Woman’s intelligence as “mirror”

” I have a theory that women have evolved intelligence sufficient largely to assess the intelligence of men as potential sexual partners. They are clever at detecting cleverness. They are good at mimicking and copying intelligence. I find this with my wife – she is always repeating my opinions, sometimes word for word, back at me. I think this is why women excel in formal education. They can repeat the lecturer’s opinions back at him. ”

Something I said at this discussion:


Alte, the blogmistress, had written, in response to David Alexander:

” Your personal focus on eloquence blinds you to recognizing true intelligence, I think. You mistake good breeding and class for true talent. Most “smart women” aren’t very smart in any useful manner, whereas most “smart men” are. The women have merely been trained to mimic the men’s intellectual displays, but that does not mean that they actually possess the same intellect.

Them girls thar just talk nice and write real pretty. But if you listen to what they are actually saying, or what they actually do, they are pretty useless. They would be better off making babies and teaching them to speak eloquently and eat with forks and knives, [than] crowding the more competent but less sociable men out of the job and education markets. “

79 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by modernguy on November 24, 2010 at 4:10 am

    That’s not really intelligence either. Intelligence is the ability to comprehend something deeply, to discern nuances at a deep level. It’s a masculine trait. Women in general hate thinking. And you’re right, they are very good at copying, which is their way of getting by in the masculine domain. But they are much better at seeing the social truth than men. They can see where the social energy comes and goes, who is getting attention, who is being neglected, who is dominant and where the action is, which is where they want to be.


  2. I sometimes call my theory “the Jerry and Elaine Theory” (from the characters on The Seinfeld Show). Jerry was the witty comedian in the group, and Elaine’s main role was to appreciate him. She had to be clever enough to get his jokes, but not necessarily be clever enough to make equally good jokes. That is, women are arbiters of taste. They provide the applause, or not as the case may be. To do this task of assessing the performance of men, they have to be almost as clever as men; in the same way as the critic is almost as clever as the artist, but lacks, usually, the creative spark.


    • Oh, yes. Good thought about the “arbiters of taste”. That’s how I feel. I’m clearly not as clever as the men I admire, but I’m good at recognizing men who are worthy of my admiration, reflecting their cleverness back at them, and encouraging them in their production.

      We’re critics, but we’re also muses.

      Vox Day’s wife plays this role. If you notice, she’s clever enough to understand what he’s saying, and appreciate and praise his cleverness, and defend his ideas, but he’s obviously the “thinker and doer” in the team.


  3. Posted by CSPB on November 24, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    Many, many times I have tried to carry on an intelligent argument – debate – discussion with a woman. I was always frustrated.

    Once I learned the difference between emotional argument and factual argument, and learned to focus on the topic, rather than “chasing rabbits”, I found that female ideas and “contributions” lack foundation. They are just passing fancies or parroted from something they heard sometime from someone somewhere. (Damn, that was good phrasing! — patting myself on the back– LOL)

    I have seen time after time after time where women get confused by the facts and overwhelming incontrovertible evidence, and instead fall back on emotional reasoning, in which the first rule is to NEVER hurt the feelings of another woman.

    I value highly intelligent women and often these women intuit things I cannot immediately fathom, but after thought, I realize that they were right on target. These things are relational insights. That does not carry over to general intelligence on financial issues, cleverness, creativity, problem solving or productiveness.

    Less intelligent women seek to control and dominate their environment (and males). Female intelligence is not measured by excellence in a (formerly) male dominated field and is not coincident with education. Education is often merely skill at parroting and verbosity. Such women gravitate to fields where their decisions cannot be challenged (law, HR, government, accounting, medicine). They may be book smart, but rarely wise.

    By nature, women will disagree with a prevalence of information and a probable conclusion, by hamsterizing a circumstance, or relating a experience of another woman to refute the general premise, advocated by ANY man she has no attraction to, or does not respect (same thing). (sentence too long so read 3 times)

    A woman has immense value when feminine and supportive, but is highly destructive when acting masculine.


    • I am actually not quite clear on what the famous “rationalisation hamster” is. I still don’t quite ‘get” this concept. But I was amazed when I first starting going out with my eventual wife by the way in which her mind would jump from viewpoint to viewpoint like a grasshopper on a hot day, sometimes contradicting herself within the same sentence. Bizarre.

      I eventually learned not to take most of it too seriously. A lot of the skill in husbanding comes in knowing which of one’s beloved’s utterances is actually definitive and needs to be taken seriously.


      • her mind would jump from viewpoint to viewpoint like a grasshopper on a hot day, sometimes contradicting herself within the same sentence.

        I’ve been with a couple of men who were like this. My FIL even went so far as to explain the workings of the lock on a U-Haul truck because “you’re more mechanically minded than your husband.” It’s aggravating as hell to argue with someone who keeps bringing up illogical and irrelevant points to try to derail the argument. It used to work, but not any more. It might come from watching my mom act like a basket case so much and deciding, “don’t be like that.”

      • I was totally spoiled for real women by growing up with an unusually rational mother (she has her moments, but she really does mostly “think like a man”) and quite rational sisters. Even my grandmother, a much more maternal type, was pretty shrewd.

        Then I found the real world of women. My wife is still quite scatterbrained, although she is better than she used to be.

        My mother-in-law is a lovely woman, but oh my goodness, I cannot talk to her for more than a few minutes. It is not that she is irrational, so much, just really limited in her interests.

      • Are you saying rational women aren’t real women? 😛

      • I should have written “real world women”. I am not sure if a woman being rather irrational is a “bug” or a “feature”. It probably depends on what mood I am in. Whatever, I find my wife endlessly fascinating, although I do wish she would turn down the crazy a bit. Sometimes, we have really rational discussions, and I think “Crikey, we sound like a brother and sister, who get on”. But more often, I feel like a lion-tamer with a lioness.

        BTW, Congratulations on your intervention on Amy Alkon’s blog. Did you notice that her advice seemed to change to a more traditional tone after you left? Curious.

        One commenter asked if this was Venus. Perhaps they do all live on Venus, and on that planet women start out old and get younger. That would explain their peculiar sociology.

      • I have an entire herd of hamsters, I think. That’s why I cling to my religion, as its a very reliable hamster-antidote. Those hamsters are tenacious, though. Rabid, hyperactive hamsters.

      • I still don’t really get this “hamster” thing. I can sort of imagine being a female, using a few insights one comes across, and one’s empathetic imagination, but this “hamster” thing I don’t understand. Do men have hamsters?

        If I really do have the very low empathy that Internet tests indicate, I think I have nonetheless learned to puzzle out how people think and act; but women are a particular mystery, because I can’t learn from self-interrogation. From “putting myself in their shoes.”

        (I realised recently that I really don’t look people in the eyes much. It is as if I am ignoring half of what they are communicating.)

      • Posted by Alte on December 2, 2010 at 6:37 pm

        Oh, you just lie to yourself to make yourself feel about about the choices you are making. It is very odd, but that is basically what it is. I sometimes wonder if women developed this habit because their choices were once so limited. If they got stuck in an unpleasant situation, or doing something they didn’t wish to do, they could appease their conscience and their pride that way.

      • Posted by Alte on December 2, 2010 at 6:37 pm

        feel “better” about, I mean.

    • in which the first rule is to NEVER hurt the feelings of another woman

      You catch on quick. 😉


    • Posted by Ezmerelda on December 18, 2010 at 9:24 pm

      “I have seen time after time after time where women get confused by the facts and overwhelming incontrovertible evidence, and instead fall back on emotional reasoning…”

      And this tendency to make decisions based on emotions is, in my humble opinion, the reason our Justice system is so screwed up these days.

      When men ruled the Justice system, criminals were punished. Capital punishment for Capital crimes was the norm. As more women entered fields in which they could influence the Justice system, we started determining the emotions behind the crime committed. “Oh, he just killed his entire family, but he was abused as a child, we must show him mercy.” etc.

      “Oh, that white man killed a black man – it must have been racially motivated, let’s throw the book at him.” Interesting that black men who kill white men are never accused of a hate crime.

      But, as is the tendency with my gender, I have veered off topic. Proving the point, as it were.


      • Posted by Les on December 19, 2010 at 6:53 am

        Women like you always prove the point against yourselves, then assume most women reflect your own tendencies.

      • Posted by Les on December 19, 2010 at 7:15 am

        In fact, ironically, you didn’t veer off topic. You just gave what you felt was an example of your theory.

  4. Posted by CSPB on November 25, 2010 at 12:12 am

    The rationalization hamster is just an unflattering euphemism for the tendency for women to decide on something and then come up with reasons to validate their decision based on what they want to be true supported by some experience that would confirm. Contrary experience is disregarded. In this way cognitive dissonance is avoided.

    It is quite easy to not take such things seriously unless the woman is in a position of power over yourself and children, for example family court.


    • Yes, and I know I tend to be a bit breezy about these matters, especially as there are some men who have suffered a lot from female insanity. I have had some bad experiences myself, and I know how devastating it can be and how bitter one could become. I managed to avoid a bad marriage by simply dumping the offending woman. My wife is about as nuts as the average female, but we have survived quite well.

      I have noticed that my wife ALWAYS sees things from the feminine perspective. I can mention St Augustine, and she will complain about how he treated his mistress when he was young. It can be anyone. Bach, Shakespeare. She will always imagine herself as Mrs Bach and Mrs Shakespeare and free associate accordingly.

      Bitches be crazy, Man.


      • Posted by modernguy on November 25, 2010 at 6:44 am

        I read somewhere a hilarious quote to the effect that most women think that Jesus was never married because he never found the right girl! Their mind is always in the relationship sphere.

  5. Posted by CSPB on November 25, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Yeah, reminded me of these. Extremes, but always makes me laugh.


  6. Posted by namae nanka on December 1, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    I think it was alte who wrote about women being empty vessels and then copying habits of their significant others.
    The repeating opinions things reminds me of my mother; in the absence of my father she would agree with my opinion, in the presence of my father she will contradict herself by agreeing to his opinion. Even my sister notices it.

    “I think this is why women excel in formal education. They can repeat the lecturer’s opinions back at him.”

    Some what related to this:
    In my country I never heard of girls being bad at maths. Neither in my classroom. But after reading about the maths gender debate, I recall mediocre boys in my class getting better marks than most of the brilliant girls once the subject became complex.
    Couple this with their having to study two languages(hindi and english) and fare pretty poorly at them compared to the same girls for all of their school life.

    The compare it to this:


    • Yes, but I got the original idea from Fedrz. It just struck me immediately as a truism that I happily propagated. It is rare that any of my ideas are actually my ideas. I’m just good at “fleshing them out”, a bit.


      • You see, I would never admit that.

        I would also never admit to being less clever than someone else.

        It is strange now. I feel that the whole The Spearhead place is unfriendly territory. They seem less pleasant than the Roissyites, and that is saying something.

      • Posted by Alte on December 2, 2010 at 9:52 pm

        Why wouldn’t you admit that? It’s true; truly original ideas are incredibly rare.

        Re: the Spearhead. Yeah, there’s definitely a mean streak that wasn’t there before. Oh, well. Moving on…

      • I wouldn’t admit it because I place a high premium on being original. I mean I wouldn’t admit to being a derivative thinker. Because I don’t think I am.

  7. Posted by namae nanka on December 3, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    and fedrz got his ideas from someplace else. Original ideas are not only incredibly rare, but well nigh impossible.


    • Posted by Alte on December 3, 2010 at 5:41 pm

      Yes, I agree.

      I don’t think I’ve ever heard of an idea that was truly original. I do think I added something to what Fedrz wrote, but it wasn’t like I plucked the idea out of the air. It derived from what I had read, and I am generally uncomfortable with people crediting me with ideas. Even Isaac Newton claimed to only be standing on the shoulders of giants, and I am rather short myself.

      Obviously, Fedrz also derived his idea from something he’d read before, as “empty vessels” is a Biblical theme. But it was his idea to use the phrase to describe how women commonly behave with their mates. He uses it derogatorily, but it’s meant to show a feminine (and Christian) virtue. An empty vessel can be filled and made useful, but a full vessel is to be passed over. Why would a man want a full vessel, who no longer had any room inside to accept him?

      If thou could`st empty all thyself of self,
      Like to a shell dishabited,
      Then might He find thee on the ocean shelf,
      And say, `This is not dead`,
      And fill thee with Himself instead.

      But thou art all replete with very thou
      And hast such shrewd activity,
      That when He comes, He says, `This is enow
      Unto itself – `twere better let it be,
      It is so small and full, there is no room for me.`

      — Sir Thomas Browne

      So when a woman leaves her man to “find herself”, she is saying, “I do not wished to be filled with you. I want to fill myself with self, or someone more worthy, instead.”

      (Of course, this is also not an original thought of mine. But it is what I am thinking at this very moment, and it feels like I am having an insight. But someone on the planet has probably already thought it before me. Perhaps I have read it before, and am now only recalling it.)


      • No, I don’t agree. I think this is an area of post-modern thought that is misguided. I don’t discount all post-modernist thought, but I think this is wrong. Certainly, in science, one sees all sorts of original ideas all the time. I believe I have had some myself, and published them. One found its way into a popular book recently, where it was discussed in the company of two other original ideas to explain a phenomenon, or attempt to.

        I will leave aside art, which is too easy to fit to my point, and pass to social science. A lot of the originality here comes in naming and identifying phenomena. To name something is to make an original contribution to categorising life’s experience. Even the MRA boys have done some of this with their “hamsters” and the like. As people note constantly, once you have an idea to work with (say, “shit test”), the world becomes suddenly clearer. That is the power of a good idea.

        There is a plethora of fascinating new ideas from evolutionary psychology that have opened people’s eyes to social realities: “parent-offspring conflict”, “adaptive self-deception”, “kin selection”, and so on.

        We live in a complex, rich world. All of it invented by people, mostly men to be specific. Individual men who had good, original ideas. I find it either daunting or inspiring, depending on my mood.

        One of the advantages of being my age, is that one can remember numerous new ideas coming into play, often associated with individuals. There are so many original ideas that they must jostle in the “attention economy”, itself another new idea we owe to some single anonymous person.

      • Posted by Alte on December 4, 2010 at 1:04 am

        I think this is an area of post-modern thought that is misguided.

        Actually, I think it was an attempt at humility.

      • Humility is an accurate perception of one’s state and abilities. If you are at all original, Alte, and I believe you are, at least in the ways you present ideas, you should not be shy of admitting it. For example, I think your post on IQ vs fertility was very good indeed. It is not faint praise to say that I would have liked to have written that one myself.

      • Posted by Alte on December 4, 2010 at 3:01 am

        Perhaps I am too humble here. That would be a first for me.

        Thank you for the compliment.

      • Posted by CSPB on December 6, 2010 at 12:04 pm

        To keep with the theme, I must say that as a man, “I am very proud of my humility.”

      • Posted by Alte on December 7, 2010 at 5:01 pm

        LOL. Oh, yes. I am flexing my humility-muscles so that I might one day be the Most Humble of All.

  8. Posted by namae nanka on December 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    “Certainly, in science, one sees all sorts of original ideas all the time. ”

    I just see repetition.


  9. Posted by CSPB on December 6, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    As I was applying for some jobs this weekend, I realized that much of my financial fate lies in the hands of women. HR departments are primarily staffed by women. They act as the gate-keeper to employment and to jobs.

    It seems women value different qualities than male applicants think are necessary for a particular position. Maybe the path to success entails being beta to get the job and then becoming alpha in jobs that require that.

    I wondered why corporations tend to hire people with EXACT skills that closely match a job description. It is much more difficult for a person with approximate skills who processes high intelligence and can excel at any job. The risk of hiring such a person is higher, but the benefit to the company is also greater because the ability to adapt and apply related knowledge is useful.

    But since women are more risk adverse than men, a woman will usually follow the script in her job and tend to choose those that are most easily definable as qualified. These same female skills are used by “gold diggers”, but women operated completely opposite when it comes to falling in love. In love, women fall for a strong adaptable man that is confident in whatever he does.

    In this way, women are defining the culture of our businesses and it seems that many businesses in the US are losing their edge and becoming increasingly bureaucratic.


    • Not my problem, Mate. You Americans are far too influenced by women, and it is starting to do you real damage. It can only lower your competitiveness in the long run.


    • Posted by Alte on December 7, 2010 at 5:06 pm

      That is one of my husband’s pet-peeves. When he was applying for jobs he would complain about HR-drones who didn’t understand the jobs they were sorting applicants for, so they would look for precise wordage instead. He formed the habit of making an end-run around HR and contacting the department head directly. He’s done that three times, which resulted in three job offers. He received no other job offers from the hundreds of resumes sent out.

      They are being replaced by computer-automation. Really. That’s what always happens: men create an art, refine it to a craft, women take over and are crappy at it, so men automate the process (to raise efficiency) or outsource the work, and then fire the women. Then the women move on to destroy the next craft.


  10. Posted by namae nanka on December 6, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    do women also act as mirrors for the emotions of men. An insecure man makes her insecure in the relationship too.

    and CSPB you might want to read this:


  11. Posted by Les on December 18, 2010 at 3:11 am

    What the hell are you and Alte saying? That smart women aren’t really smart? That we’re all just mimickers with no real intelligence?


  12. Posted by Les on December 18, 2010 at 3:37 am

    I don’t know, perhaps you shouldn’t publish my last post. All this negativity, yours and Alte’s about female intelligence and the bs about “women ruining ‘male’ jobs”, then that horrific Mala Fide’s insulting women’s genitals and the stupid Muslim creep’s words that women ruin conversation, which you linked to. It breaks my heart; it’s shattering to the female soul and certainly NOT Christian, which Alte claims to be. If I’m wrong about what you seem to be implying here, please email me.


  13. Posted by Les on December 18, 2010 at 6:31 am

    So, we’re all just mimickers with no intelligence. Then Alte is not clever either, as you said she was, she’s just a parrot. You haven’t learned from her, just who she’s mirrored.


  14. Posted by Les on December 18, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Well, I know what she meant about non-original ideas; THAT I can understand. Human brains all have kinship, so it’s not surprising we’ve throughout history probably thought or done the same things. But the idea that smart women aren’t really smart, just mimicking smartness, or whatnot? ALL smart women?? What bullshit. She confounded me with that statement, considering other things she’s said. And I think you know better than to believe such a thing.


    • Posted by Alte on December 20, 2010 at 1:48 am

      No, you are missing the nuance in my theory. We’re speaking in generalities here. We are not saying that women are stupid, but that they are less creative and original. There are other aspects of intelligence where women might excel, the ability to adapt to changing circumstances (empty vessel) being one of them. It is a question of audio-sequential versus visual-spatial abilities.

      My point is that many smart women assume that they are smart in all areas. But that would make them geniuses, which very few women actually are. True genius is generally within the pertain of men.


  15. Posted by Les on December 20, 2010 at 3:48 am

    Ok, that makes more sense. I don’t know if I agree about being creative and original; even moms teaching their kids have shown me they can be both these things in how they teach. Someone, though, defined intelligence as “the ability to comprehend something deeply, to discern nuances at a deep level.” As far as THAT goes, I’ve seen VERY few women fall short in comparison to men. To say they do is idiotic and offensive to me, so I wasn’t sure if that was your take on it as well.

    I hadn’t thought that genuises were necessarily smart in all areas. I heard that being genuis is actually a rare thing; many assume that “brilliant” and “genuis” are the same thing, but “genuis” actually means bringing something entirely new to a given field (math, music, art, writing, etc), not necessarily excelling in all fields.


    • I think you are kidding yourself, Les. Very few men (I am not one) can understand the nuances of higher mathematics or cosmology or high energy physics or philosophy. And even fewer women.

      You mention mothers teaching. Well, precisely. That is classic feminine mirroring, passing on the culture. Not creating it.


  16. Posted by Les on December 20, 2010 at 4:11 am

    I wasn’t even speaking of mathematics or cosmology, David. LOL at the philosophy thing. Basic levels of mathematics and cosmology have little to do with the higher levels anyway, so if the guy who defined intelligence thus thought he was making a point by saying few understand the higher levels of such diverse things, that’s like stating, “Wow, the earth’s round!” I wasn’t speaking of teaching culture either, but all the fundamental subjects children need to know. But if you think women have little to do with creation of culture, I think it’s you who are kidding yourself.


  17. Posted by Les on December 20, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Women have been involved in the creation of culture all throughout time. Higher mathematics were created millenia ago; such “creation” is not common for either sex.

    I was speaking of the basic levels of comprehension. People in science, medicine and mathematics have special brains in any case, but I was referring to the nuances of life, the mind, the heart, and the essential subjects people need to understand in order to live a well-rounded and educated life, not be calculative genuises. If you think women and men differ in their kinds of intelligence, be fair and compare accordingly; don’t base all intelligence in one sort of field or side of the brain. I don’t believe God created one sex to excel in all things over the other.


    • I have a saying, Les. When you want to make up a dubious story, make it happen a long time ago or a long way away. There is no reason to think that women have ever made a significant contribution to culture. Enjoyers of culture, purveyors of culture, critics of culture, yes. But women do not create high culture or significant new ideas. With a few very much “celebrated” exceptions.

      Higher mathematics were not created millennia ago. I cannot imagine what you mean by that statement.


  18. Posted by Les on December 20, 2010 at 4:46 am

    The basic mathematical laws were indeed created or discovered long ago, David. As far as I’m concerned, it’s your reasoning and narrowed definitions of intelligence that are quite far away. If you base all intelligence in a certain kind of category, of course many will fall short. But as far as general brain power, it’s a very complex field. Even if men are aimed more often at the mathematical side of the brain, this doesn’t make them “more” intelligent; mathematical and scientific people are simply intelligent in different ways. Likewise, there’s no reason for me to believe that men who excel in math are smarter than women who excel in math. If men were the primary creators of culture, it was because they were also the leaders in society, and this most certainly was not decided by intelligence levels.


    • Les, you originally said that higher mathematics were created millennia ago. Which is wrong. Now you start talking about basic mathematics. Different subject.

      The facts on the table are that men have created almost everything of intellectual value. Your historical excuses are just that, excuses.

      Of course there are plenty of intelligent women, and ways of being intelligent. But men excel in abstract intelligence.


      • And creativity.

      • Posted by Alte on December 20, 2010 at 4:59 pm

        The facts on the table are that men have created almost everything of intellectual value.

        This is undeniably true. As one of the “celebrated women”, I can assure you that we are extremely rare. Most women are quite mentally dull and incredibly unimaginative, in comparison to most men. That does not make them worse than men, but it is something that generally distinguishes them from men.

        If anything, feminism was the achievement of those few “celebrated women”, who managed to describe a coherent philosophy that justified their escaping the dull women and finally being allowed to “hang with the boys”. Until then, they were stuck being bored to death by the hens around them. It might even have worked out if the hens had stayed in the coop, rather than following those celebrated women into the men’s places.

        That is, after all, what the guys at the Spearhead complain about. If you let in one exceptional woman, soon the whole flock shows up and you can’t get a word in edge-wise for all of the clucking. It’s inevitable. They’ll all say, “But it’s not fair! You let her in, didn’t you?” And the men are then reduced to either telling the exceptional woman to get lost, or kicking out the entire group.

        You notice that women are always trying to get into men’s groups, but rarely the other way around. There is a reason for that.

      • Posted by Les on December 20, 2010 at 5:42 pm

        Yeah, I know the reason all right. Women trying to get in buy unbelievable bullshit like that. Those Christian women have been right along: the femmie movement was full of lies.

  19. Posted by Les on December 20, 2010 at 4:55 am

    I think a great deal of higher mathematics were created millenia ago, or at least begun, and have been advancing ever since. Perhaps we came to a crossroads as to the other’s meaning of “higher” mathematics. None of my conclusions regarding history and people’s roles are “excuses”. I’m sorry our appreciation of what great intelligence means differs so hugely.


  20. Posted by Les on December 20, 2010 at 5:13 am

    As a last note:

    To tell you the truth, David, I too was looking at things in limited terms. You mentioned abstract intelligence, one kind of many, and my brain narrowed onto this one and forgot the rest, hence part of my frusteration. It’s been a while since I studied intelligence and the different forms of it on an academic level, but you’ve inspired me to look deeper; I googled the subject and have dicsovered more facets than I’d been looking for. So thank you for your thoughts.


  21. Posted by Marvelous White Male on April 30, 2011 at 6:35 am

    Meh. Nothing scientific here. Job and education market doesn’t require much intelligence. Cogs in the wheel.



  22. […] Collard wrote in a post, “I have a theory that women have evolved intelligence sufficient largely to assess the […]


  23. […] Previously, on this blog, “Woman’s Intelligence as “Mirror”“. […]


  24. […] I wrote something slightly on the same point a while back. “Women’s Intelligence as ‘Mirror’“. […]


  25. Posted by Catherine Donaldson on November 20, 2015 at 2:31 am

    This isn’t new data. The issue is how it is applied to the individual in question. A dummy is a dummy and a genius a genius whether male or female. There are over 7 billion people in the world, so there have to be a lot of damn smart females out there. I put it to the readership that the blinkers resulting from the kind of discussion resulting from the bell curves above could lower the IQ of any person using the conclusions as a first base to judge the intelligence of anyone regardless of sex.


    • Catherine, I assume you mean the Breitbart article. I am not sure how new the data are, but your comments make an old point.


      • There seems to me to be a problem with the second set of bell curves, because of the nature of the study. But I am sure that is obvious enough, so I shall leave that for the reader to notice.

  26. Posted by Catherine Donaldson on November 20, 2015 at 2:47 am

    Yes, this is an old point, but worth restating every time this issue arises. (BTW, I’m Cath from Xenopus laevis days.)


  27. Posted by Catherine Donaldson on November 20, 2015 at 2:55 am

    No, I don’t, except on the internet. On moving to a tiny town in the regions with a history of activism in the US, I thought it prudent to suppress this for a while until I was better known. My maiden name is too unusual to hide behind. Warm regards.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: