How Standardized Testing Undervalues Men

IQ testing and research has been around for over 100 years. Though it is often a controversial issue, the fact remains that more than any other psychological trait studied, IQ scores contain a remarkable amount of predictive power with regards to life-time outcomes. One of the most surprising aspects of intelligence that early researchers encountered was that performance on a wide variety of divergent tasks was positively correlated. In other words, if you did well on one type of task, it was very likely you would do well on any task you were given including ones that were nothing like the original subject. This is the origin of the term g or general intelligence. By determining a person’s g on a few tasks, you can predict how they will perform on a variety of others and remarkably how well they would do in terms of lifetime achievement. This finding has withstood 100 years of robust research and a greater amount of heavy criticism, thanks to political correctness, than most other scientific findings.1, 2

Though there is only one g, there are also sub-g abilities that are both positively correlated to each other and with g (meaning their existence does not disprove a general intelligence factor). However, these sub-g abilities do not perfectly correlate with each other, which leaves some room for people with similar IQs to possess individualized intellectual profiles. These sub-g abilities can be divided into verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, and spatial/mechanical reasoning. Along these dimensions a large sex differentiated pattern appears which has been well documented since the beginning of IQ tests. Women tend to outperform men on tests of verbal reasoning while men have an advantage in both numerical and spatial reasoning.3,5

Since this is an article about how standardized tests currently undervalue men, I will focus on the male cognitive profile. A recent study that quantified male advantages found that older adolescent men out-performed women on average by 6 IQ points on items involving numerical reasoning and 13 IQ points on items involving mechanical reasoning.  This is about a half standard deviation and a full standard deviation respectively.4 A full standard deviation advantage on spatial reasoning tasks is a LOT and goes a very long way in explaining the dearth of women in STEM and the low numbers of female electricians or mechanics. Having a high spatial reasoning has been shown to be essential to the pursuit of the inorganic sciences among the smartest people.6,7  It should also be noted that brain development continues into the twenties which means that it is very possible that these numbers underestimate the extent of the gender gap in adulthood.

Considering the importance of spatial ability to scientific endeavors and success, it is curious that these types of tasks are conspicuously absent from aptitude tests which are supposed to identify people qualified for STEM; tests including the SAT and the GRE.6,7 In both tests, there is a verbal component, a numerical component, and a writing component. The writing component is really just a more subjective way to measure verbal aptitude. One study7 comments on the current state of the GRE (the SAT shows the exact same pattern) thusly:

Based on approximately 2.5 million GRE test takers assessed in 2002–2005, 30% scored P700 (out of a top possible score of 800) on GRE-Q (ETS data: all examinees tested between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2005, N GRE-V = 1,245,878, N GRE-Q = 1,245,182). The GRE-Verbal was not compromised by ceiling effects, with only 3% scoring P700. Indeed, the GRE-Q mean of 591, with a standard deviation of 148, reveals that the mean is 1.4 standard deviations from the GRE-Q ceiling; whereas the GRE-V mean of 467, with a standard deviation of 118, places this mean at 2.8 standard deviations from the GRE-V ceiling (twice the distance). This results in 10 times as many scores P700 for GRE-Q than GRE-V! Of the two most critical specific abilities for commitment to and excellence in STEM educational–occupational tracks, selection criteria for advanced education and training in the US are severely compromised by ceiling effects for one (mathematical reasoning) while the other (spatial ability) is totally neglected.

What this means is that a large range of ability in numerical reasoning is clustered together in the high range of the GRE quantitative test and is thus preventing the possibility to distinguish high ability students from exceptionally high ability students. By making the top score of the test (the ceiling) low, you can ensure that the very able and exceptionally able have roughly the same score. Individuals who excel in spatial ability are unidentified because that method of mental reasoning is completely ignored. Meanwhile, the verbal ability test is designed such that exceptional talent can readily distinguish itself thanks to a much larger difficulty ceiling. Not only that, but verbal is double weighted by a second exercise which also exclusively focuses on verbal reasoning. (Un)coincidentally, this is exactly how you would design tests if you wanted to obfuscate gender differences that showed men doing better than women. On the GRE-Q, super-exceptional men get the same scores as merely able women because they can’t demonstrate their greater talent with a higher score than the low maximum.  By making numerical tests ineffectual at the upper ranges of ability and ignoring spatial reasoning entirely, these tests ignore two essential factors in creativity and intelligence which are relevant for any field, but especially relevant for STEM. The testing of abilities which women have a sex advantage in are remarkably over-emphasized and makes men and women appear more intellectually equal than they really are. Especially disconcerting is that this test design guarantees that there are a relatively large number of men at both the mean and at the high levels of ability who are having their talent squandered. They are not being admitted to the quality of schools they should be. In public school, they are not being given the type of hands on education that is befitting of their talent in spatial and mechanical reasoning even though it is the men with this particular ability who are most important to our technological development.6,7

There is little doubt in my mind that these tests are purposefully designed this way for reasons of political correctness and cultural marxism  (IE “The Cathedral“). I find it hard to believe that College Board, the company that designs and administers the SAT and GRE, does not understand what effect this kind of test structure has on the resultant scores. They are a professional testing company whose bread and butter is understanding how IQ tests work and designing effective ones. There is simply no way they could miss this glaring problem. However, I don’t think I can necessarily blame them for how they designed the test. They are acting rationally to avoid (false) accusations of sexism and bias that would surely result if the tests openly demonstrated the intellectual superiority males have over females in mathematics and mechanics. The problem is with our repressive and feminist dominated culture which can’t bring itself to admit that men have innate cognitive advantages over women; especially not if the level of male advantage is so large and substantial that it requires surveying an extremely gerrymandered map of cognitive talents to hide. That equalizing men and women in test scores requires two different tests of verbal intelligence (one of which is conveniently subjective), a poorly designed quantitative test, and ignoring an entire dimension of mental reasoning says a lot about just how large the gap between men and women is. If you don’t want to take my word that these tests are geared to emphasize the talents of women at the expense of the talents of men, maybe you will believe the American Psychological Association (emphasis mine):

“Most standard tests of intelligence have been constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males”3


A high school student with experience with AP tests (also designed and administered by college board) indicates that the same pattern described above is true for AP calculus vs. AP English tests. see the /r/darkenlightenment comment.

All of the studies below should be accessible from if you search the title or DOI. If you can’t find it there, then please make a request on the subreddit /r/scholar

  1. Just one g: consistent results from three test batteries Wendy Johnson*, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., Robert F. Krueger, Matt McGue, Irving I. Gottesman Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota—Twin Cities, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA Received 8 April 2003; received in revised form 27 May 2003; accepted 15 June 2003
  2. The g facto: the science of mental testing. [book length PDF] Arthur Jensen 1998
  3. Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American Psychological Association.
  4.  Sex differences on g and non- g  intellectual performance reveal potentialsources of STEM discrepancies Gina C. Lemos, Francisco J. Abad, Leandro S. Almeida, Roberto Colom
  5. Sex differences in mental abilities: g masks the dimensions on which they lie Wendy Johnson, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. University of Minnisota. 2006
  6. Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D.  (2013).  Spatial ability: A neglected talent in educational and occupational settings.Roeper Review, 35, 219-230.
  7. Spatial Ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. David Lubinski. Department of Psychology and Human Development. Vanderbilt University.


Share Button

Career women are dysgenic

All Parts
<– Part 3                                                              Part 5–>

Diverting the most capable women away from reproduction is dysgenic

A large variety of research and common experience has made clear that cognitive and physical sexual dimorphism already exists, hence the tendency of men to outperform in areas necessary for productive labor including physical strength, mathematics, and mechanical or scientific reasoning. It is also apparent in the difference between men and women in cranial capacity. Males average between 100 and 200 cubic centimeter larger capacity depending on the methods used in a given study. This study found an average of 123 cubic centimeter difference favoring males on average, but also found a lot of variation for both genders. Larger cranial capacity correlates well with higher intelligence and as a group men tend to have larger brains.

Income, which is a decent proxy for intelligence, correlates heavily with childlessness. Importantly, the correlation goes in the opposite direction for men than it does for women. High income men are much less likely to be childless, whereas high earning women are with even greater probability much more likely to be childless. In biology, this contradictory relation between intelligence and fertility would be described as a sexually antagonistic trait because it increases reproductive fitness of one sex (males) and decreases it in the other (females). As such, these genes are under conflicting selection pressures as they pass between genders over the course of multiple generations. This creates a large incentive to evolve sexually dimorphic expression patterns which can silence or diminish expression of intelligence genes in females while allowing the same genes to be turned on in males. Intelligence being a sexually dimorphic trait is parsimoniously explained by its divergent consequences to fertility depending on gender.

The lesson here is clear. The huge direct costs, opportunity costs, and the inefficiencies created from reserving jobs for women that they aren’t biologically suited for aren’t just unaffordable. Diverting women away from motherhood disproportionately and negatively impacts the fertility of the the most intelligent women; the most intelligent women being the ones most likely to be capable of successful careers and high incomes. Any policy or culture that prioritizes pushing women into the workforce does so at the expense of motherhood among the natural aristocracy and is by its nature dysgenic. The result in the short term is decreasing the average intelligence of the population and greatly exaggerated sexual dimorphism favoring male intelligence in the long run. Traditional environments (patriarchy) minimized the shredding of intelligence traits that passed through women to some degree by prioritizing reproduction even for capable women. If the current environment doesn’t send humanity back to the stone age first, then it will likely create a version of humanity of very smart men and dumb women as mechanisms evolve to safeguard intelligence genes while they temporarily pass through females. Lameness of mind will be protective against a loss in fertility for women and income potential that can only result from intelligence being indispensable for male fertility will also be preserved. The selection pressures set up by feminists will ironically create a population of feeble minded women. This is of course assuming that civilization is somehow able to maintain itself long enough and the current pattern of abysmal fertility in intelligent women holds. However, it is in no way clear that this is the case. So insidious are the effects of deprioritizing motherhood that any culture who implements them is patently suicidal.

The drop of fertility rates across the west and the concomitant decline in western civilization that will result can be blamed to a significant extent on the misallocation of life priorities among western women by their own poor choices and at the irresponsible prodding of the progressive culture. The future belongs to those who show up. Humanity as a whole will return to traditional gender roles because the groups where women prioritize motherhood will displace the cultures who don’t through demographic increase and eventual subjugation.

The real question is whether or not the west will have a place in that future. The west can either accept that harsh biological reality has allotted motherhood as the primary raison d’etre of women, or it can be displaced by less advanced and less benevolent cultures who haven’t forgotten that reality. Considering that it was the people and culture of the west who almost single-handedly brought humanity into the modern age, the loss of the western races and subsequently western culture would be a very sore blow not only to those people, but to humanity generally. The only morality is civilization, and unfortunately the unpleasant truth is that significant female enfranchisement is dysgenic and destroys civilization. Since prioritizing anything but motherhood for women works against civilization, it is by definition immoral and any sane polity will take every necessary step to minimize women, and especially intelligent women, from making anything other than motherhood the primary devotion of their life.

To preserve western culture, motherhood in a patriarchal context must be reinstated. It is often complained that such an arrangement is more unfair to women. In reality, the demands the patriarchal system makes on men are and always have been much more challenging than those it makes on women, as is evidenced by the 5-7 years shorter life expectancy for men. Men will accept this high price since the patriarchal system is the only way that the legitimacy of their children can be guaranteed. Far from being unfair to women, the advantages to women of sacrificing careers and promiscuity are many and include a guarantee of male attention and provisioning into old age.

Moreover, making motherhood the primary devotion of women’s lives does not mean the only devotion. Modern technology created by men greatly decreases the necessary housekeeping efforts required to maintain a home and advances in robotics will likely continue this trend. As such, Women will be afforded much opportunity and freedom to pursue virtually any interest once the necessary child rearing duties are performed. Some care will need to be taken by neopatriarchs to guarantee that there is ample opportunity for women to find meaning and purpose in their lives once their motherly responsibilities are complete. For the most part this is likely a spiritual question, however aesthetics and culture also seem like especially likely candidates for pursuit. What can’t be neglected or forgotten is that the environment that gave birth to modern dysgenic feminism was a large population of idle housewives and their relatively weak husbands. Women have an innate tendency to organize and then collectively nag and otherwise agitate for various ill-conceived reforms when they have nothing better to do. Feminism is only the most destructive consequence of this tendency. The temperance movement is another example. More productive outlets for this energy will have to be found.

And of course, the least appreciated advantage to women as a population is the partial protection of intelligence traits which prevents run-away increases in sexual dimorphism and further depression of female cognitive ability.

<– Part 3                                                             Part 5–>

All Parts


Share Button

How Cultural Marxism ruined the Mass Effect franchise

When I first read about the original Mass Effect, I found myself very interested. A third person futuristic shooter with significant roleplaying elements seemed like a very unique style. Unfortunately, I did not own an X-box at the time so I did not have a chance to play the original or the sequels when they were first released. However, last year I found out that there had subsequently been a release for the PS3. I decided to get all three games and play straight through one after another.

The games were very good from a technical standpoint and in terms of gameplay. However, as the games progressed (pun intended) the influence of Cultural Marxism crept insidiously up until it made Mass Effect 3 almost unplayable. Unfortunately for me personally, and fortunately for this review, I was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the progressive stance of the third installment which allowed me to experience it without preconceived notions.

The first issue I have with Mass Effect 3 is the shift to an over-emphasis on romantic relationships. A game of this sort is about roleplaying a tactical commander set amongst a myriad of alien species, both hostile and friendly. You are there to lead your team against the odds and save the day, to navigate political intrigue and win by force when necessary. In short, it is for role-playing the ideal masculine character who must confront difficult situations that brings out the best of his masculine virtues. To have large digressions into discussion about relationships and romance really distracts from the desired purpose of the game (from the consumer’s perspective). For example, you might be walking by couples talking to each other about their relationships or NPCs complaining about their spouses. There is also significantly more romance related dialogue for Shepard. In essence, the game and the main hero were significantly more feminized than the previous installments. That might be OK if the target demographic for this game had a significant number of women. The thing is, the large majority of gamers are young, straight men. It makes zero sense to cater to a demographic who won’t be interested in a game like this regardless of how many female friendly attributes you add to it. Game companies will never get large populations of women to play games like this because this genre of gaming is not appealing to most women. The only thing you do with this is alienate the guys who actually want to play as a tactical commander. Guys bought the game to shoot aliens, not hear npcs whine about their lovers. The first game had it right, there was very limited dialogue dealing with relationships and you could skip it easily (Sorry, I have no romantic interest in a tentacle head). It seems that if there is ever a point where there is a product or form of media that specifically caters to the interests of men, there is always a loud and vocal minority who demand that it does more to cater to women and for some unknowable reason that vocal minority is listened to despite the changed implementation alienating the largest fraction of fans.

Too much romance was bad enough, but it gets worse than that. I haven’t done an exact count, but my impression was that there are more homosexual couples in the game than heterosexual ones if you include NPC-NPC interactions.

In one example among many, there is a point where the lesbian romantic interest comes up to your quarters and beats you at chess while giving intentionally misleading innuendos if you have a male Shepard, though presumably it would lead to more if you had a female Shepard. It is obvious that bioware did not change the dialogue to match what you would expect from an uninterested lesbian talking to the male Shepard. Given her character, she should not make flirtatious comments towards the male Shepard. Instead you have a lesbian being extremely flirtatious with a male character who then suddenly changes her disposition and rebukes him. In other words, she is a tease. I can’t imagine a way to make a character more annoying or better evidence for lazy writing on the part of bioware.

In another example, there is a woman complaining on the phone that her “daughter” with another woman couldn’t be sent to her family because she was disowned by the mean traditionalists. I sympathize with people in this situation to a small degree*, but being preached to about this politicized issue is not something that should be happening in this game.

I have nothing against gays. Fluke biological events almost certainly explain most of this evolutionarily maladaptive aberration in the same way biology accounts for downs or muscular dystrophy. As an Atheist, I don’t view it as some sort of moral question or as a sin. However, just because I can understand and accept that there are and will be homosexuals**, that does not mean I want homosexuality forced on me in video games or other media. I do not, and will never, enjoy content that has a heavy homosexual theme. I don’t even like heterosexual relationship discussions in my games or media. Why does bioware think I or the rest of the straight male majority want to hear a gay dude crying over his gay lover? (Yes, there is a scene like this in the game and no you can’t avoid it). So again, the interests of the main demographic for this game (straight male gamers) is thrown under the bus in an attempt to be inclusive to an even smaller minority of activist whiners and to push the “correct” values on a large audience who were never interested in the game for any sort of partisan political message.

What does bioware say to the majority of its customer base when they complainGet over it. They apparently know what’s good for us. Small minorities have to be catered to despite the fact the game will be much less enjoyable as a result for the main demographic. I am not against there being separate video games that can cater to those minorities, but I know that I don’t want that content included in the games I play because it kills the immersion and enjoyability of the games. For a significant fraction of the gamers, this was also done despite the fact that the depicted lifestyle might be deeply offensive to their religious beliefs. I may not believe in religion or god or be offended for this reason personally, but I find the attempt to force values onto religious communities to be repugnant. Deeply religious gamers are probably also a minority, why are the interests of this minority ignored in favor of homosexuals? Homosexuality should have been left out, or at least there should have been an option to not have it be part of the game for those who didn’t want it. Content that aggressively pushes politically progressive agendas when playing escapist entertainment destroys the gaming experience and as a result I will be avoiding bioware content in the future. Not the least because of how disrespectful they were to the part of the fan base who voiced their concerns. I suspect that I will not be the only one.

Another aspect of the lesbian beating Shepard at chess should be addressed. Beyond being annoying for having incongruent dialogue and imposing a specific value system, the scene is also completely disconnected from reality when it comes to her victory at chess. The ratio of men to women in chess favors men to such an extreme degree that they have to create separate all-female leagues because there aren’t enough women who can compete effectively with men; not unlike most physical sports.This is due to biological differences between men and women in visual spatial, numerical and mechanical intelligence as well as the greater variance in intelligence among men. This leads to there being a larger number of very high intelligence men than women. I know that some women are better at chess than some men, but nonsense scenes like this are both unnecessary and ineffectual at achieving progressive goals. Seeing women winning at chess in fiction will never translate to women winning at chess in reality. The population that makes up the most elite chess players will always be overwhelmingly male. Just like the population of people who like to play video games will always be overwhelmingly male.

The Leftoids who make up the cathedral have this weird (and incorrect) idea that different outcomes for different groups result not from innate biological differences, but from social conditioning. They think if they expose young people to the “right” types of tropes in stories they will be able to increase a person’s aptitude for a field (or make them have the “right” opinions in the case of values). In this game, the relevant cues are female soldiers, scientists, and technicians. They made a lot of female scientists and technical specialists and several female soldiers in all three games. This, of course, is nonsense. Elite Men who are well-suited to engage in both extreme physical and mental tasks (see studies above) are overwhelming more numerous than elite women for biological reasons. Women didn’t need to be elite to be successful in evolutionary history, men did and still do. Though I know the portrayal of women is extremely unrepresentative, it doesn’t bother me as much as the imposition of progressive values or excessive female inclusiveness detailed above. For one thing, the technobabble dialogue doesn’t directly annoy me like relationship dialogue does, and I don’t care who voice acts it. However, it is another example of leftoids trying to social engineer and force progressive values on the general public and is worth mentioning and understanding.

Games are meant to be escapist entertainment. They aren’t supposed to be used as a soapbox for leftoids to force tolerance and biologically inaccurate representations down the throat of the gaming community. This side content was a very dark stain on what would have otherwise been a great game franchise.

* There is robust evidence that children who are raised in homes without fathers have a lot more difficulties in their lives. Generally speaking, fatherless homes should be avoided where possible. In cases of adoption, a lesbian home might be better than nothing or an abusive home, but childbearing that does not include the presence of a father should be discouraged.

** Male homosexuals tend to have extreme sexual lifestyles with many partners which contributes significantly to disease spread. HIV is the most well known example, but it is hardly the only. Extreme promiscuity probably should not be acceptable even if homosexuality is viewed as unavoidable.

Share Button