as good education. And if you run searches about this topic you will get articles like “College gender gap widens: 57% are women”. I think this percentage is somewhat lower when looking at graduate schools.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@mattbrowne: It, of course, depends fully on what kind of graduate school you are looking at. I’m applying to business schools and totally rocking that at top schools 36% of attendees are women in my favor.

qualitycontrol's avatar

that was a joke above (ha-ha-ha), seriously though women are just as smart as guys. They’re lucky and have better attention spans than we do so I imagine school must be easier for them. Plus intelligent girls are wicked sexy…

allen_o's avatar

Did you know that most statistics are made up?

Horus515's avatar

I think everyone has given some great answers but doesn’t it also depend on the the creedence we choose give to these IQ tests. It seems to me that we believe strongly in IQ tests when it suits us, but then someone like Arthur Jensen en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen comes along and suddenly everyone is an expert on testing bias and has little to no faith in these tests and is ready to disregard research. Personally I think that while we may believe that we have a fairly good understanding of what intelligence is, adaptability, capacity for abstract thought, pattern recognition, etc. We may not have perfected a method for measuring it. At least not in the sense that we can base judgements on the differences between men and women sturdily upon it.

Horus515's avatar

@allen_o

42.6% of all statistics are made up right on the spot.

mattbrowne's avatar

@EmpressPixie – Sorry, my earlier comment what actually a response to your comment. I’ve been in the IT business for 20 years and project management is a role now being filled by more and more women, at least three times more than it was 10 years ago. However, all the very technical roles like software developers or systems administrators are filled by men. No change. Not because women couldn’t do, but because most of them don’t find this interesting.

mattbrowne's avatar

@dynamicduo – Here’s an interesting list of female inventors:

Alphabet blocks Adeline D. T. Whitney 1882
Apgar tests (baby’s health) Virginia Apgar 1952
Chocolate-chip cookies Ruth Wakefield 1930
Circular saw Tabitha Babbitt 1812
Dishwasher Josephine Cochran 1872
Disposable diaper Marion Donovan 1950
Electric hot water heater Ida Forbes 1917
Elevated railway Mary Walton 1881
Engine muffler El Dorado Jones 1917
Fire escape Anna Connelly 1887
Globes Ellen Fitz 1875
Ironing board Sarah Boone 1892
Kevlar, crash helmets, and bulletproof vests Stephanie Kwolek 1966
Life raft Maria Beaseley 1882
Liquid Paper, a quick-drying liquid Bessie Nesmith 1951
Locomotive chimney Mary Walton 1879
Medical syringe Letitia Geer 1899
Paper-bag-making machine Margaret Knight 1871
Rolling pin Catherine Deiner 1891
Rotary engine Margaret Knight 1904
Scotchgard fabric protector Patsy O. Sherman 1956
Street-cleaning machine Florence Parpart 1900
Submarine lamp and telescope Sarah Mather 1845
Windshield wiper Mary Anderson 1903

mattbrowne's avatar

@Horus515 – No, we haven’t perfected a method for measuring intelligence. But the methods and tests we’ve got gives us a reasonable understanding.

dynamicduo's avatar

@mattbrowne I’m well aware of them. The fact simply is that none are as prominent as Einstein, Newton, and Darwin in my mind.

allen_o's avatar

You tell dynamicduo! Get back in the kitchen bitches!

dynamicduo's avatar

See, even though I know it’s a joke, I find it sad that you said it, @allen_o.

Horus515's avatar

Holy &$#@%!!! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU Ruth Wakefield!!!

allen_o's avatar

Hahaha! They know their place

qualitycontrol's avatar

and make me a banana cognac biotch

Mamradpivo's avatar

If half of the population (or close to it) is female, than it’s an easy assumption that half of any arbitrary group will be female.

This certainly isn’t always the case, and wouldn’t hold up with formal logic, but it makes sense to me.

EmpressPixie's avatar

One sexist comment can be construed as (a poor attempt at) humor. Too many are just disgusting.

mattbrowne's avatar

@dynamicduo – I could have to do with the fact that there are slightly more men for IQs > 150, so we might expect a few more male geniuses. On the other hand, we must also expect slightly more male imbeciles. If you look at the two bell curves, evolutionary forces for some reason used a hammer and hit the male curve right in the middle.

nikipedia's avatar

It doesn’t surprise me at all. I’m a girl and I’m smarter than everyone. You guys can make me breakfast.

dynamicduo's avatar

Yeah, guys, these sexist comments really aren’t enjoyable, can you please stop with them?

AstroChuck's avatar

It’s interesting that Albert Einstein’s name is thrown about whenever genius is discussed. He’s become the “name-brand” for brilliance. But there are many who feel that Einstein was plagiarizing his first wife’s ideas. It’s now believed that Mileva Maric was at least involved in the development of the theory of relativity, theory of photoelectric effect, quantum physics, and Brownian motion. Some believe that she was the true author of the special theory of relativity and that her husband simply contributed to her ideas.
So I ask you, how many people outside of science have heard of Mileva Maric?
Brilliant women have been given “the finger” in this man’s world we live in forever, and men still have difficulty with the idea that a woman could be smarter than them.
Amazing.

augustlan's avatar

That AstroChuck is one smart guy.

mattbrowne's avatar

@AstroChuck – Yes, I’ve heard about this too. Pierre and Marie Curie was a couple were both received credit. And maybe you’ve heard about Rosalind Franklin. Here’s one interesting article about her:

There is probably no other woman scientist with as much controversy surrounding her life and work as Rosalind Franklin. Franklin was responsible for much of the research and discovery work that led to the understanding of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA. The story of DNA is a tale of competition and intrigue, told one way in James Watson’s book The Double Helix, and quite another in Anne Sayre’s study, Rosalind Franklin and DNA. James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins received a Nobel Prize for the double-helix model of DNA in 1962, four years after Franklin’s death at age 37 from ovarian cancer. Franklin excelled at science and attended one of the few girls’ schools in London that taught physics and chemistry. When she was 15, she decided to become a scientist. Her father was decidedly against higher education for women and wanted Rosalind to be a social worker. Ultimately he relented, and in 1938 she enrolled at Newnham College, Cambridge, graduating in 1941. She held a graduate fellowship for a year, but quit in 1942 to work at the British Coal Utilization Research Association, where she made fundamental studies of carbon and graphite microstructures. This work was the basis of her doctorate in physical chemistry, which she earned from Cambridge University in 1945.

After Cambridge, she spent three productive years (1947–1950) in Paris at the Laboratoire Central des Services Chimiques de L’Etat, where she learned X-ray diffraction techniques. In 1951, she returned to England as a research associate in John Randall’s laboratory at King’s College, Cambridge. It was in Randall’s lab that she crossed paths with Maurice Wilkins. She and Wilkins led separate research groups and had separate projects, although both were concerned with DNA. When Randall gave Franklin responsibility for her DNA project, no one had worked on it for months. Wilkins was away at the time, and when he returned he misunderstood her role, behaving as though she were a technical assistant. Both scientists were actually peers. His mistake, acknowledged but never overcome, was not surprising given the climate for women at Cambridge then. Only males were allowed in the university dining rooms, and after hours Franklin’s colleagues went to men-only pubs. But Franklin persisted on the DNA project. J. D. Bernal called her X-ray photographs of DNA, “the most beautiful X-rayphotographs of any substance ever taken.” Between 1951 and 1953 Rosalind Franklin came very close to solving the DNA structure. She was beaten to publication by Crick and Watson in part because of the friction between Wilkins and herself. At one point, Wilkins showed Watson one of Franklin’s crystallographic portraits of DNA. When he saw the picture, the solution became apparent to him, and the results went into an article in Nature almost immediately. Franklin’s work did appear as a supporting article in the same issue of the journal.

A debate about the amount of credit due to Franklin continues. What is clear is that she did have a meaningful role in learning the structure of DNA and that she was a scientist of the first rank. Franklin moved to J. D. Bernal’s lab at Birkbeck College, where she did very fruitful work on the tobacco mosaic virus. She also began work on the polio virus. In the summer of 1956, Rosalind Franklin became ill with cancer. She died less than two years later.

http://www.watsoncrombie.com/rosalind_franklin_dna.html

tinyfaery's avatar

The statement rings true to my experiences. All the smartest people I know are women.

qualitycontrol's avatar

What I don’t like is women today taking credit for what women of yesterday did. That’s like when people call me a nazi because i’m german. I was in no way shape or form involved in that it happened before I was born. If a woman made a discovery or invented something that’s great but that’s just one person, a human, like the rest of us. Men do things also. I never got credit for changing a baby’s diaper or making flap jacks. It’s all just so much fluff. Get over it we’re all just people.

mattbrowne's avatar

@tinyfaery and @qualitycontrol – Smart men realize that 50% of all human beings who are more intelligent are female, while smart women realize that 50% of all human beings who are more intelligent are male.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther