you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're only lying to yourself if you think what I said is wrong. What you're spouting is delusional.

You aren't wrong, there isnt much difference in average IQ, but the variance in male IQ is much higher, which means as you stated that it is exponentially more likely anyone in stratosphere range would be male.

All this push for females in STEM is utter woke bullshit, but I don't think focusing on gender is really relevant here. Statistically speaking there are bound to be Maria Von Sants, Marie Curies, and Ada Lovelaces occasionally. Why stop someone who is capable from making an academic contribution, geniuses are rare enough as it is without excluding some of them on the basis of something that isnt related to their ability

Remaining completely ambivalent to gender is how you get all the smartest people into a field, and will result in the optimal male dominated environment you want. We want males because they tend to be smarter, not because they are male.

You say we want men because they are more intelligent - implicit in this statement is that intelligence is what you are trying to control for, and gender is a sub-optimal heuristic for it. We can already measure IQ and ability on standardized tests, adding a second parameter of gender just gives you results that are sub-optimal compared to ability alone, when that is the thing you were attempting to control for in the first place

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, if a female is on the highest spectrum, it's not like I won't welcome her as I would want to be welcomed. It's incredible how so many people are so delusional about humans. They want to believe in feel-good globalist fairytales. Then again, it's not incredible because most people are not smart and not able to handle truths.