Smart and SeXy

Smart and SeXy: The Evolutionary origins and biological underpinnings of cognitive differences between the sexes

The soft cover edition is available here. If you are on a budget you can also download the E-book. You can read the review here and the counter-currents review here.

This is probably the most heretical work I have ever or will ever put to writing personally, and probably one of the most heretical things from the perspective of progressives, feminists and any other member of the cathedral available anywhere. If you want a no-nonsense (i.e., no feminism) description of sex differences, then you will probably enjoy the information contained within. If you have questions about what exactly the gender differences in intelligence are, by what fairly exact biological mechanisms they come about, and what potential evolutionary narratives explain what we observe, then this is the book for you. After reading this book you will not only know the current patterns of sex differences in intelligence as shown by psychometric tests, but why and how the underlying biology explains the patterns we observe. At the heart of the differences is both genetic and hormonal elements which work in concert to generate what we see on an every day basis. It has taken years of work (since 2011) and hundreds of hours invested in reading hundreds of dry academic papers to compile the more than 300 sources included, but I did so you can have the evidence all in one place and explained in lay terms. And perhaps most importantly, to have the evidence for gender differences in intelligence without muddying the waters with the foul taint of feminism.

At the heart of The Red Pill and the Dark Enlightenment, when thinking about women, is a kernal which grows to support everything else; all the theory on game, marriage, etc. All higher level knowledge is dependent on it. The fundamental concept, or more accurately the anti-concept, is the rejection of Equality. Egalitarianism just isn’t so. Men and women aren’t equal and they aren’t the same. Knowing they are not equal allows correct understanding of the world and relationships from successful one night stands to successful marriages. The entirety of the manosphere and red pill are dependent on this insight. The Dark Enlightenment is also dependent on this insight, but they expand it to include not only sex differences but ethnic differences as well.

Having that level of dependence on that initial small kernal can present a problem when it isn’t sufficiently supported by evidence. Though there is this and that study which suggests in a minor way that gender equality is false, it is my view that such information as bolsters the rejection of egalitarianism when it comes to men and women is lacking sufficient centralization within the manosphere and neoreactionary community. There may be thousands of individual blog posts on the topic, but mostly each one only addresses a small part of the big picture and getting the entirety of the picture from these diffused writings can be more difficult than it needs to be. The known facts are sufficiently dispersed, unorganized, and lacking in coherence that it makes the kernal a source of vulnerability to criticism from the outside. It is, as it were, a chink in our armor that needs to be addressed.

You might think “there is plenty of evidence.” Sure, there is. But, in all honesty, do we (the community more than geneticists) REALLY understand the mechanism? How exactly, at the molecular level, does inequality between men and women come about? It is an important question, and until it is answered so rigorously and thoroughly that it can’t be denied this will always be a vulnerability in our position. This is why I wrote this book. It is meant to be the titanium plate to cover our chink in the armor. This book coheres the currently available data into a single place and a single narrative that is relatively easy to access and difficult to refute. Moreover, and unlike most feminist theories, it presents a testable hypothesis. The genetic explanation for sex differences in intelligence I propose is something that biologists and geneticists can design experiments to test in order to prove or disprove. By making this hypothesis known to the mainstream it forces scientists to directly test the hypothesis. At least that is my hope. Prior evidence suggests what the result of such testing will be.

Another point of this book is to attempt to put to rest once and for all the idea that disparities in achievement between men and women have a chiefly cultural origin; they don’t. The differences between men and women are almost exclusively due to biology. Once society accepts that women aren’t going to ever achieve at the same rate as men, we can stop wasting time and resources promoting women, via affirmative action, into positions and occupations they are not suited for; thus saving a lot of effort and wealth that is currently getting wasted. We might also be able to get the birthrate back up to a more stable level and thus avoid demographic problems.

Lastly, to a certain extent it is meant to be a handbook for those who might be faced with deliberation on the topic and who need to quickly reference one type of study or another to demonstrate biological reality. I have made herculean efforts to make this as readable as possible and I believe I have done a good job with this, but I have placed greater emphasis on including as much relevant information with proper citations to credible journals as possible. I wanted to give people knowledge of which studies they need to cite for their particular argument or discussion in one convenient and accessible place.

Who to thank?

I owe some twisted gratitude to progressive academics who through their push to shun and silence me in the name of political correctness gave me the motivation I needed to write this book contrary to their culturally Marxist fantasies. On multiple occasions I have been personally screwed over by people holding that ideology because I was so audacious as to merely mention I had read The Bell Curve and found the points within to be worth consideration. I didn’t even claim to agree with it, just that it is a hypothesis which needs to be taken seriously. That is, I was trying to be an objective biologist which is what scientists are supposed to do. What we are trained to do in fact. There were also several situations (probably more actually) where similar points, but about gender instead of race, met with pretty much the same result. Though it didn’t end up mattering very much, I was rejected from one graduate school because the chairman of the department found out I had a conversation with another professor about the bell curve (that professor actually brought the topic up!). That chairman then projected onto me an argument he had with his daughter’s teacher where apparently the teacher said or believed something sexist. The bell curve only briefly talks about gender differences (a couple pages out of 849)…  What the teacher actually did was never very clearly explained. This guy was mad, and it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said to him, and I got a nice rejection because of it. So ya, I got really pissed, and not for the first or last time. A string of situations just like this created a great resentment within me, which I am sure is quite true of many other people given the swelling of the red pill, the dark enlightenment and other internet phenomena. These prig prog “scientists” were being complete a**%^$!s about hypotheses which cover perfectly valid scientific questions, and which as I show in the book have a great deal of empirical support. If it hadn’t been for my naive faith in actual objectivity in science, and the subsequent confrontation with the progressive faith that actually exists in science that resulted, I almost certainly never would have cared enough to do any of this work. I may never have cared enough to find neoreaction. Yet those things did happen, and now neoreaction, the alt-right and the red pill have something available that they can use against left-wing creationists, should they desire to use it.

Confrontations like these have made me, and many others, heavily motivated to discredit feminism because their beliefs don’t match the facts and they witch hunt anyone and everyone who points that out. The best way to do that is with hard data and if I didn’t do it, I feared nothing else so comprehensive would have come out for years. Or if it did, it would be hidden in esoteric academic texts in obscure journals and even then it would be dressed in evasive and overly-qualified language. In fact, I would argue that there has been more than enough data available to discredit feminism for a very long time but paywalls for publicly funded research (don’t get me started on that) and a wide dispersion of everything relevant with substantial credibility has made it difficult to pull everything together. There are many, many papers which touch on the subject but none that I have been able to locate that brings it all together. And they definitely don’t come close to calling out progressives. Most try to appease the leftist mobs. To do this right takes an outsider, and it takes someone with an audience. I have a marginal audience, but the biggest help with spreading the information lies with my ties to the other neoreactionaries who have a much larger following. Likely, it will spread to the manosphere blogs due to the porous nature of the divide between neoreaction and that community. Or not, only time will tell.

Blog vs. book

There are a number of bloggers who write for years then decide after the fact to convert their posts into a book. In my case, I actually went the other direction. I had already had this book in progress for several years prior to starting this blog in 2014. A number of posts on this blog (not all) were either direct offshoots from work on this project or were indirectly inspired by my work on the book and later integrated as they were highly relevant to points I was making. Some changed little, while others changed significantly in the move. For the most part, my posts are shortened versions of what appears in the book and have less evidence, citations, and topics as a result of needing to make them stand alone away from the rest of the text. However, the most important part of the book, in my mind, is the large numbers of studies collected together from a wide variety of fields and which constitute the evidence for the biological origins of sexual dimorphism in intelligence. This includes both IQ test studies and the impact of the genetics and hormones on the brain and intelligence. This evidence is exclusive to the book. If you would like a taste of the content of the book before deciding whether or not you want it, I recommend you take a look at the following posts:

Career women are dysgenic

How standardized testing undervalues men

stereotype threat and pseudo-scientists.

Share Button

Stereotype threat and pseudo-scientists

The politically acceptable explanation for gender differences in intelligence studies and tests is that discrimination accounts for all current disparities between men and women in intellectual Fields, starting first and foremost with the standardized tests themselves. The question is: does the data support this? The most fashionable (possibly faddish) explanation for test differences between gender (and race) come from social psychology and is termed ‘stereotype threat’. Stereotype threat is a type of implicit discrimination that is supposed to result from traditional stereotypes based on the gender of test takers. It is supposedly all pervasive throughout society, and constantly present everywhere you are. This obscure and unfalsifiable ether is supposed to depress the scores of females in tests. Society has historically held that women were not as intelligent as men. Stereotype threat proponents argue that knowledge of this history combined with the manner in which questions are designed and phrased leads to lower test scores for women in a sort of self fulfilling prophecy.

It is important to consider who should be affected by stereotype threat and other types of discrimination and what kind of pattern in the distribution of scores should result if it was having a widespread impact. Discrimination of this type is assumed to be universal and omnipresent. It is supposed to be present in both the society at large as well as in the test that all students are taking. If it is universally present then it should have a universal effect. It should affect women equally at all levels of test taking proficiency and should result in a uniform downward shift of the score distribution compared to men. In the graph below, hypothetical male and female test score distributions are super-imposed and the expected influence of stereotype threat is shown. The male distribution does not have as high a peak and extends out farther in either direction to reflect the greater male variability in scores found in virtually all IQ tests. I am not the best artist so you will have to forgive me if it isn’t as pretty as it could be.

Hypothetical male and female IQ distributions before and after stereotype threat

Stereotype threat voodoo action from the ether

If it does not fit this pattern, explanations for why women at different test taking levels react differently to stereotype threat must be invented. The more disagreements from this trend, the more explanations that must contrived, and the more parsimony is lost (which generally means a theory is weaker). The difference between average IQ at least suggests that this might be happening, but the 3-5 iq points generally reported is a relatively small difference and mainly suggests that whatever universal influences do exist, their importance must be relatively minor. (However, there is reason to suspect that male IQ advantage is severely underestimated)

The discrimination theory is not the only possible explanation for this overall shift. The difference could just as easily, in fact probably much more easily, be explained by biological differences in brain development. Especially the fact that males in general grow to be larger, which translates into larger brain sizes on average, which for reasons that should be obvious correlates with higher IQ.

The discrimination and biological differences above have one thing in common: they are universal and thus are not good explanations for greater male variance which is the root source of most male/female disparity in the highest levels of achievement. A consistent universal factor should have a consistent universal effect for all levels of ability as shown in the figure above, and the only consistent universal difference in mean IQ scores between gender are small. Assuming stereotype threat is real, which is doubtful, it is not impossible that of the small difference that does exist, stereotype threat only makes a small contribution in addition to other factors like biological development. In such a case, the individual contribution of stereotype threat would be vanishingly small and would approximate complete irrelevance.

In the case of gender, stereotype threat is pretty much ruled out for the above reason. However, racial gaps do take a form that would be consistent with the idea of Stereotype threat. However, there are other reasons why it is also doubtful in the case of race. For more exploration on why conclusions drawn from stereotype threat studies are doubtful for methodological reasons, I recommend this paper by law professor Amy Wax: Stereotype Threat: A case of overclaim syndrome? (I have a special love for this paper because insisting on using it in the sex and intelligence wikipedia page years ago is what brought down a flock of feminist harpies who eventually got not only the paper, but also my user account banned from wikipedia.) Seems like Wax really likes sticking her neck out and fighting the good fight.

At best, stereotype threat is something that exists and has only a very small effect and at worst it is an example of publication bias amongst journals where positive results that support politically progressive ideas (like discrimination against women) are overwhelmingly published relative to studies that don’t confirm progressive beliefs or which might positively refute progressive beliefs.

Diederick Stapel was previously a highly regarded and influential Dutch social psychologist who did a lot of work on stereotype threat, among other things, until it came to light that he “routinely falsified data and made up entire experiments.” Another example of his politically biased work was a “scientific” article which sanctimoniously claimed to find that meat eaters were more selfish and less agreeable than vegans. Unfortunately, it is impossible to be surprised by outspoken priggishness from vegans. Thanks to this media attention, Stapel is now the most notorious charlatan in the field of social psychology, which is saying a lot for what appears to be a regularly fraudulent and pseudo-scientific discipline. Social Psychologists as a group do not make the data they collect available for outside review 2/3rds of the time. This stinginess with data is actually against the ethical rules established by Social psychologists themselves and suggests that there are likely many more Stapels out their who simply haven’t been caught. A survey by the Harvard business school found that 70% of social psychologists admitted to cutting corners in reporting data, 30% reporting unexpected findings as if they were expected from the start, and 1% admitted to falsifying data. Another meta-analysis of papers published in high-tier psychology journals found that 50% of papers surveyed contained at least one statistical error and 15% contained an error so severe that the conclusion drawn would have had to have been reversed. Yet another meta-analysis which looked at whether or not positive results from stereotype threat studies could be replicated found that almost half could not, and that a further 25% were confounded by methodological issues. A substantial majority of the findings were unreliable.1,2,3

Bias is rampant in the humanities, but especially in social psychology, both among individual researchers and among the journals publishing papers. Beyond the objective critical evaluation of papers, the field itself is essentially an ideological and political echo-chamber that is considerably more left-wing politically than the general population. 80% of social psychologists identify as liberal, while only 3 out of 1000 identify as conservative. Contrast this with the general population which is 40% conservative and only 20% liberal. Were these sorts of numbers occurring with a protected class, these same people wouldn’t hesitate to use it as incontrovertible proof of discrimination. Considering what is now known about the biological origins of cognition and intelligence, it is generally difficult to take claims of discrimination seriously when groups also display a relatively lower intelligence profile. However, in this case there is no reason to think that conservatives as a group have an intellectual profile below the general population. Social conservatives tend to be a little lower in intelligence relative to liberals, but free-market conservatives (libertarians) tend to be smarter. Being very partisan, either liberal or conservative, tended to be associated with high IQ as well. Increased income levels, which are a proxy for IQ, also moves people right ideologically. In other words, there is nothing that differentials in biologically determined intelligence can do to explain the lack of conservatives, and even moderates, in the humanities.4,5,6,7 Presumably academia wasn’t always so partisan, and thus its current state is a classic case of successful entryism.

In a survey of social psychologists, it was found that conservative responders feared negative consequences from revealing their political affiliation and that they were right to do so as liberal responders expressed willingness to discriminate against conservatives in approving papers, grant proposals, and hiring decisions. The more liberal a social psychologist is or the more consequential the decision would be for the conservative, the more willing liberal social psychologists are to discriminate. That willingness to discriminate against (or for) articles and proposals for ideological reasons has been empirically confirmed in several instances. In one study, reviewers were sent a manuscript which purported to show the mental health of a group of leftist political activists compared to a control group. Reviewers who were sent a version which showed that the activists had better mental health consistently felt that the paper was more publishable and even felt that the statistics were more adequate than reviewers sent a version that showed the activists had lower mental health. In another case, a research proposal which either wanted to study discrimination or reverse-discrimination was sent to 150 review boards. The proposal on discrimination was approved twice as often as the proposal on reverse-discrimination. In college admissions, it was found that reviewers would attach greater value to the criteria (grades vs. test scores) which would allow them to pick the candidates with similar partisan politics. Lastly, controlling for research productivity and academic achievement, another study found that conservative researchers were working at lower quality institutions relative to equivalent liberal colleagues than would be expected. The irony that a group which commonly publishes on the asserted negative consequences of discrimination would prove to itself be extraordinarily discriminatory is stunning.8,9,10,11

The pattern of ideologically driven academics significantly undermines the ability of an objective outsider to trust the conclusions coming out of certain fields, especially when it is related to such a politically charged subject as gender (and race) differences in test scores. It is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of researchers working on this topic possess a politically desired outcome of these studies. The great potential for this systemic Lysenkoism to motivate the production of inaccurate results which are contrary to reality can’t be overestimated. The objectivity of the field concluding stereotype threat is a real and large effect phenomenon is highly questionable. Calling this cynical skepticism “anti-intellectual,” a common criticism of conservative thinkers, is only so in the sense that these “scientists” have mis-defined the word “intellectual” to describe their political ideology and therefore themselves. Like most things on the right the “anti-science” feeling exposed by some is just a reaction to leftist entryism in academia and the dominance of pseudo-scientific articles surrounding politically partisan topics.

  1. Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. Review of General Psychology, Vol 16(1), Mar 2012, 93-102.
  2. The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Marjan Bakker and Jelte Wicherts. 2011. Behavior Research methods.
  3. Psychology rife with inaccurate research findings. Psychology today. 2011
  4. Jonathon Haidt’s post-partisan psychology page.
  5. Social scientist sees bias within. New York Times. 2011
  6. Is there a relationship between political orientation and cognitive ability? A test of three hypotheses in two studies. Markus Kemmelmeier. 2008
  7. Income and Ideology: How personality traits, cognitive abilities, and education shape political attitudes. Rebecca Morton. Jean-Robet Tyran. Erik Wengstrom.
  8. Political Diversity in social and personality psychology. Yoel Inbar, Joris Lammers. 2012
  9. Publish or politic: Referee bias in Manuscript review. Stephen Abramowitz, Beverly Gomes, Christine Abramowitz. 1975
  10. Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. Ceci, Peters, Plotkin 1985.
  11. Political Partisan Prejeduce: Selective Distortion and weighting of Evaluative categories in college admission applications. Munro, Lasane, Leary.
Share Button

Passing Progressive Litmus Tests as a Prerequisite for Employment

I have recently been interested in switching careers and have thus been sending out a series of applications. One company requested that I take a series of tests to determine my aptitudes. Most of the tests were reasonable, but there was one that I found to be quite atrocious. It was a writing test in which the taker is given a series of bullet point facts and statements which they need to write into a newspaper article that might appear in a nationally syndicated newspaper. That idea in and of itself isn’t so bad, but the problem is that they chose the currently contentious illegal child immigration from central America to the United States as the topic and it was clear from the statements in the bullets that a progressive stance was expected. The company is essentially requiring everyone applying for a position to demonstrate their support for this illegal immigration by forcing them to write an ideologically progressive newspaper article on the subject. I was completely incensed that this type of political creep was introduced into the application process since my day job has absolutely nothing political about it. I found it incredible that this company was giving ideological tests to potential employees. The Cathedral will stop at nothing to discriminate against anyone who might dissent against them. Hypocritical leftists love to talk about discrimination being bad, but when given the opportunity to discriminate against non-leftists they are pretty blatant and open about it. In the heat of the moment, I wrote an article that was clearly contemptuous of the topic and was purposefully sarcastic in tone. However, before I submitted it, I did come to my senses and wrote an article that was as neutral as possible without actually supporting the illegal immigration. For anyone wanting to advance their career, it simply wont do to make a stand in situations like this. Virtually all companies will have some sort of BS like this and it is just better to keep your head down and pick better battles.  Or battle anonymously. Either way, I saved the original contemptuous article and felt it would be nice to share since I feel it is darkly humorous at parts.

Jose Sanchez was just a normal child enjoying rural life in Nueva Guinea, Nicaragua with his mother and sister. That all changed when a hurricane ravaged his rural village. Both his mother, Maria Villarreal, and his sister, Esther, were tragically killed by a mudslide in the hurricane. With little left except the clothes on his back, the resourceful Jose decided to contact the man who Maria claimed was his father.

Jose sent a letter to Alejandro Luis Sequeira, the alleged father, who is currently living in New York. In response to the child’s desperate plea and in light of the bad situation in his home country, Sequira wrote back to Jose saying that he should come and meet him in America and that he would be willing to meet him in late August. To help him on his journey, Sequeira also wired 200 dollars.

Cheered by the prospect of meeting a father and having a new life and opportunity in America, Jose embarked on his trip on May 22cnd with nothing more than the money and letter sent him by his father, a birth certificate, a small bag of clothes, and a few cookies. Bravely, Jose set off to traverse the 3200 miles that separated him from his American Dream.

Like many poor Nicaraguans, Jose did not have legal permission to enter into the United States and so he had to sneak into the country by stowing away in an over-night mail package as instructed by his father.  Not knowing the geography of America very well, he booked a trip to Miami because he thought the city was close to New York.  When he learned of his mistake from local Spanish speaking people, he desperately begged for money on the street until he had enough cash to get a bus ticket to New York.

Though he was dirty and now infested with fleas and lice from many nights spent in homeless villages hidden away in the greenbelts of Miami, Jose was itchy but not undeterred.  He was determined to meet his father and start his new life at the American Taxpayer’s expense. Wearing nothing but a burlap sack he dug out of a dumpster, he booked a grey hound bus ticket to New York. Thanks to the camouflage his dirty burlap sack shirt provided, no one thought he looked strange on a Grey Hound.

When Jose tried to take a cab in New York, the patriotic cab driver dutifully notified the police about the unaccompanied minor. According to the Republican police commissioner, the water-boarding during the late-night interrogation of Jose revealed that his mother was a disreputable lady of the night and had several other children that were sold on the black market. Given that Jose’s last name doesn’t match his father’s (or his mother’s) and that his sister only had one name, like Cher, police do not believe that Sequeira is truly Edwin’s father. After reviewing the letter carried by Edwin, police suspect he might be involved in gang affiliated human trafficking. Sequeira, also in the United States illegally, is already wanted by police in connection with a number of drug smuggling operations, public intoxication, and public exposure to a group of nuns.

Currently under the protective custody of the mayor’s office, it was arranged for Jose to stay with a Spanish speaking foster family until it could be arranged to deport him safely back to his home country. City Officials assured this newspaper that the orphanage he would be sent to would have no more than 500 children, plenty of rice gruel, and only a couple communicable diseases. None of the diseases are believed to be life threatening. This reporter is thankful that Jose avoided child slavery and wishes him luck in his new life.

Share Button

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