Monday, July 16, 2012


Women have higher IQ's than men, a recent development, it seems. Well, what do you expect after 40 plus years of henpecking feminism?


Lydia McGrew said...

Actually, the means between women and men have always been approximately the same, with small local variations. It's at the two ends of the bell curve that the differences become apparent. Explaining both why there are more nuclear physicist males and also more mentally handicapped males.

These reports are actually based on the fact that while there were some small differences in some Western countries that placed male mean slightly above female, in three countries only--New Zealand, Estonia, and Argentina--the female mean came out marginally higher than the male.

So, really, a non-story.

William Luse said...

Well, that's a relief. And see, it took a high IQ woman to figure that out.

Do I have to retract my claim about feminism? It must have done something bad.

Lydia McGrew said...

You can blame feminism for the fact that more girls are going to college than men. Though I think I read that Obie thinks it's some kind of great triumph that more females than males are graduating from college. Must be thinking of it as paybacks for history or something like that.

Actually, I got the debunking of the male-female IQ thing from a male blogger's site. ;-)

William Luse said...

Nothing wrong with teamwork.

Step2 said...

Nothing wrong with teamwork, except when your team works with the government. Or so I've been told :)

As briefly as possible, since Lydia disdains Romney and can't imagine him as her political party leader, she is only left with the option of attacking Obama every way she can, even when that criticism would also indict Romney for similar actions or philosophy of government. Constant criticism of Obama is hardly unexpected or over the line; I've read plenty of polemics from the left and right against him. What isn't remotely acceptable is demanding that I treat a polemic against a politician's campaign speech as if it isn't supposed to help his opponent, and then forbidding a discussion about his opponent. So my response was done to inform her that if she only wants to argue about politics in an imaginary world with a "true conservative" presidential candidate, I will respond in the real world of political activism.

William Luse said...

Nothing wrong with teamwork, except when your team works with the government.

Now, now. That's a bit of an exaggeration. She's all in favor of paying taxes for the national defense. (I think)(Just kidding, Lydia).

The rest of your comment probably has something to do with the topic of this post (not much of a post, I'll admit), and I'm pretty sure I'll figure out what it is. However, jacking the thread here rather than there is permissible because the rules are more flexible. Sometimes.

I honestly don't know how she feels about Romney, and I do see how going in that direction would take the focus off Obama's words. I anticipate that in time, as Nov. 4th appoaches, you'll get a post or two from Lydia making clear what she thinks this choice is all about, and then you'll get a chance to have at it. Romney certainly wasn't my first choice, but unless I find out something awful about him I'll probably go with him. Leaving aside the health care thing and even the words which were the subject of Lydia's post, I have so many what you might call core belief differences with Obama that removing him is a matter of some urgency. As I imagine you already know.

William Luse said...

By the way, Step2, if you're interested, there's a column at NR by Mona Charen that attempts to draw distinctions between what Romney did in Mass. and the ACA. Whether it's convincing is up to the reader: